"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." ~ Sir Winston Churchill
Imagine yourself a soldier in Iraq. Every day your life is on the line as you go on patrol. You are continually aware that any man, woman, or even child that you see could possibly have a bomb strapped around them. Your senses are sharpened from months of this daily routine. Every change in the now familiar landscape could mean an IED has been placed nearby. You've seen some death and carnage. You live in a state of constant fear.
The memories of horror are indelibly etched in your mind. You can remember the time, months ago, that seems like yesterday, when you were trading "Yo Mama" jokes with your best friend and he walked away from you just a few yards and an IED went off beside him and reduced him to bits and pieces before your eyes. You can't get the image of his smiling face disentegrating right in front of you out of your mind.
I am sorry.
I was trying to paint a vivid picture of what life must be like for the ordinary foot soldier in one of the more dangerous regions in Iraq, but I cannot. I have never been in combat. I can only imagine and my imagination isn't good enough. No one can possibly know what these brave young men and women are going through.
Over the Memorial Day weekend I watched "Saving Private Ryan" again. The first few minutes of that movie are, as far as I know, probably the most realistic depiction of live combat ever filmed. It is the only frame of reference I can draw from to try to grasp the horror and confusion of war.
It is extremely inadequate.
What I am clumsily trying to say is we don't know the state of mind of the Marines who have been accused of cold blooded murder, but I am reasonably sure that Congressman Murtha made at least one good point. The Marines were very likely under great stress. In addition to that stress, there is testimony that they were under fire from persons unknown. It is natural to assume they reacted accordingly and, as a result, innocent people, among them women and children, died.
I am trying to sympathise because I can't empathise.
One of the sad truths of war is that there will be casualties. No matter how well and efficiently a war is fought, people die. Many times, they are innocent civilian people.
It is called collateral damage. It is, sadly, unavoidable.
While it is possible that the Marines did indeed murder these people in cold blood as Congressman Murtha alledges, it is also possible that these unfortunate victims fall under the category of collateral damage.
I am inclined to back the Marines in this case. If one takes into account the stress of the situation and evidence they were being fired on, it is no stretch to believe that the innocent victims in this case were not murdered intentionally, but were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bullets were flying and bombs were being detonated. Through all that confusion, it is quite understandable that some innocents were caught in the crossfire.
Bullets don't care what they strike.
Conservative talk radio hosts are quick to denounce Murtha for declaring the Marines guilty without benefit of a fair hearing and rightly so. But we cannot ignore the possiblity that he is correct in his assessment.
If the Marines are found guilty of the crimes they are accused of they should be punished. If they are absolved, Congressman Murtha owes them a heartfelt apology.
In the end, though, I believe the Marines should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Let's all reserve judgment until after the investigation is complete.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Monday, May 29, 2006
The Green Fields Of France
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom..." Abraham Lincoln
1) Well, how do you do young Willie McBride?
Do you mind if I sit hear down by your graveside,
And rest for a while ‘neath the warm summer sun.
I’ve been working all day and I’m nearly done.
I can see by your gravestone you were only nineteen
when you joined the great fallen in nineteen sixteen.
Well I hope you died quick, and I hope you died clean,
Oh Willie McBride, was it slow and obscene?
Chorus:
Did they beat the drum slowly, did they play the fife lowly,
did they sound the death march, as they lowered you down?
Did the bands play the last post and chorus?
Did the pipes play the flowers of the forest?
2.) And did you leave a wife or sweetheart behind
In some faithful heart is your memory enshrined,
Although you died back in nineteen sixteen
In some faithful heart are you forever nineteen?
Or are you a stranger without even a name
Enclosed now forever behind a glass frame
In an old photograph torn, battered and stained
And faded to yellow in a brown leather frame.
Chorus:
3.) Now see how the sun shines o’er the green field of France
There’s a warm summer breeze makes the red poppies dance,
And see how the sun shines from under the clouds
There’s no gas or barbed wire, there’s no guns firing now.
But here in this graveyard it’s still no-man’s land
The countless white crosses in mute witness stand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man
To a whole generation who were butchered and damned.
Chorus:
4.) Now young Willie McBride, I can’t help wonder why
Do all those who lie here know why did they die.
And did they believe when they answered the call
Did they really believe that this war would end wars.
Well the sorrow, the suffering, the glory the pain,
The killing, the dying, was it all done in vain?
For young Willie McBride it all happened again
And again and again and again and again.
Chorus:
1) Well, how do you do young Willie McBride?
Do you mind if I sit hear down by your graveside,
And rest for a while ‘neath the warm summer sun.
I’ve been working all day and I’m nearly done.
I can see by your gravestone you were only nineteen
when you joined the great fallen in nineteen sixteen.
Well I hope you died quick, and I hope you died clean,
Oh Willie McBride, was it slow and obscene?
Chorus:
Did they beat the drum slowly, did they play the fife lowly,
did they sound the death march, as they lowered you down?
Did the bands play the last post and chorus?
Did the pipes play the flowers of the forest?
2.) And did you leave a wife or sweetheart behind
In some faithful heart is your memory enshrined,
Although you died back in nineteen sixteen
In some faithful heart are you forever nineteen?
Or are you a stranger without even a name
Enclosed now forever behind a glass frame
In an old photograph torn, battered and stained
And faded to yellow in a brown leather frame.
Chorus:
3.) Now see how the sun shines o’er the green field of France
There’s a warm summer breeze makes the red poppies dance,
And see how the sun shines from under the clouds
There’s no gas or barbed wire, there’s no guns firing now.
But here in this graveyard it’s still no-man’s land
The countless white crosses in mute witness stand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man
To a whole generation who were butchered and damned.
Chorus:
4.) Now young Willie McBride, I can’t help wonder why
Do all those who lie here know why did they die.
And did they believe when they answered the call
Did they really believe that this war would end wars.
Well the sorrow, the suffering, the glory the pain,
The killing, the dying, was it all done in vain?
For young Willie McBride it all happened again
And again and again and again and again.
Chorus:
Sunday, May 28, 2006
A Lazy Reporter?
"All I know is what I read in the papers." ~ Will Rogers
From the AP comes this tragic story with one very pointless eye witness account:
Father Throws His Two Kids, Himself Off Balcony
MIAMI BEACH, Fla. (May 27) - A man killed his two young children by throwing them off the 15th floor of a landmark South Beach hotel and then jumped to his own death Saturday, police said.
Edward Van Dyk, 43, tossed his two sons, ages 4 and 8, to their deaths around 8:20 a.m., Miami Beach Police spokesman Bobby Hernandez said. Authorities did not release the names of the two boys.
The children's mother, Qinuo, 40, was not physically injured. Hernandez said the family was vacationing from Alton, Illinois, at the Loews Hotel in South Beach, where the couple were celebrating their 10th wedding anniversary.
The only thing I have to comment on in this story, really, besides the obligatory expression of sorrow, is this eye witness account. I do not understand the point of including this in the article:
Hotel guest Christopher Carreras, from New York, who is staying on the 14th floor, said he could see where the victims had fallen.
"They already had tents covering the bodies. You can't see nothing. It's like a big awning," said Carreras.
I'm sorry, but couldn't the reporter have found a witness that had information a little more interesting?
Well, I guess it's preferable to citing an "anonymous source"
From the AP comes this tragic story with one very pointless eye witness account:
Father Throws His Two Kids, Himself Off Balcony
MIAMI BEACH, Fla. (May 27) - A man killed his two young children by throwing them off the 15th floor of a landmark South Beach hotel and then jumped to his own death Saturday, police said.
Edward Van Dyk, 43, tossed his two sons, ages 4 and 8, to their deaths around 8:20 a.m., Miami Beach Police spokesman Bobby Hernandez said. Authorities did not release the names of the two boys.
The children's mother, Qinuo, 40, was not physically injured. Hernandez said the family was vacationing from Alton, Illinois, at the Loews Hotel in South Beach, where the couple were celebrating their 10th wedding anniversary.
The only thing I have to comment on in this story, really, besides the obligatory expression of sorrow, is this eye witness account. I do not understand the point of including this in the article:
Hotel guest Christopher Carreras, from New York, who is staying on the 14th floor, said he could see where the victims had fallen.
"They already had tents covering the bodies. You can't see nothing. It's like a big awning," said Carreras.
I'm sorry, but couldn't the reporter have found a witness that had information a little more interesting?
Well, I guess it's preferable to citing an "anonymous source"
Friday, May 26, 2006
An Outrage In California
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." ~ Sir Richard Francis Burton
The regular readers of this blog know by now that I try to present a different perspective on the current events of the day, but I just can't come up with any other perspective on the following that is any different than anyone else's. With that said, I just can't ignore the significance of it, either.
Out of the great state of California, that state that produces people who can easily be compared with a breakfast cereal because of the seemingly high percentage of flakes, fruits and nuts, comes this incredible story of blatant hypocrisy by everyone's favorite Circuit Court of Appeals:
[T]he same court that found the phrase "under God" unconstitutional now endorses Islamic catechism in public school.
In a recent federal decision that got surprisingly little press, even from conservative talk radio, California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises, including:
Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . ."
Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger."
Chanting "Praise be to Allah" in response to teacher prompts.
Professing as "true" the Muslim belief that "The Holy Quran is God's word."
Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.
Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.
Read the rest of the story, if you have the stomach for it, here. In fact, I recommend that you go ahead, hold your nose, and read it. All of it. It is imperative that freedom loving American Christians understand the implications of this decision.
This ruling by the 9th circuit court is so blatantly hypocritical that it is difficult, if not impossible, for me to see how anyone, even the most leftist of Liberals, can deny that this is blatant judicial activism at it's worst.
It would seem that the leftists twisting of the first amendment (The altering of the meaning of the words "freedom OF religion" to "freedom FROM religion") has again taken another twist to mean Americans are free to practice whatever religion we want in government institutions such as schools, as long as it is any religion other than Christianity.
Especially if it is a religion that teaches that anyone who practices any religion other than theirs should be wiped off the face of the planet.
Liberals across this great country should be embarrassed. I wonder if any Liberal is proud of what Liberal judicial activism has accomplished in this case.
Personally, I am embarrassed for them.
These Judicial activist judges must be removed from the bench with all expediency. And brought up on charges for treason. They are an embarrassment to Judges everywhere at best, and put the Constitutional rights of every American into extreme danger at worst.
This is so outrageous that I will be surprised if any of the Liberal apologists that comment here will have the guts to actually defend this blatant disregard for the first amendment as interpreted by other Liberal judicial activists. It will be interesting to see how ER and Jim and Dan Trabue will spin this to try to explain it as being Constitutional.
Go ahead, Liberals. spin away.
The regular readers of this blog know by now that I try to present a different perspective on the current events of the day, but I just can't come up with any other perspective on the following that is any different than anyone else's. With that said, I just can't ignore the significance of it, either.
Out of the great state of California, that state that produces people who can easily be compared with a breakfast cereal because of the seemingly high percentage of flakes, fruits and nuts, comes this incredible story of blatant hypocrisy by everyone's favorite Circuit Court of Appeals:
[T]he same court that found the phrase "under God" unconstitutional now endorses Islamic catechism in public school.
In a recent federal decision that got surprisingly little press, even from conservative talk radio, California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises, including:
Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . ."
Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger."
Chanting "Praise be to Allah" in response to teacher prompts.
Professing as "true" the Muslim belief that "The Holy Quran is God's word."
Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.
Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.
Read the rest of the story, if you have the stomach for it, here. In fact, I recommend that you go ahead, hold your nose, and read it. All of it. It is imperative that freedom loving American Christians understand the implications of this decision.
This ruling by the 9th circuit court is so blatantly hypocritical that it is difficult, if not impossible, for me to see how anyone, even the most leftist of Liberals, can deny that this is blatant judicial activism at it's worst.
It would seem that the leftists twisting of the first amendment (The altering of the meaning of the words "freedom OF religion" to "freedom FROM religion") has again taken another twist to mean Americans are free to practice whatever religion we want in government institutions such as schools, as long as it is any religion other than Christianity.
Especially if it is a religion that teaches that anyone who practices any religion other than theirs should be wiped off the face of the planet.
Liberals across this great country should be embarrassed. I wonder if any Liberal is proud of what Liberal judicial activism has accomplished in this case.
Personally, I am embarrassed for them.
These Judicial activist judges must be removed from the bench with all expediency. And brought up on charges for treason. They are an embarrassment to Judges everywhere at best, and put the Constitutional rights of every American into extreme danger at worst.
This is so outrageous that I will be surprised if any of the Liberal apologists that comment here will have the guts to actually defend this blatant disregard for the first amendment as interpreted by other Liberal judicial activists. It will be interesting to see how ER and Jim and Dan Trabue will spin this to try to explain it as being Constitutional.
Go ahead, Liberals. spin away.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Heartbreak In Frederick
"The wine urges me on, the bewitching wine, which sets even a wise man to singing and to laughing gently and rouses him up to dance and brings forth words which were better unspoken." ~ Homer
I was looking for a story I heard about on the Laura Ingraham show but can't find it. Is about how the 9th circuit court of appeals in California ruled that it is ok to practice Islam in public schools in California. This is the same court that ruled that schools could not say the pledge of allegiance because the words, "under God" is in it.
I was going to post a blog entry about the obvious hypocrisy, but I need more information and I can't find the story. So that will have to wait.
So, since I can't write about that, I will tell an amusing anecdote about something that really happened to me last Friday night.
I went to a dance club in Frederick, Maryland. I do not go to clubs and bars ordinarily, and I rarely drink. But circumstances conspired to draw me to this particular place at this particular time. At least, that's what I kept telling myself as I drove to Frederick.
The circumstances? Well, I was driving home from Lititz, Pennsylvania, and was detoured away from the highway by a 12 car pile up on the interstate, in Harrisburg, PA. I do not know my way around in Harrisburg, but eventually found myself on U.S. Highway 15 heading south. There are several places along 15 that I could have turned west to go directly home but I was absolutely certain that I was being led to Past Times Cafe in Frederick. Ok, that, and the fact that I know a lady that frequents the place.
Once there, I quickly located my friend, who soon let me know she wasn't interested in someone as old and broke as me. So, I moved from stool to stool, trying to get lucky, but there wasn't gum under any of them.
It soon became apparent that my time would be wasted there if I didn't engage in the time honored ritual of dancing, something else I rarely do, and when I do, I resemble a fish out of water, with my thrashing and flopping about.
So, I set about the task of searching for a likely vict.....er ...candidate to dazzle with my footwork and charm.
Armed with the courage of the accumulated effects of two bourbon and cokes, which to my tea-totaling brain was equivalent to most people drinking an entire bottle of rotgut in it's effects, I eventually approached a beautiful blonde, about half my age and asked her politely if she would care to dance.
The following is a true re-creation of our entire conversation:
Me: Would you like to dance?
Hot Babe: (with undisguised disdain) No, thanks, I'm an engineer.
Me: (incredulous) Oh. So, you drive trains?
Increasingly not-so hot-Babe: (frostily) I am a Mechanical engineer.
Me: (with alacrity) Oh, so you just work on them!
Hours later, when I awoke, I questioned the veracity of my belief in fate.
I was looking for a story I heard about on the Laura Ingraham show but can't find it. Is about how the 9th circuit court of appeals in California ruled that it is ok to practice Islam in public schools in California. This is the same court that ruled that schools could not say the pledge of allegiance because the words, "under God" is in it.
I was going to post a blog entry about the obvious hypocrisy, but I need more information and I can't find the story. So that will have to wait.
So, since I can't write about that, I will tell an amusing anecdote about something that really happened to me last Friday night.
I went to a dance club in Frederick, Maryland. I do not go to clubs and bars ordinarily, and I rarely drink. But circumstances conspired to draw me to this particular place at this particular time. At least, that's what I kept telling myself as I drove to Frederick.
The circumstances? Well, I was driving home from Lititz, Pennsylvania, and was detoured away from the highway by a 12 car pile up on the interstate, in Harrisburg, PA. I do not know my way around in Harrisburg, but eventually found myself on U.S. Highway 15 heading south. There are several places along 15 that I could have turned west to go directly home but I was absolutely certain that I was being led to Past Times Cafe in Frederick. Ok, that, and the fact that I know a lady that frequents the place.
Once there, I quickly located my friend, who soon let me know she wasn't interested in someone as old and broke as me. So, I moved from stool to stool, trying to get lucky, but there wasn't gum under any of them.
It soon became apparent that my time would be wasted there if I didn't engage in the time honored ritual of dancing, something else I rarely do, and when I do, I resemble a fish out of water, with my thrashing and flopping about.
So, I set about the task of searching for a likely vict.....er ...candidate to dazzle with my footwork and charm.
Armed with the courage of the accumulated effects of two bourbon and cokes, which to my tea-totaling brain was equivalent to most people drinking an entire bottle of rotgut in it's effects, I eventually approached a beautiful blonde, about half my age and asked her politely if she would care to dance.
The following is a true re-creation of our entire conversation:
Me: Would you like to dance?
Hot Babe: (with undisguised disdain) No, thanks, I'm an engineer.
Me: (incredulous) Oh. So, you drive trains?
Increasingly not-so hot-Babe: (frostily) I am a Mechanical engineer.
Me: (with alacrity) Oh, so you just work on them!
Hours later, when I awoke, I questioned the veracity of my belief in fate.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
An Anonymous Source
"In a heated argument we are apt to lose sight of the truth." ~ Publilius Syrus
I was listening to a news report yesterday about the Washington DC sniper trial, and the proverbial anonymous source was quoted saying it looked like John Lee Malvo was not going to testify this day, but possibly the next. Suddenly my focus shifted from the story to the use of anonymous sources. It seems anonymous sources are quoted in almost every news story, and I wonder if anyone but me has a problem with this.
Exactly how credible are these sources? How do we know whether they have any credibility at all?
As I have mentioned in the past, I have been in court trials a few times, as a witness, a juror, and yes, even as a defendant. This is what made me start thinking about the use of anonymous sources as reliable sources of important information in news stories. During the recesses of these trials, invariably, there are spectators who mill about outside the doors of the courtroom discussing the days events, and musing about what will transpire next.
I wonder if the reporter who wrote the story I heard about John Lee Malvo got his information from one of these spectators. How credible could that spectator be?
I recognize that reporters may need to rely on questionable sources to give their stories some punch, and often times there are viable reasons to keep the identity of the interviewee secret. But is there some template or guideline we can use to ascertain whether these secret witnesses are indeed credible or not?
If not, shouldn't there be?
I have a hard time believing many of the stories printed in the New York Times and other Liberal leaning media outlets, and that feeling of skepticism is compounded whenever they cite anonymous sources. It seems to me that the more incredible the story, the more they rely on anonymous sources.
Ah heck, we might as well say the same about Conservative leaning news outlets. No doubt they are just as guilty.
Another thing I've noticed. People with agendas tend to take things that people say out of context. I know that isn't news to my Conservative friends. The left leaning media is expert at doing that, and they do it often. But let's be honest. So do the Conservative leaning outlets. I do not read NewsMax for that very reason. The obvious bias in their reporting unsettles me. I do not want to comment on news items that are not "fair and balanced", to borrow a time worn phrase.
And yet, we are hard pressed to find something unbiased.
Let me explain why I brought this up. Sean Hannity. Not just Sean Hannity but many other Conservatives, but he is the one who's commentary made me think of this point.
Whenever he attempts to make the point that Democrats are mean spirited and hateful towards Conservatives and Republicans, He always makes reference to John Kerry's statement about American servicemen who barge into the homes of innocent Iraqis "terrorizing women and children". Anyone who has heard that sound bite knows, if they are being intellectually honest, that Kerry was not calling American servicemen terrorists. But that is how it is portrayed by Hannity.
Additionally, Hannity often reels off a laundry list of inflammatory statements attributed to Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic party. While most of the statements he references indeed have no defense for their mean spiritedness, at least one of them is taken out of context, but Hannity continues to use it to demonstrate evidence that Dean is a raving lunatic.
That statement, the infamous "Republicans never did an honest days work in their lives", is misquoted by Hannity. And he very well knows it. He leaves out one very significant word that Dean didn't leave out of that statement.
"Many".
Dean actually said, "Many Republicans never did an honest days work in their lives".
Can anyone see how the omission of one word changes the ultimate connotation?
Of course, this doesn't mean Democrats aren't guilty of the same things. You all know I could reel off hundreds of examples of Democrats taking Republican words and phrases out of context to obscure the real meaning of a Republican's point.
I suppose in a perfect world, the names of all sources would be published so that we could check their veracity. I think that would go a long way toward re-establishing the credibility of the press.
And, In a perfect world, Democrats and Republicans would quote their opponents accurately and in context.
Of course, this is far from a perfect world.
I was listening to a news report yesterday about the Washington DC sniper trial, and the proverbial anonymous source was quoted saying it looked like John Lee Malvo was not going to testify this day, but possibly the next. Suddenly my focus shifted from the story to the use of anonymous sources. It seems anonymous sources are quoted in almost every news story, and I wonder if anyone but me has a problem with this.
Exactly how credible are these sources? How do we know whether they have any credibility at all?
As I have mentioned in the past, I have been in court trials a few times, as a witness, a juror, and yes, even as a defendant. This is what made me start thinking about the use of anonymous sources as reliable sources of important information in news stories. During the recesses of these trials, invariably, there are spectators who mill about outside the doors of the courtroom discussing the days events, and musing about what will transpire next.
I wonder if the reporter who wrote the story I heard about John Lee Malvo got his information from one of these spectators. How credible could that spectator be?
I recognize that reporters may need to rely on questionable sources to give their stories some punch, and often times there are viable reasons to keep the identity of the interviewee secret. But is there some template or guideline we can use to ascertain whether these secret witnesses are indeed credible or not?
If not, shouldn't there be?
I have a hard time believing many of the stories printed in the New York Times and other Liberal leaning media outlets, and that feeling of skepticism is compounded whenever they cite anonymous sources. It seems to me that the more incredible the story, the more they rely on anonymous sources.
Ah heck, we might as well say the same about Conservative leaning news outlets. No doubt they are just as guilty.
Another thing I've noticed. People with agendas tend to take things that people say out of context. I know that isn't news to my Conservative friends. The left leaning media is expert at doing that, and they do it often. But let's be honest. So do the Conservative leaning outlets. I do not read NewsMax for that very reason. The obvious bias in their reporting unsettles me. I do not want to comment on news items that are not "fair and balanced", to borrow a time worn phrase.
And yet, we are hard pressed to find something unbiased.
Let me explain why I brought this up. Sean Hannity. Not just Sean Hannity but many other Conservatives, but he is the one who's commentary made me think of this point.
Whenever he attempts to make the point that Democrats are mean spirited and hateful towards Conservatives and Republicans, He always makes reference to John Kerry's statement about American servicemen who barge into the homes of innocent Iraqis "terrorizing women and children". Anyone who has heard that sound bite knows, if they are being intellectually honest, that Kerry was not calling American servicemen terrorists. But that is how it is portrayed by Hannity.
Additionally, Hannity often reels off a laundry list of inflammatory statements attributed to Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic party. While most of the statements he references indeed have no defense for their mean spiritedness, at least one of them is taken out of context, but Hannity continues to use it to demonstrate evidence that Dean is a raving lunatic.
That statement, the infamous "Republicans never did an honest days work in their lives", is misquoted by Hannity. And he very well knows it. He leaves out one very significant word that Dean didn't leave out of that statement.
"Many".
Dean actually said, "Many Republicans never did an honest days work in their lives".
Can anyone see how the omission of one word changes the ultimate connotation?
Of course, this doesn't mean Democrats aren't guilty of the same things. You all know I could reel off hundreds of examples of Democrats taking Republican words and phrases out of context to obscure the real meaning of a Republican's point.
I suppose in a perfect world, the names of all sources would be published so that we could check their veracity. I think that would go a long way toward re-establishing the credibility of the press.
And, In a perfect world, Democrats and Republicans would quote their opponents accurately and in context.
Of course, this is far from a perfect world.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Being Lazy Today
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana
This picture has nothing to do with this post. I just think it is an awesome picture.
I know this is a cop out. So sue me. For those who haven't been reading my blog since last July, and because I haven't had the time or the interest to post anything new, I am re-posting this entry from Last July:
101 Things About Me
) I was born in Kansas City, Missouri
2) I am the youngest of my parents 6 kids
3) I was raised in Wichita, KS
4) I love chocolate
5) I have type 2 Diabetes
6) I cheat on my diet
7) I don't like stupid people
8) I don't like rude people
9) I've been married twice
10) Both my ex-wives are crazy. Really
11) My oldest kid is mildly retarded
12) I have 3 grandchildren. 2 boys and 1 girl
13) One grandson died a day after birth
14) I have 4 natural kids and one adopted. 4 boys and 1 girl
15) My adopted boy was in jail the last I heard (since updated. He is on the road to recovery, thank God. Literally)
16) I came within one round of being on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"
17) I have a need for everyone to like me
18) I like suspense thrillers
19) I have read everything Kurt Vonnegut ever wrote
20) I don't think I have ever experienced true love
21) I listen to NPR on Saturdays
22) When I was a kid I shoplifted a pocketful of bubblegum and got caught
23) I drive a 2005 Dodge Neon
24) I'm the dumbest of my siblings
25) I used to be a telemarketing manager
26) I moved to Maryland for a woman
27) I am a Christian, but I'm not religious
28) I am overweight
29) I think poetry has to rhyme
30) I spend way too much time on the computer
31) I make many stupid mistakes
32) I can't keep a good job
33) I look younger than I am
34) I live in a one room apartment
35) I have a pug named Beast
36) I am a very bad liar
37) I drink nothing but Diet Mountain Dew
38) I used to like mustard. I don't anymore
39) I am frugal
40) I wear boxers
41) I have visited 26 different states
42) I have been on a cruise in the Caribbean
43) I lost $26.00 to a carnival con man once
44) I caught an 8½ foot sailfish off the coast of Mexico
45) I smoked crack once
46) I spent 4 hours in jail once
47) I once drove from South Padre Island in Texas to Kansas city without stopping for rest
48) I marched in a peace march in college
49) I saved the life of a woman who was overcome by carbon monoxide
50) I have hair on my back
51) I hated taking care of my sick grandmother
52) My eyesight is so bad it kept me put of the armed forces
53) I hate onions
54) I am a mommas boy
55) I think tattoos are gross
56) I drive too fast
57) I didn't cry when my father died
58) I cried at his memorial service
59) I suspect I am getting senile
60) I am a failure
61) I am intelligent
62) homosexuals disgust me. Both sexes
63) I can be insensitive
64) I like bad puns
65) I like Greenday
66) I am of Scottish heritage
67) I have ugly feet
68) I have a large vocabulary
69) I am a horrible housekeeper
70) I have a concrete sequential personality
71) My 8th grade English teacher told me I had the 2nd highest IQ in the school
72) I consider myself a bad father
73) It annoys me when I see people park in handicapped parking spaces and they aren't handicapped
74) I have never been beaten at Trivial Pursuit
75) I didn't cry when my grandson died
76) I rarely see or talk to anyone in my family
77) I am my own worst critic
78) I have a great sense of humor
79) I live with bad luck
80) I have had over 40 jobs in my life
81) I choked my wife in my sleep once
82) I usually don't remember my dreams
83) I never give money to beggars
84) I am proud of my integrity
85) My favorite movie is Cyrano De Bergerac
86) I am an expert at barbeque
87) My credit sucks
88) I have an irrational fear of suffocation
89) I was pretty good football player
90) I have too much pride
91) I am a techno-moron
92) I try to find something to respect about everyone
93) I have the spiritual gift of discernment
94) I have one secret I'll never tell anyone
95) I always had a crush on Marilyn Monroe
96) I turned down the lead role in my elementary schools production of "Little Black Sambo"
98) I dropped out of college
99) I once caught a burglar in my house
100) I caught the guy that stole my wife's car
101) I know I left some better things off this list
This picture has nothing to do with this post. I just think it is an awesome picture.I know this is a cop out. So sue me. For those who haven't been reading my blog since last July, and because I haven't had the time or the interest to post anything new, I am re-posting this entry from Last July:
101 Things About Me
) I was born in Kansas City, Missouri
2) I am the youngest of my parents 6 kids
3) I was raised in Wichita, KS
4) I love chocolate
5) I have type 2 Diabetes
6) I cheat on my diet
7) I don't like stupid people
8) I don't like rude people
9) I've been married twice
10) Both my ex-wives are crazy. Really
11) My oldest kid is mildly retarded
12) I have 3 grandchildren. 2 boys and 1 girl
13) One grandson died a day after birth
14) I have 4 natural kids and one adopted. 4 boys and 1 girl
15) My adopted boy was in jail the last I heard (since updated. He is on the road to recovery, thank God. Literally)
16) I came within one round of being on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"
17) I have a need for everyone to like me
18) I like suspense thrillers
19) I have read everything Kurt Vonnegut ever wrote
20) I don't think I have ever experienced true love
21) I listen to NPR on Saturdays
22) When I was a kid I shoplifted a pocketful of bubblegum and got caught
23) I drive a 2005 Dodge Neon
24) I'm the dumbest of my siblings
25) I used to be a telemarketing manager
26) I moved to Maryland for a woman
27) I am a Christian, but I'm not religious
28) I am overweight
29) I think poetry has to rhyme
30) I spend way too much time on the computer
31) I make many stupid mistakes
32) I can't keep a good job
33) I look younger than I am
34) I live in a one room apartment
35) I have a pug named Beast
36) I am a very bad liar
37) I drink nothing but Diet Mountain Dew
38) I used to like mustard. I don't anymore
39) I am frugal
40) I wear boxers
41) I have visited 26 different states
42) I have been on a cruise in the Caribbean
43) I lost $26.00 to a carnival con man once
44) I caught an 8½ foot sailfish off the coast of Mexico
45) I smoked crack once
46) I spent 4 hours in jail once
47) I once drove from South Padre Island in Texas to Kansas city without stopping for rest
48) I marched in a peace march in college
49) I saved the life of a woman who was overcome by carbon monoxide
50) I have hair on my back
51) I hated taking care of my sick grandmother
52) My eyesight is so bad it kept me put of the armed forces
53) I hate onions
54) I am a mommas boy
55) I think tattoos are gross
56) I drive too fast
57) I didn't cry when my father died
58) I cried at his memorial service
59) I suspect I am getting senile
60) I am a failure
61) I am intelligent
62) homosexuals disgust me. Both sexes
63) I can be insensitive
64) I like bad puns
65) I like Greenday
66) I am of Scottish heritage
67) I have ugly feet
68) I have a large vocabulary
69) I am a horrible housekeeper
70) I have a concrete sequential personality
71) My 8th grade English teacher told me I had the 2nd highest IQ in the school
72) I consider myself a bad father
73) It annoys me when I see people park in handicapped parking spaces and they aren't handicapped
74) I have never been beaten at Trivial Pursuit
75) I didn't cry when my grandson died
76) I rarely see or talk to anyone in my family
77) I am my own worst critic
78) I have a great sense of humor
79) I live with bad luck
80) I have had over 40 jobs in my life
81) I choked my wife in my sleep once
82) I usually don't remember my dreams
83) I never give money to beggars
84) I am proud of my integrity
85) My favorite movie is Cyrano De Bergerac
86) I am an expert at barbeque
87) My credit sucks
88) I have an irrational fear of suffocation
89) I was pretty good football player
90) I have too much pride
91) I am a techno-moron
92) I try to find something to respect about everyone
93) I have the spiritual gift of discernment
94) I have one secret I'll never tell anyone
95) I always had a crush on Marilyn Monroe
96) I turned down the lead role in my elementary schools production of "Little Black Sambo"
98) I dropped out of college
99) I once caught a burglar in my house
100) I caught the guy that stole my wife's car
101) I know I left some better things off this list
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Democrat Dictionary
"Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English." ~ William Shakespeare
"'Curiouser and curiouser!' Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)" ~ Lewis Carroll
With all this recent talk about requiring immigrants to speak English and sing the National Anthem in English (I actually like the Spanish language version I've heard, as long as the words aren't translated to me), I have become increasingly aware that we also need, in addition to a Spanish/English Dictionary, A dictionary that defines the difference between real English words and terms, and Democratic words and terms.
I have noticed that the terms the Democrats use often are in direct juxtaposition with the actual terms. They define certain terms completely different than how people who have common sense do.
For instance. When the news was leaked that President Bush had been secretly wiretapping known al-Qaida operatives making and/or receiving phone calls from other al-Qaida operatives between some middles Eastern country and our own, we silly common sense Americans referred to that as electronicsurveillancee of probable terrorist suspects in an attempt to prevent further 9/11 style attacks against America.
Democrats curiously call that "domestic wiretapping".
Once, the term "domestic" used to be defined as "of, relating to, or originating within a country and especially one's own country" (according to Mr. Webster). But if that's true, then calling electronic surveillancee of known al-Qaida operatives "domestic wiretapping" would essentially be a lie.
A lie.
By the way, the word "leak" is also suspect, depending on the source. If it isperceivedd to be potentially damaging to Republicans, and President Bush specifically, it is not called a leak. It is called, in Democratic terminology, "Whistle Blowing". According to the Democrats, if it is potentially damaging to the Democrats, it is then properly characterized as a "leak".
Then, there's this latest terminology being bandied about. The National Security Agency has been collecting the phone records of millions of Americans, according to reports. That sounds intrusive, especially when Democrats call that "Domestic Spying". There's that new definition of the word, "Domestic", again.
Domestic spying, in this case, according to the Democrats, refers to collecting records that are already being kept by the phone companies in America, to ascertain if terrorists are calling each other over the phone to plan their next attack against America.
You know that little bill we all get every month that lists the long distance phone calls we make every month to show us that we are being charged, according to the pertinent phone company, correctly?
It's something like that, except these lists include all phone calls. Not just long distance. Phone companies have been keeping these records for decades. Possibly since shortly after the phone was invented. They are often used to establish a case against a felon, and aid in the prosecution of said felons.
Keeping these records is a good thing. For our own security. Never, as far as I know, has anyone ever objected to the phone company knowing that I spoke to my sister in Memphis back in July of last year for approximately 5 minutes.
In this case, it is domestic, but it isn't intrusive. Not unless the NSA is using that information to determine if Joe Bob, in Happy Haven Trailer park, in Dell, Arkansas, is making surrepticious phone calls to a 1-800- talk dirty phone sex operator operating out of her apartment in West Hollywood, California.
And why.
But they are not. The NSA has no interest whatsoever in Joe Bob's nocturnal activities, unless he is building a bomb with the intention of killing other Americans.
They are reviewing the records to see if a pattern can be established that indicates a collusion between two parties who have already been flagged as potential National Security Threats. Such as terrorists cells right here in America.
This is all done in an effort to protect American citizens from being vaporized by those who seek to destroy us, while going about their daily routine of trying to eke out a living for themselves and for their families.
Even the very Democrats that call it domestic spying.
Isn't it ironic that the very thing they are complaining about may one day save their own lives? Except that if they succeed in stopping the NSA, of course, it won't.
But I guess, according to the Democrats, personal privacy is more important than personal security. (try selling that one to any of the surviving members of those lost on September 11, 2001)
Another shining examle of Democratic terminology are the terms, "immigrants" and "undocumented workers". Aside from the fact that many of these so-called "undocumented workers" actually don't work at all, and are a drain on our already strained social security system, as well as our welfare coffers, they are nevertheless, according to the new Democratic dictionary, workers.
These terms should be properly translated by common sense folks as meaning "Illegal aliens" . They are called (now Democrats, try to follow this line of logical reasoning) illegal immigrants by common sense folks because they did something that is against the law. In this case, they entered our country without going through the proper, legal channels.
Democrats want to reward this unlawful behavior by granting them full citizenship rights. But more importantly, they want us to ignore the fact that they are illegal and refer to them simply as "immigrants", a term that real immigrants strenuously object to, as well they should.
Illegal anything should never be rewarded instead of punished, should it? What if we gave prizes to everyone who murdered someone, or robbed someone, or battered someone, instead of putting them in jail? Does anyone think the crime rate would suddenly go down?
So if someone who is attempting to enter our country illegally gets shot by a National Guardsman fo refusing to hearken to the "Halt!" command, I say, so what? They are illegal. They pose a threat to Americas security. Illegal activity must be stopped. If it takes shooting a few of them, that would be a direct consequence of their own decision to break our laws and dishonor our sovreignty. And it might (although not likely) serve as a deterrent to other potential law breakers.
In short, If one breaks the law by attempting to enter our country illegally, that makes them an illegal immigrant. Not just an immigrant. Not an undocumented worker. Not an uninvited visitor.
He is an illegal alien. That term, Democrats, is "Illegal" .
Got it?
See? When Democrats use these words and terms to alter the public's perception about what is really going on in America, I come to the conclusion that they are either very stubborn or very stupid. It's not like they haven't been told, ad nauseum, the real meaning of these words and terms. So those conclusions are the only conclusins that can be drawn, aren't they?
Either stubborn or stupid. Take your pick. I see no third alternative.
Do any of my readers have any other suggestions for words and terms that should go into our Democrat to common sense English dictionary?
"'Curiouser and curiouser!' Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)" ~ Lewis Carroll
With all this recent talk about requiring immigrants to speak English and sing the National Anthem in English (I actually like the Spanish language version I've heard, as long as the words aren't translated to me), I have become increasingly aware that we also need, in addition to a Spanish/English Dictionary, A dictionary that defines the difference between real English words and terms, and Democratic words and terms.
I have noticed that the terms the Democrats use often are in direct juxtaposition with the actual terms. They define certain terms completely different than how people who have common sense do.
For instance. When the news was leaked that President Bush had been secretly wiretapping known al-Qaida operatives making and/or receiving phone calls from other al-Qaida operatives between some middles Eastern country and our own, we silly common sense Americans referred to that as electronicsurveillancee of probable terrorist suspects in an attempt to prevent further 9/11 style attacks against America.
Democrats curiously call that "domestic wiretapping".
Once, the term "domestic" used to be defined as "of, relating to, or originating within a country and especially one's own country" (according to Mr. Webster). But if that's true, then calling electronic surveillancee of known al-Qaida operatives "domestic wiretapping" would essentially be a lie.
A lie.
By the way, the word "leak" is also suspect, depending on the source. If it isperceivedd to be potentially damaging to Republicans, and President Bush specifically, it is not called a leak. It is called, in Democratic terminology, "Whistle Blowing". According to the Democrats, if it is potentially damaging to the Democrats, it is then properly characterized as a "leak".
Then, there's this latest terminology being bandied about. The National Security Agency has been collecting the phone records of millions of Americans, according to reports. That sounds intrusive, especially when Democrats call that "Domestic Spying". There's that new definition of the word, "Domestic", again.
Domestic spying, in this case, according to the Democrats, refers to collecting records that are already being kept by the phone companies in America, to ascertain if terrorists are calling each other over the phone to plan their next attack against America.
You know that little bill we all get every month that lists the long distance phone calls we make every month to show us that we are being charged, according to the pertinent phone company, correctly?
It's something like that, except these lists include all phone calls. Not just long distance. Phone companies have been keeping these records for decades. Possibly since shortly after the phone was invented. They are often used to establish a case against a felon, and aid in the prosecution of said felons.
Keeping these records is a good thing. For our own security. Never, as far as I know, has anyone ever objected to the phone company knowing that I spoke to my sister in Memphis back in July of last year for approximately 5 minutes.
In this case, it is domestic, but it isn't intrusive. Not unless the NSA is using that information to determine if Joe Bob, in Happy Haven Trailer park, in Dell, Arkansas, is making surrepticious phone calls to a 1-800- talk dirty phone sex operator operating out of her apartment in West Hollywood, California.
And why.
But they are not. The NSA has no interest whatsoever in Joe Bob's nocturnal activities, unless he is building a bomb with the intention of killing other Americans.
They are reviewing the records to see if a pattern can be established that indicates a collusion between two parties who have already been flagged as potential National Security Threats. Such as terrorists cells right here in America.
This is all done in an effort to protect American citizens from being vaporized by those who seek to destroy us, while going about their daily routine of trying to eke out a living for themselves and for their families.
Even the very Democrats that call it domestic spying.
Isn't it ironic that the very thing they are complaining about may one day save their own lives? Except that if they succeed in stopping the NSA, of course, it won't.
But I guess, according to the Democrats, personal privacy is more important than personal security. (try selling that one to any of the surviving members of those lost on September 11, 2001)
Another shining examle of Democratic terminology are the terms, "immigrants" and "undocumented workers". Aside from the fact that many of these so-called "undocumented workers" actually don't work at all, and are a drain on our already strained social security system, as well as our welfare coffers, they are nevertheless, according to the new Democratic dictionary, workers.
These terms should be properly translated by common sense folks as meaning "Illegal aliens" . They are called (now Democrats, try to follow this line of logical reasoning) illegal immigrants by common sense folks because they did something that is against the law. In this case, they entered our country without going through the proper, legal channels.
Democrats want to reward this unlawful behavior by granting them full citizenship rights. But more importantly, they want us to ignore the fact that they are illegal and refer to them simply as "immigrants", a term that real immigrants strenuously object to, as well they should.
Illegal anything should never be rewarded instead of punished, should it? What if we gave prizes to everyone who murdered someone, or robbed someone, or battered someone, instead of putting them in jail? Does anyone think the crime rate would suddenly go down?
So if someone who is attempting to enter our country illegally gets shot by a National Guardsman fo refusing to hearken to the "Halt!" command, I say, so what? They are illegal. They pose a threat to Americas security. Illegal activity must be stopped. If it takes shooting a few of them, that would be a direct consequence of their own decision to break our laws and dishonor our sovreignty. And it might (although not likely) serve as a deterrent to other potential law breakers.
In short, If one breaks the law by attempting to enter our country illegally, that makes them an illegal immigrant. Not just an immigrant. Not an undocumented worker. Not an uninvited visitor.
He is an illegal alien. That term, Democrats, is "Illegal" .
Got it?
See? When Democrats use these words and terms to alter the public's perception about what is really going on in America, I come to the conclusion that they are either very stubborn or very stupid. It's not like they haven't been told, ad nauseum, the real meaning of these words and terms. So those conclusions are the only conclusins that can be drawn, aren't they?
Either stubborn or stupid. Take your pick. I see no third alternative.
Do any of my readers have any other suggestions for words and terms that should go into our Democrat to common sense English dictionary?
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Burden Of Proof
"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved." ~ Confucius
A couple of days ago, on another post, I stated my belief that no law has been broken in collecting records of phone calls by the NSA in wake of the attacks of 9/11. Liam, who is a very intelligent, insightful, thoughtful, and respectful commenter on this blog, posed this question:
Mark, can you post a link to the conclusive evidence that no law has been broken please?
It is a reasonable request, but to tell the truth, I haven't had lot of time to do a lot of research, since the recent changes in the operations where I work. So, I was going to just blow the request off. I still don't have time to do that, but I have given the matter some thought, and it occurs to me that it isn't my responsibilty to supply evidence.
Liam lives in England, so possibly the British Justice system is a bit different from ours, but over here in America, jurisprudence dictates that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Since the Bush haters are trying to say that his actions are illegal, they are his accusers. The gathering of evidence is their responsibility, not mine. I have defended the Presidents position on this matter. That makes me part of the defense team, as it were.
In other words, I do not have to look for proof that Bush is innocent. Those who accuse him of breaking the law have the burden of establishing whether or not he is culpable.
So go for it. Prove with conclusive evidence that he broke any law in allowing the NSA to collect phone records to ascertain where potential terrorists may be lurking right here in America.
And while your at it, try to find one American who has been arrested, detained, or otherwise inconvenienced by this so-called intrusion into their personal lives.
Just one.
And as long as we're on the subject, I might add that Verizon and Bellsouth are both saying now, that they never handed any phone records over to the NSA. But USA Today says they did! Maybe you should do the necessary research to discover who is telling the truth here. And if someone isn't telling the truth, why?
Then just ask yourself if you feel any safer knowing that terrorists now know about another of our tactics to thwart their attacks by searching through their phone records.
I know I don't.
While you're at it, try to find out what else the media will eventually do to undermine the NSA's efforts to keep America safe. And what other charges the Democrats will use to attack Bush and his attempts to keep terrorists out of our backyard and keep their hands tied. And why the Democrats are so determined to play fast and loose with National Security in the interest of making sure President Bush doesn't know about their late night phone calls to phone sex companies.
And see if you can find out why this story, that was originally reported in the New York Times back in December, has resurfaced now, scant hours after the announcement of Gen. Michael Hayden as head of the CIA. Seems a bit of a coincidence to me.
So roll up your sleeves, Bush haters. You've got a lot of work to do.
The burden of proof is upon you.
A couple of days ago, on another post, I stated my belief that no law has been broken in collecting records of phone calls by the NSA in wake of the attacks of 9/11. Liam, who is a very intelligent, insightful, thoughtful, and respectful commenter on this blog, posed this question:
Mark, can you post a link to the conclusive evidence that no law has been broken please?
It is a reasonable request, but to tell the truth, I haven't had lot of time to do a lot of research, since the recent changes in the operations where I work. So, I was going to just blow the request off. I still don't have time to do that, but I have given the matter some thought, and it occurs to me that it isn't my responsibilty to supply evidence.
Liam lives in England, so possibly the British Justice system is a bit different from ours, but over here in America, jurisprudence dictates that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Since the Bush haters are trying to say that his actions are illegal, they are his accusers. The gathering of evidence is their responsibility, not mine. I have defended the Presidents position on this matter. That makes me part of the defense team, as it were.
In other words, I do not have to look for proof that Bush is innocent. Those who accuse him of breaking the law have the burden of establishing whether or not he is culpable.
So go for it. Prove with conclusive evidence that he broke any law in allowing the NSA to collect phone records to ascertain where potential terrorists may be lurking right here in America.
And while your at it, try to find one American who has been arrested, detained, or otherwise inconvenienced by this so-called intrusion into their personal lives.
Just one.
And as long as we're on the subject, I might add that Verizon and Bellsouth are both saying now, that they never handed any phone records over to the NSA. But USA Today says they did! Maybe you should do the necessary research to discover who is telling the truth here. And if someone isn't telling the truth, why?
Then just ask yourself if you feel any safer knowing that terrorists now know about another of our tactics to thwart their attacks by searching through their phone records.
I know I don't.
While you're at it, try to find out what else the media will eventually do to undermine the NSA's efforts to keep America safe. And what other charges the Democrats will use to attack Bush and his attempts to keep terrorists out of our backyard and keep their hands tied. And why the Democrats are so determined to play fast and loose with National Security in the interest of making sure President Bush doesn't know about their late night phone calls to phone sex companies.
And see if you can find out why this story, that was originally reported in the New York Times back in December, has resurfaced now, scant hours after the announcement of Gen. Michael Hayden as head of the CIA. Seems a bit of a coincidence to me.
So roll up your sleeves, Bush haters. You've got a lot of work to do.
The burden of proof is upon you.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
"If" is a Big Word
"Any sufficiently advanced bureaucracy is indistinguishable from molasses." ~ unknown
I listened to the Presidents speech last night while I was driving home. I missed some parts of it because sometimes I drove through areas where the transmission wasn't strong. But from what I heard, it seems that he has answered some questions of which I've been concerned.
My whole problem with the guest worker program has been that it appears very much to be an amnesty program, which could only encourage other illegal alien migration into our country in the years to come.
But I am pretty pleased with how President Bush has outlined this program. He has addressed 5 clearly outlined objectives with his plan. Overall I now think it's an excellent plan, under certain conditions.
His first objective is to secure the border. That is exactly the first thing he should do. Here is an excerpt from his speech:
Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.
At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors infrared cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings...
...[U]p to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities that duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, respond to natural disasters, and help secure our border...
...Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities. So we will increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important resource and they are part of our strategy to secure our border communities.
The only way this could be a bad plan is if the wheels of bureaucracy slow it down, as it typically does most governmental program.
If Congress doesn't attempt to "refine" it, It can work.
Bush also addressed the infamous "Catch and release" policy that has been a thorn in the side of Americans for years.
... We have expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more. We have expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we are making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions, we have ended "catch and release" for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding and legal authority, so we can end "catch and release" at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they will be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.
If the border agents can be responsible and do their jobs right, this can work.
Then he went on to explain the guest worker program more thoroughly and in more understandable terms:
Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks. And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.
Except for the part about "jobs Americans are not doing", I think that's a reasonable plan. There is no job in America that you cannot find some Americans to do.
If he can get illegals to apply to the program.
Furthermore, he addressed the problem of employers illegally hiring illegals:
Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.
I think Bush is being too kind to many of these employers. I think many of them don't give a damn if their workers are legal or not. Quite the contrary, I believe they want them because they don't have to pay them as much.
If Bush can guarantee that companies won't break the law by intentionally hiring illegals, this is a good plan.
The next part of the plan is one that I have had the most trouble comprehending. I have been under the impression that illegals would be sent to the head of the line and be given preferential treatment over those who have worked hard to enter this country legally. I believe Bush has put many of our fears to rest on this matter:
...I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law to pay their taxes to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.
If we can get illegals to cooperate with us and accept heavy penalties for breaking the law voluntarily. But look at it this way. How many felons in this country would voluntarily go to jail if they knew they would be out in X number of years? Not too many. To most of them prison is not an option, even with guarantees of eventual freedom. Same with illegals. The President expects illegals to voluntarily pay penalties? The problem here is there are no guarantees illegals will accept these terms.
Lastly, President Bush insists that immigrants learn English. That will help them to better assimilate into our culture and community. It is a good idea and one I would heartily recommend.
If the immigrants will do the work to learn it. I think many of them don't want to learn English. And why should they? Already almost every business in America offers all their services in both English and Spanish.
Overall, I think Bush's plan is a good one, but quite a bit over idealistic. Too much of it depends on the illegals cooperating with the program. I don't see that happening without very strict enforcement of already existing laws. And without the cooperation of every American and American business, as well.
But there are way too many "Ifs".
I listened to the Presidents speech last night while I was driving home. I missed some parts of it because sometimes I drove through areas where the transmission wasn't strong. But from what I heard, it seems that he has answered some questions of which I've been concerned.
My whole problem with the guest worker program has been that it appears very much to be an amnesty program, which could only encourage other illegal alien migration into our country in the years to come.
But I am pretty pleased with how President Bush has outlined this program. He has addressed 5 clearly outlined objectives with his plan. Overall I now think it's an excellent plan, under certain conditions.
His first objective is to secure the border. That is exactly the first thing he should do. Here is an excerpt from his speech:
Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.
At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors infrared cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings...
...[U]p to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities that duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, respond to natural disasters, and help secure our border...
...Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities. So we will increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important resource and they are part of our strategy to secure our border communities.
The only way this could be a bad plan is if the wheels of bureaucracy slow it down, as it typically does most governmental program.
If Congress doesn't attempt to "refine" it, It can work.
Bush also addressed the infamous "Catch and release" policy that has been a thorn in the side of Americans for years.
... We have expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more. We have expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we are making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions, we have ended "catch and release" for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding and legal authority, so we can end "catch and release" at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they will be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.
If the border agents can be responsible and do their jobs right, this can work.
Then he went on to explain the guest worker program more thoroughly and in more understandable terms:
Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks. And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.
Except for the part about "jobs Americans are not doing", I think that's a reasonable plan. There is no job in America that you cannot find some Americans to do.
If he can get illegals to apply to the program.
Furthermore, he addressed the problem of employers illegally hiring illegals:
Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.
I think Bush is being too kind to many of these employers. I think many of them don't give a damn if their workers are legal or not. Quite the contrary, I believe they want them because they don't have to pay them as much.
If Bush can guarantee that companies won't break the law by intentionally hiring illegals, this is a good plan.
The next part of the plan is one that I have had the most trouble comprehending. I have been under the impression that illegals would be sent to the head of the line and be given preferential treatment over those who have worked hard to enter this country legally. I believe Bush has put many of our fears to rest on this matter:
...I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law to pay their taxes to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.
If we can get illegals to cooperate with us and accept heavy penalties for breaking the law voluntarily. But look at it this way. How many felons in this country would voluntarily go to jail if they knew they would be out in X number of years? Not too many. To most of them prison is not an option, even with guarantees of eventual freedom. Same with illegals. The President expects illegals to voluntarily pay penalties? The problem here is there are no guarantees illegals will accept these terms.
Lastly, President Bush insists that immigrants learn English. That will help them to better assimilate into our culture and community. It is a good idea and one I would heartily recommend.
If the immigrants will do the work to learn it. I think many of them don't want to learn English. And why should they? Already almost every business in America offers all their services in both English and Spanish.
Overall, I think Bush's plan is a good one, but quite a bit over idealistic. Too much of it depends on the illegals cooperating with the program. I don't see that happening without very strict enforcement of already existing laws. And without the cooperation of every American and American business, as well.
But there are way too many "Ifs".
Monday, May 15, 2006
Lawsuit To Help Terrorists
"America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world." ~ Dinesh D'Souza
I really haven't been able to come up with anything interesting to comment about this morning. I went to The Drudge Report website to see if anything jumps out at me, and I went to Fox News' website, too.
Nothing that other bloggers aren't covering as well, or mostly, better than I would. If I'm going to blog about the most talked about issues in the news, I want to come up with a perspective that no one else has.
I can't see the current crop of news stories from any other perspectives than anyone else. Tug, over at Trucker Philosophy, came up with a different perspective about the big non-scandal over the collecting of phone records. I wish I'd thought of it that way first. He equates the collection of phone records with the intrusiveness of the IRS, in the collection of intimate personal data every April.
I suppose the reason he came up with that is because he pays taxes. I don't.
I did receive this e-mail from Shaun Mullen, which I found so insulting, that I almost sent him a reply suggesting he buy a Communist flag instead:
Good morning.
Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth, the telecom giants that were paid off by the National Security Agency to help it spy on Americans, face billions of dollars in damages from their customers now that the full extent of the program has been revealed.
A federal lawsuit filed in Manhattan against Verizon seeks $50 billion in civil damages on behalf of its customers, who happen to include Yours Truly, and more litigation is sure to come.
I already know what I'm going to buy when Verizon gets around to paying me and its other aggrieved customers: An American flag.
How about you?
I'm guessing that it will be a very long time before he sees any money from that lawsuit. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Judge doesn't throw it out of court. There is no law being broken here. There is no spying on Americans. It has been established conclusively that no law has been broken.
What really surprises me most is how gleeful the Bush haters are about this non-story. One would think they would want the NSA to know if terrorists are planning another attack on our country. Apparently not.
I really haven't been able to come up with anything interesting to comment about this morning. I went to The Drudge Report website to see if anything jumps out at me, and I went to Fox News' website, too.
Nothing that other bloggers aren't covering as well, or mostly, better than I would. If I'm going to blog about the most talked about issues in the news, I want to come up with a perspective that no one else has.
I can't see the current crop of news stories from any other perspectives than anyone else. Tug, over at Trucker Philosophy, came up with a different perspective about the big non-scandal over the collecting of phone records. I wish I'd thought of it that way first. He equates the collection of phone records with the intrusiveness of the IRS, in the collection of intimate personal data every April.
I suppose the reason he came up with that is because he pays taxes. I don't.
I did receive this e-mail from Shaun Mullen, which I found so insulting, that I almost sent him a reply suggesting he buy a Communist flag instead:
Good morning.
Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth, the telecom giants that were paid off by the National Security Agency to help it spy on Americans, face billions of dollars in damages from their customers now that the full extent of the program has been revealed.
A federal lawsuit filed in Manhattan against Verizon seeks $50 billion in civil damages on behalf of its customers, who happen to include Yours Truly, and more litigation is sure to come.
I already know what I'm going to buy when Verizon gets around to paying me and its other aggrieved customers: An American flag.
How about you?
I'm guessing that it will be a very long time before he sees any money from that lawsuit. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Judge doesn't throw it out of court. There is no law being broken here. There is no spying on Americans. It has been established conclusively that no law has been broken.
What really surprises me most is how gleeful the Bush haters are about this non-story. One would think they would want the NSA to know if terrorists are planning another attack on our country. Apparently not.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Happy Mother's Day!
"My mother had a great deal of trouble with me, but I think she enjoyed it." ~ Mark Twain
What can I say about my mother? She lives 1200 miles away from me and I never get to see her anymore. I miss her.
My mother at her 85th birthday party, last August.
My mother is stronger than most women, I believe. She is rather unemotional in comparison to most women. I remember when I was a kid, I used to go to her to ask for things I wanted because I was sure that she be more of a pushover than dad. It wasn't till I was an adult and a father in my own right that I realized that my father was the soft touch. My mother was hard as nails, but somehow managed to fool me into thinking she was easier to con than dad. Hooray for her! She is a genius.
Literally.
She saved my dad from making many wrong decisions out of compassion for his children, God only knows how often. I remember many times stopping her as she walked through the house and giving her a warm hug because I loved her so much.
Once she caught me hitting a girl, and I don't remember what she said but I know I never ever hit a woman again and never will. She taught me integrity and to be honest and helped me find Christ simply by being Christlike.
She told me one time that women, as a rule wouldn't make good bosses because they were too emotional, and yet she would have made an excellent boss in her office and was disappointed more often than she would admit to, when she was passed over for promotion.
I regret that I didn't do a very good job of saving those special memories that most people have regarding their mother.
My dad died on a Monday morning in my mother's arms, but 2 days later she entered through her churches doors as she always did whenever the church was open, the same way she always did, with a warm smile, greeting everyone with a true Christian love.
Dad was the only man my mother had ever dated, and they were married for 52 years. And she loved him with a love I know I have never experienced. The evening of his memorial service, left alone in her now empty bedroom, mom lifted her eyes toward heaven because she knows that is where he is, and said, "well, Dad, are we having fun yet?"
I don't know what that means to you but I know what it means to me.
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY, MOM.
And now, a word about my own children's mothers:
Even in my first wife's delusions, her children were very important to her. And still are. Once, I took the kids to the park without her, and we stopped to watch a softball game in progress. My wife's paranoia overwhelmed her, (perhaps it was the voices)and she literally ran all the way to the park looking for children, under the delusion that I had kidnapped them for some nefarious purpose. It would have been embarrassing to me had it not been such a common ocdcurence in our lives. But the point is, She loves her children.
My second wife spoiled her children. There was not a thing they could do that she felt warranted punishment. She said she couldn't punish them because she loved them. I don't know. All I know is somewhere along the line she changed. Eventually, she had her older son arrested, and then moved away, leaving no forwarding address and no phone number where she could be reached. To this day, she doesn't know whether her own son is alive or dead. And apparently doesn't care. I don't think she is aware that her oldest son, the one she literally had to have surgery to even give birth to, was shot last summer, and nearly paralyzed for life.
She also gave her younger son up to me, voluntarily. Last summer, during his court ordered vist to her, her new boyfriend physically threatened my son while she looked on seemingly not caring. They sent him back home before he was scheduled, and that's the last we have heard from her and her new boyfriend. After that, they disappeared.
We have heard nothing from her since. Apparently they have moved, and again left no forwarding address or phone number.
I have to believe that she either has gone insane or her boyfriend is a control freak who simply will not let her be involved in her childrens lives. I hate to hope she is involved with a control freak but I do.
Anyway, for all you mothers out there:
Happy Mothers Day!
What can I say about my mother? She lives 1200 miles away from me and I never get to see her anymore. I miss her.
My mother at her 85th birthday party, last August.My mother is stronger than most women, I believe. She is rather unemotional in comparison to most women. I remember when I was a kid, I used to go to her to ask for things I wanted because I was sure that she be more of a pushover than dad. It wasn't till I was an adult and a father in my own right that I realized that my father was the soft touch. My mother was hard as nails, but somehow managed to fool me into thinking she was easier to con than dad. Hooray for her! She is a genius.
Literally.
She saved my dad from making many wrong decisions out of compassion for his children, God only knows how often. I remember many times stopping her as she walked through the house and giving her a warm hug because I loved her so much.
Once she caught me hitting a girl, and I don't remember what she said but I know I never ever hit a woman again and never will. She taught me integrity and to be honest and helped me find Christ simply by being Christlike.
She told me one time that women, as a rule wouldn't make good bosses because they were too emotional, and yet she would have made an excellent boss in her office and was disappointed more often than she would admit to, when she was passed over for promotion.
I regret that I didn't do a very good job of saving those special memories that most people have regarding their mother.
My dad died on a Monday morning in my mother's arms, but 2 days later she entered through her churches doors as she always did whenever the church was open, the same way she always did, with a warm smile, greeting everyone with a true Christian love.
Dad was the only man my mother had ever dated, and they were married for 52 years. And she loved him with a love I know I have never experienced. The evening of his memorial service, left alone in her now empty bedroom, mom lifted her eyes toward heaven because she knows that is where he is, and said, "well, Dad, are we having fun yet?"
I don't know what that means to you but I know what it means to me.
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY, MOM.
And now, a word about my own children's mothers:
Even in my first wife's delusions, her children were very important to her. And still are. Once, I took the kids to the park without her, and we stopped to watch a softball game in progress. My wife's paranoia overwhelmed her, (perhaps it was the voices)and she literally ran all the way to the park looking for children, under the delusion that I had kidnapped them for some nefarious purpose. It would have been embarrassing to me had it not been such a common ocdcurence in our lives. But the point is, She loves her children.
My second wife spoiled her children. There was not a thing they could do that she felt warranted punishment. She said she couldn't punish them because she loved them. I don't know. All I know is somewhere along the line she changed. Eventually, she had her older son arrested, and then moved away, leaving no forwarding address and no phone number where she could be reached. To this day, she doesn't know whether her own son is alive or dead. And apparently doesn't care. I don't think she is aware that her oldest son, the one she literally had to have surgery to even give birth to, was shot last summer, and nearly paralyzed for life.
She also gave her younger son up to me, voluntarily. Last summer, during his court ordered vist to her, her new boyfriend physically threatened my son while she looked on seemingly not caring. They sent him back home before he was scheduled, and that's the last we have heard from her and her new boyfriend. After that, they disappeared.
We have heard nothing from her since. Apparently they have moved, and again left no forwarding address or phone number.
I have to believe that she either has gone insane or her boyfriend is a control freak who simply will not let her be involved in her childrens lives. I hate to hope she is involved with a control freak but I do.
Anyway, for all you mothers out there:
Happy Mothers Day!
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Two Letters
"Human beings are the only creatures that allow their children to come back home." ~ Bill Cosby
I received two letters in the mail this morning. They are both from my stepson. Officially, he is my son because I legally adopted him when he was 3 years old.
Some of my readers may remember that he has led a troubled life. He has been in and out of jail since he was 12. He is now 22. He was involved with the gangs in Kansas City, Ks, and was addicted to drugs and alcohol, burglary, and Grand Theft: Auto. Last summer, he narrowly escaped death or at least, permanent disability when he was shot in the back during commission of a drive by shooting in Kansas City, Kansas. Two teenage girls were killed in the attack and 9 other people were wounded, one of them, my son.
Recently, I received a phone call from him. He told me he was living in a Christian Home for men called Jacobs Ladder. He said he is turning his life around and asked me to pray for him. I received this news with skepticism.
He has told us these things before.
I am publishing the content of the two letters I received from him this morning here. The first was written to his younger brother, the same son who lives with me:
Johnnie,
Hey Bro. What's up? I'm cool, just trying to change my life around. I miss you a lot, man. Sorry for being such a jerk all the time. I hope you know that I love you. You're my only brother and before you came along I was a lonely little kid. Then the day that mom had you I planned on being your best friend...
So how are ya doing? I heard your friend passed away. Tomorrow is not a guarantee. When I got shot this girl died right in front of me. Nobody could do nothing for her. That's just the way it is...messed up.
I hope you will write me back someday, tell me what's going on with you. Don't feel wierd. I should have wrote you before but I was all jacked up and loaded all the time. Sorry, Bro.
Love, Mike
This one was written to me:
Dad,
Hey, what's up? Wish we could have talked some more the other day. I don't get much of a chance to talk to anyone really. All my old hang out spots and playground buddies are all long gone. It's all good, though.
So, you think it's funny I speak in tongues, huh? Well, to each his own, I guess.But the Bible actually does have scriptures encouraging us to do that. I dunno, sometimes I feel like this all isn't right. But I can't discern whether it's the enemy or me. I'm going through...and a renewing process is starting to transform my mind.
Cigarettes stink! Whew, man, I can smell people who smoke now and it grosses me out. I should have listened to you a long time ago but to be honest I still battle with a rebellious spirit.
I'll just try and "stay the course" like you told me to and keep my faith in God and things should get better. I tend to blame others for everything I'm doing wrong but God's dealing with me.
Today, I was giving a Bible study to the men in the home, because the director thinks that I'm called to be a preacher. But I'm not worried about what he says I'm called to do, only what God calls me to do.
But anyway, this one guy wanted to argue with me about scripture and it was so obvious what was going on. Because even when I told him, "Ok you're right! Let's just move on to the next passage instead of wasting time arguing." he still kept going and going then everyone else started saying I had an attitude problem, al kinds of stuff. I never realized how racist things are in the world.
I like being humble, though. I'm not a tough guy. Really, I think God is preparing me for something. Maybe He wants to give me a family of my own.
Will you please pray for me? Thanks for the Lord using us all. Dad, you're a major blessing to my life, whether you were hard on me or not. What you imparted into my life will reach others lives and last forever. Amen in Jesus' name.
Love, Mike.
Well, after reading this, with difficulty, because of the tears that dim my eyes, I can see that although my son has come a long way, and still has much further to go, I am at last convinced that he is finally headed in the right direction.
I received two letters in the mail this morning. They are both from my stepson. Officially, he is my son because I legally adopted him when he was 3 years old.
Some of my readers may remember that he has led a troubled life. He has been in and out of jail since he was 12. He is now 22. He was involved with the gangs in Kansas City, Ks, and was addicted to drugs and alcohol, burglary, and Grand Theft: Auto. Last summer, he narrowly escaped death or at least, permanent disability when he was shot in the back during commission of a drive by shooting in Kansas City, Kansas. Two teenage girls were killed in the attack and 9 other people were wounded, one of them, my son.
Recently, I received a phone call from him. He told me he was living in a Christian Home for men called Jacobs Ladder. He said he is turning his life around and asked me to pray for him. I received this news with skepticism.
He has told us these things before.
I am publishing the content of the two letters I received from him this morning here. The first was written to his younger brother, the same son who lives with me:
Johnnie,
Hey Bro. What's up? I'm cool, just trying to change my life around. I miss you a lot, man. Sorry for being such a jerk all the time. I hope you know that I love you. You're my only brother and before you came along I was a lonely little kid. Then the day that mom had you I planned on being your best friend...
So how are ya doing? I heard your friend passed away. Tomorrow is not a guarantee. When I got shot this girl died right in front of me. Nobody could do nothing for her. That's just the way it is...messed up.
I hope you will write me back someday, tell me what's going on with you. Don't feel wierd. I should have wrote you before but I was all jacked up and loaded all the time. Sorry, Bro.
Love, Mike
This one was written to me:
Dad,
Hey, what's up? Wish we could have talked some more the other day. I don't get much of a chance to talk to anyone really. All my old hang out spots and playground buddies are all long gone. It's all good, though.
So, you think it's funny I speak in tongues, huh? Well, to each his own, I guess.But the Bible actually does have scriptures encouraging us to do that. I dunno, sometimes I feel like this all isn't right. But I can't discern whether it's the enemy or me. I'm going through...and a renewing process is starting to transform my mind.
Cigarettes stink! Whew, man, I can smell people who smoke now and it grosses me out. I should have listened to you a long time ago but to be honest I still battle with a rebellious spirit.
I'll just try and "stay the course" like you told me to and keep my faith in God and things should get better. I tend to blame others for everything I'm doing wrong but God's dealing with me.
Today, I was giving a Bible study to the men in the home, because the director thinks that I'm called to be a preacher. But I'm not worried about what he says I'm called to do, only what God calls me to do.
But anyway, this one guy wanted to argue with me about scripture and it was so obvious what was going on. Because even when I told him, "Ok you're right! Let's just move on to the next passage instead of wasting time arguing." he still kept going and going then everyone else started saying I had an attitude problem, al kinds of stuff. I never realized how racist things are in the world.
I like being humble, though. I'm not a tough guy. Really, I think God is preparing me for something. Maybe He wants to give me a family of my own.
Will you please pray for me? Thanks for the Lord using us all. Dad, you're a major blessing to my life, whether you were hard on me or not. What you imparted into my life will reach others lives and last forever. Amen in Jesus' name.
Love, Mike.
Well, after reading this, with difficulty, because of the tears that dim my eyes, I can see that although my son has come a long way, and still has much further to go, I am at last convinced that he is finally headed in the right direction.
Friday, May 12, 2006
The Latest Non-Issue
"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." ~ Henry Kissinger
I realize that I'm pretty much a novice at political commentary. Some might object to that characterization, but I really have only been blogging for about a year. So I must admit that I find it incredible that there are some that have been doing it for decades and seemingly aren't sick of the constant asinine hypocritical shenanigans yet.
Well, I am.
And yes, I know politics has been a dirty business since the word "politics" was coined. Probably before.
Do you wonder why I haven't been blogging much lately? Part of the reason is what I stated in previous posts. I don't seem to have as much time as I did. But a significant part of it is because most of what is worthy of commentary is no longer interesting to me. Perhaps that will change, but as of this moment, I am just sick of the idiocy.
The very latest "idiocy" now is this ridiculous non-issue about President Bush authorizing the collecting of phone records.
This isn't anything that previous presidents haven't done, including the Damnocrats poster boy, Bill Clinton. Including Jimmy Carter. This isn't wire tapping. It's not even surveillance. It's simply collecting existing phone records. Nothing that the phone companies aren't already doing, as a regular, ordinary, everyday part of the business.
In my opinion even raising this as an issue goes far beyond idiocy and borders on the insane. How would the Damnocrats protect National security if we don't lift a finger to apprise ourselves of who is talking to whom about what? What exactly would the Damnocrats do to protect National security?
One would think, the way they and their cohorts in the National media are acting, that if we go find bin Laden, the whole terrorism problem will just go away.
Listen:
You're not going to protect national security alone by going to Afghanistan or Pakistan and finding bin Laden. You're not going to do that at all. We didn't connect the dots before the 9/11 attacks. We could have been hunting down bin Laden all over the world and might not have prevented the 9/11 attacks because we weren't able to connect the dots.
We have the Patriot Act which allowed us to connect the dots after the fact and now we got a president who's connecting the dots accused of spying and everybody concerned about civil liberties. You know, Damnocrats and Liberals, with their damnable quest for civil liberties, are trying to make it impossible for President Bush to protect the citizens of this great country.
I'm very sensitive to that. This is about saving lives. Your life is worthless if you're dead. You don't have a civil liberty to do anything. You can't protest, you can't bomb a building. You can't go protest the environment because you're dead.
You can't do anything.
The Damnocrats seem to want civil liberties to become worthless. This is all about protecting lives. And their priorities are wrong. All of their priorities are wrong.
National security is paramount.
Why don't these lunatic Liberals understand?
I realize that I'm pretty much a novice at political commentary. Some might object to that characterization, but I really have only been blogging for about a year. So I must admit that I find it incredible that there are some that have been doing it for decades and seemingly aren't sick of the constant asinine hypocritical shenanigans yet.
Well, I am.
And yes, I know politics has been a dirty business since the word "politics" was coined. Probably before.
Do you wonder why I haven't been blogging much lately? Part of the reason is what I stated in previous posts. I don't seem to have as much time as I did. But a significant part of it is because most of what is worthy of commentary is no longer interesting to me. Perhaps that will change, but as of this moment, I am just sick of the idiocy.
The very latest "idiocy" now is this ridiculous non-issue about President Bush authorizing the collecting of phone records.
This isn't anything that previous presidents haven't done, including the Damnocrats poster boy, Bill Clinton. Including Jimmy Carter. This isn't wire tapping. It's not even surveillance. It's simply collecting existing phone records. Nothing that the phone companies aren't already doing, as a regular, ordinary, everyday part of the business.
In my opinion even raising this as an issue goes far beyond idiocy and borders on the insane. How would the Damnocrats protect National security if we don't lift a finger to apprise ourselves of who is talking to whom about what? What exactly would the Damnocrats do to protect National security?
One would think, the way they and their cohorts in the National media are acting, that if we go find bin Laden, the whole terrorism problem will just go away.
Listen:
You're not going to protect national security alone by going to Afghanistan or Pakistan and finding bin Laden. You're not going to do that at all. We didn't connect the dots before the 9/11 attacks. We could have been hunting down bin Laden all over the world and might not have prevented the 9/11 attacks because we weren't able to connect the dots.
We have the Patriot Act which allowed us to connect the dots after the fact and now we got a president who's connecting the dots accused of spying and everybody concerned about civil liberties. You know, Damnocrats and Liberals, with their damnable quest for civil liberties, are trying to make it impossible for President Bush to protect the citizens of this great country.
I'm very sensitive to that. This is about saving lives. Your life is worthless if you're dead. You don't have a civil liberty to do anything. You can't protest, you can't bomb a building. You can't go protest the environment because you're dead.
You can't do anything.
The Damnocrats seem to want civil liberties to become worthless. This is all about protecting lives. And their priorities are wrong. All of their priorities are wrong.
National security is paramount.
Why don't these lunatic Liberals understand?
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
When Courtesy Is A Bad Thing
"Yet do I fear thy nature;
It is too full o' the milk of human kindness." ~ William Shakespeare
OK. I'm going to try again. Yesterday, blogger wouldn't let me post anything. I could not scroll down to the "Publish Post" button. Everything I tried was fruitless, and I eventually ended up accidentally wiping out the entire post. I no longer have a long lunch period that allows me to work on the blog at lunch time. In fact, I no longer get to come home at lunch at all. Last night, when I returned home from work, it was already after 9 PM, and I didn't see much point in posting an entry that late in the day.
That should be a adequate explanation for Tug.
It seems that the number of traffic jams increase in direct proportion to the warmer weather. Yes, the increasing amount of road construction contributes to the problem, but there are other causes of traffic jams with are completely needless, and that is my subject for today.
Being a "professional" driver, I have had many opportunities to observe behaviors that contribute to this problem, which most people consider to be time wasting and a source of great frustration during what should be a pleasurable experience. That is, taking a drive on a nice warm springtime day.
While there are plenty of legitimate causes of traffic jams, such as accidents blocking lanes of traffic, and construction blocking lanes and sometimes whole roads, there are those causes that could be avoided by simply following traffic laws.
The first is tailgating. Here is how tailgating causes traffic jams:
In moderately heavy traffic, a driver impatiently parks his vehicle upon the back bumper of the car ahead of him. Almost. As the traffic moves, the offending driver, who probably is doing it because he is in a hurry and is attempting to encourage the driver ahead of him to speed up, has to touch his brakes, if only for an instant occasionally as knows he is too close to the vehicle in front of him to be able to stop if that driver brakes. When he touches his brake pedal, the driver immediately behind him also touches his brakes in anticipation of the driver in front of him slowing down suddenly. Only this driver touches his brakes for a split second longer. And the driver behind him does likewise. Each following driver has to hit his brakes, and everyone leaves his foot on the pedal for a split second longer than the driver in front of him.
Eventually, far down the road, the traffic is stopped completely. All ironically, because one driver wants to go faster. He inadvertently caused traffic to move slower.
Recently, I have observed another behavior that creates this phenomena. Incredibly, this behavior is driver courtesy.
Courtesy.
I have found myself in traffic jams recently, wondering what has caused this, only to find when I reach the end of the stoppage, that there is seemingly no reason for it at all. Then I see why. As drivers prepare to merge into a moderately heavy line of traffic on a highway off of a side road, and on a freeway entrance ramp, many of them attempt to merge at too slow a speed. Consequently they end up having to stop dead on the entrance ramp and wait for traffic to clear enough that they can proceed safely. Of course, the slower they approach, the more room they need between passing cars to facilitate the entry.
This in itself does not cause traffic jams. It is the drivers already on the freeway that do that. They will slow down to allow the car attempting to merge into the traffic flow. Therein lies the cause of this kind of traffic jam. He slows, and the driver behind him has to slow down. And the driver behind him. And so on.
Now, this kind of traffic stoppage could easily be avoided by all drivers simply following traffic laws. An acceleration ramp is called an acceleration ramp because the driver is expected to accelerate in order to smoothly assimilate into already moving traffic. He should do that.
Additionally, the drivers on the freeway should never slow down to allow people who don't understand the "merge" concept to enter the traffic flow. Even if they are being courteous.
Because, ultimately, the act of being courteous leads to needless traffic jams.
That, of course, is not the only way courteous drivers have thoughtlessly impeded the flow of traffic, but it's the most common way.
That's all I have for today. Perhaps my readers can come up with other examples of when courtesy is a bad thing. Feel free to contribute.
Recently I mentioned that I was going to have to get a copy machine for my independent contracting business because the company I contract for closed our local office and consequently, took away, among other things, our copy machine. Tech suggested I get a copy machine that uses toner so I wouldn't have to spend monies necessary to keep myself in printer ink and cartridges.
But I don't have the money for one of those. So, I ended up paying about $80.00 for a Hewlitt Packard printer/scanner/copier. I found one that requires printer ink cartridges, but I did the needed research to find a relatively cheap one that uses the absolute cheapest ink cartridges I could find, so hopefully, it won't be too costly to replace them.
My son, ever resourceful, decided to experiment with all aspects of the device, and utilized every function, (scanner, copier, and printer) to create this rather eerie picture of himself:
He printed it out, and copied it as well. We have more than one hard copy of this picture. No doubt I will have to replace the cartridges sooner than I originally anticipated.
It is too full o' the milk of human kindness." ~ William Shakespeare
OK. I'm going to try again. Yesterday, blogger wouldn't let me post anything. I could not scroll down to the "Publish Post" button. Everything I tried was fruitless, and I eventually ended up accidentally wiping out the entire post. I no longer have a long lunch period that allows me to work on the blog at lunch time. In fact, I no longer get to come home at lunch at all. Last night, when I returned home from work, it was already after 9 PM, and I didn't see much point in posting an entry that late in the day.
That should be a adequate explanation for Tug.
It seems that the number of traffic jams increase in direct proportion to the warmer weather. Yes, the increasing amount of road construction contributes to the problem, but there are other causes of traffic jams with are completely needless, and that is my subject for today.
Being a "professional" driver, I have had many opportunities to observe behaviors that contribute to this problem, which most people consider to be time wasting and a source of great frustration during what should be a pleasurable experience. That is, taking a drive on a nice warm springtime day.
While there are plenty of legitimate causes of traffic jams, such as accidents blocking lanes of traffic, and construction blocking lanes and sometimes whole roads, there are those causes that could be avoided by simply following traffic laws.
The first is tailgating. Here is how tailgating causes traffic jams:
In moderately heavy traffic, a driver impatiently parks his vehicle upon the back bumper of the car ahead of him. Almost. As the traffic moves, the offending driver, who probably is doing it because he is in a hurry and is attempting to encourage the driver ahead of him to speed up, has to touch his brakes, if only for an instant occasionally as knows he is too close to the vehicle in front of him to be able to stop if that driver brakes. When he touches his brake pedal, the driver immediately behind him also touches his brakes in anticipation of the driver in front of him slowing down suddenly. Only this driver touches his brakes for a split second longer. And the driver behind him does likewise. Each following driver has to hit his brakes, and everyone leaves his foot on the pedal for a split second longer than the driver in front of him.
Eventually, far down the road, the traffic is stopped completely. All ironically, because one driver wants to go faster. He inadvertently caused traffic to move slower.
Recently, I have observed another behavior that creates this phenomena. Incredibly, this behavior is driver courtesy.
Courtesy.
I have found myself in traffic jams recently, wondering what has caused this, only to find when I reach the end of the stoppage, that there is seemingly no reason for it at all. Then I see why. As drivers prepare to merge into a moderately heavy line of traffic on a highway off of a side road, and on a freeway entrance ramp, many of them attempt to merge at too slow a speed. Consequently they end up having to stop dead on the entrance ramp and wait for traffic to clear enough that they can proceed safely. Of course, the slower they approach, the more room they need between passing cars to facilitate the entry.
This in itself does not cause traffic jams. It is the drivers already on the freeway that do that. They will slow down to allow the car attempting to merge into the traffic flow. Therein lies the cause of this kind of traffic jam. He slows, and the driver behind him has to slow down. And the driver behind him. And so on.
Now, this kind of traffic stoppage could easily be avoided by all drivers simply following traffic laws. An acceleration ramp is called an acceleration ramp because the driver is expected to accelerate in order to smoothly assimilate into already moving traffic. He should do that.
Additionally, the drivers on the freeway should never slow down to allow people who don't understand the "merge" concept to enter the traffic flow. Even if they are being courteous.
Because, ultimately, the act of being courteous leads to needless traffic jams.
That, of course, is not the only way courteous drivers have thoughtlessly impeded the flow of traffic, but it's the most common way.
That's all I have for today. Perhaps my readers can come up with other examples of when courtesy is a bad thing. Feel free to contribute.
Recently I mentioned that I was going to have to get a copy machine for my independent contracting business because the company I contract for closed our local office and consequently, took away, among other things, our copy machine. Tech suggested I get a copy machine that uses toner so I wouldn't have to spend monies necessary to keep myself in printer ink and cartridges.
But I don't have the money for one of those. So, I ended up paying about $80.00 for a Hewlitt Packard printer/scanner/copier. I found one that requires printer ink cartridges, but I did the needed research to find a relatively cheap one that uses the absolute cheapest ink cartridges I could find, so hopefully, it won't be too costly to replace them.
My son, ever resourceful, decided to experiment with all aspects of the device, and utilized every function, (scanner, copier, and printer) to create this rather eerie picture of himself:
He printed it out, and copied it as well. We have more than one hard copy of this picture. No doubt I will have to replace the cartridges sooner than I originally anticipated.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
New Look
"Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better." ~ King Whitney Jr.
I have a new look. After debating whether I should do this for some time, my new girlfriend convinced me it would be a better look for me. Here are some before and after pictures. Let me know what you think.
Before:
After:
How about the new look with glasses?
Yes, that's right. I shaved my head! I have mentioned before that I am resistant to change and this, believe it or not, is a huge change for me. One of which I chose to make myself, albeit with one outside influence.
Personally, I like it. What do you think?
I have a new look. After debating whether I should do this for some time, my new girlfriend convinced me it would be a better look for me. Here are some before and after pictures. Let me know what you think.
Before:
After:
How about the new look with glasses?
Yes, that's right. I shaved my head! I have mentioned before that I am resistant to change and this, believe it or not, is a huge change for me. One of which I chose to make myself, albeit with one outside influence.
Personally, I like it. What do you think?
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Salvaging The Presidency
"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." ~ Will Rogers
I received this e-mail this week from my ultra Liberal acquaintance Kiko:
With 1,000 days left, how can George Bush salvage his presidency?
Go to Kiko's House at . . .
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com
. . . and share your thoughts by clicking on the "Comment" button beneath The Return of the King article. Comments from Anonymice(sp) are welcome.
Salvage his Presidency? As if it is in danger. It boggles my mind that the Liberals still want us to believe that Bush is a bad President.
They have yet to offer any proof of that assertion. They have yet to make it clear exactly what about Bush makes him such an object of their hatred.
Oh, I know what they say. The problem is, what they say doesn't hold water.
There are some things that I disagree with about Bush. No one will ever do exactly what I want them to do as President. But those things don't amount to anything resembling high crimes and misdemeanors specified under any article of impeachment.
They are simply disagreements. All Presidents have opposition.
What must he do to salvage his Presidency?
How about you anti-Bush, anti- American, anti-everything, bleeding heart, sob sister, Communist sympathizing, Liberal leftists try supporting him instead of grasping at any straw that you hope will bring him down?
Your hatred of Bush grows increasingly tiresome and ineffectual with every passing minute. Stop wasting all your energy on trying to get even with the Republicans for beating you in 2000 and 2004, and try offering something positive that will improve the American way of life. You want to win in 2008? Do something to prove you can do better!
Anything!
Start with this stupid amnesty for illegal aliens program. What would you do differently? Would you do anything differently? I'll let you in on a little secret:
The party that can fix the illegal alien problem is the party that wins the 2008 elections.
Bank on it.
Then, for God's sake, please try to come up with viable solutions to all the other problems that are detrimental to America. You say you have a plan. Where is it? You say you can do better. Show us how!
You Democrats won't. Because you can't. You can't do better than what Bush is doing because you have been so busy trying to bring this administration down that you haven't had time to come up with a better plan. If one exists.
Salvage Bush's Presidency?
He doesn't have to do anything to salvage his Presidency. By constantly trying to undermine him, you Democrats are insuring he will go down in history as one of the best Presidents.
You are your own worst enemy and you don't even know it.
By the way, do you know what this is?
I know it's hard to tell what it is. The resolution is poor, but it is my voter registration card. If you can't read it, I will tell you what it says.
It says I am a registered Republican!
I recently changed from an independent to a Republican and I have Democrats like Toad, Bruiser, Kevron, and, to a certain extent, ER, to thank for it.
So thanks, guys. Your hatred and vitriole created another Republican.
I received this e-mail this week from my ultra Liberal acquaintance Kiko:
With 1,000 days left, how can George Bush salvage his presidency?
Go to Kiko's House at . . .
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com
. . . and share your thoughts by clicking on the "Comment" button beneath The Return of the King article. Comments from Anonymice(sp) are welcome.
Salvage his Presidency? As if it is in danger. It boggles my mind that the Liberals still want us to believe that Bush is a bad President.
They have yet to offer any proof of that assertion. They have yet to make it clear exactly what about Bush makes him such an object of their hatred.
Oh, I know what they say. The problem is, what they say doesn't hold water.
There are some things that I disagree with about Bush. No one will ever do exactly what I want them to do as President. But those things don't amount to anything resembling high crimes and misdemeanors specified under any article of impeachment.
They are simply disagreements. All Presidents have opposition.
What must he do to salvage his Presidency?
How about you anti-Bush, anti- American, anti-everything, bleeding heart, sob sister, Communist sympathizing, Liberal leftists try supporting him instead of grasping at any straw that you hope will bring him down?
Your hatred of Bush grows increasingly tiresome and ineffectual with every passing minute. Stop wasting all your energy on trying to get even with the Republicans for beating you in 2000 and 2004, and try offering something positive that will improve the American way of life. You want to win in 2008? Do something to prove you can do better!
Anything!
Start with this stupid amnesty for illegal aliens program. What would you do differently? Would you do anything differently? I'll let you in on a little secret:
The party that can fix the illegal alien problem is the party that wins the 2008 elections.
Bank on it.
Then, for God's sake, please try to come up with viable solutions to all the other problems that are detrimental to America. You say you have a plan. Where is it? You say you can do better. Show us how!
You Democrats won't. Because you can't. You can't do better than what Bush is doing because you have been so busy trying to bring this administration down that you haven't had time to come up with a better plan. If one exists.
Salvage Bush's Presidency?
He doesn't have to do anything to salvage his Presidency. By constantly trying to undermine him, you Democrats are insuring he will go down in history as one of the best Presidents.
You are your own worst enemy and you don't even know it.
By the way, do you know what this is?
I know it's hard to tell what it is. The resolution is poor, but it is my voter registration card. If you can't read it, I will tell you what it says.
It says I am a registered Republican!
I recently changed from an independent to a Republican and I have Democrats like Toad, Bruiser, Kevron, and, to a certain extent, ER, to thank for it.
So thanks, guys. Your hatred and vitriole created another Republican.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Another Corrupt Kennedy
"At no time before the incident did I consume any alcohol." -Patrick Kennedy
The first line in Laura Ingraham's book, "Shut Up and Sing!" reads, "They think we're stupid." What she is referring to is the Liberal elite's presumptuous (and wrong) opinion that we Americans are too stupid to recognize when we are being lied to, manipulated, and bamboozled.
And now, the Liberal leftists are attempting to fool us again, this time involving (again) the infamous Kennedy family. Look at this story from the AP:
WASHINGTON (May 5) - Rep. Patrick Kennedy was cited for three traffic violations after his early morning car crash near the Capitol, according to a police report.
The report by a U.S. Capitol Police officer said Kennedy, D-R.I., drove his green 1997 Ford Mustang convertible into a security barrier near the Capitol shortly before 3 a.m. Thursday, and that Kennedy had red, watery eyes, slurred speech and unsteady balance.
Kennedy said in a statement he had taken a sleeping pill and another drug that can cause drowsiness, but had not been drinking alcohol before the accident.
Kennedy, 38, told the police officer he was "headed to the Capitol to make a vote," the report said. He was charged with failure to keep in proper lane, traveling at "unreasonable speed" and failing to "give full time and attention" to operating his vehicle.
Kennedy spokeswoman Robin Costello acknowledged that the police report was filed, but said "we have no knowledge of any citations." Kennedy aides received the accident report Friday morning at his congressional office, said Costello, who is Kennedy's spokeswoman in Rhode Island.
Capitol Police had no comment Friday beyond a statement posted on their Web site, said spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. That statement said, "The United States Capitol Police are continuing to investigate."
Kennedy -- the son of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and nephew of the late President Kennedy -- was first elected to Congress in 1994.
He planned to return to Rhode Island on Friday in hopes of defusing the controversy surrounding the Thursday morning crash, including allegations he got special treatment from police who did not administer field sobriety tests. Kennedy has denied asking for any favorable police treatment.
In a statement released Thursday night, Kennedy said he crashed his green Ford Mustang into a security barrier at 1st and C streets, near his Capitol Hill office, a few blocks away from the Capitol.
He said that he'd gone home Wednesday evening after work and taken "the prescribed amount" of Phenergan, a prescription anti-nausea drug that can cause drowsiness, and Ambien, a sleep medication. But he said he consumed no alcohol before the crash.
The attending physician for Congress had prescribed Phenergan to treat Kennedy's gastroenteritis, an inflammation of the stomach and intestines. According to the drug's label, Phenergan can increase the effects of sleep medicines such as Ambien.
Ambien comes with a warning to patients that it can cause confusion, strange behavior and hallucinations. Also, it is to be taken only when patients have time for a full eight hours of sleep, allowing its effects to wear off, according to its Food and Drug Administration-approved label.
Louis P. Cannon, president of the Washington chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, who was not on the scene, said the congressman had appeared intoxicated when he crashed his car.
Cannon said the officers involved in the accident were instructed by an official "above the rank of patrolman" to take Kennedy home and no sobriety tests were conducted at the scene.
In his statement, Kennedy said he was apparently disoriented from the drugs when he got up a little before 3 a.m. Thursday and drove to the Capitol thinking he needed to be present for a vote.
A letter written by a Capitol Police officer to Acting Chief Christopher McGaffin said Kennedy appeared to be staggering when he left the vehicle after the crash about 3 a.m. The letter was first reported by Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper.
Kennedy reportedly told the police he was late for a vote, but the final vote of the night had taken place some six hours earlier.
It seems the apple doesn't fall far from the proverbial tree in the Kennedy orchard.
What I find interesting in this, is that it's the Democrats that call the Republicans the "culture of corruption". That, to me, is the pot calling the kettle black. This post is already too long for me to go into all the different cases of Democratic corruption. Do I need to mention Cynthia McKinney, William Jefferson, and even Ted Kennedy, and his murder of Mary Jo? There are others. Many, many others.
Another familiar tactic of the Liberal Democrats is to propogate the guilt by association myth, when it comes to denigrating perfectly honest and upstanding Republicans. One only needs to point to the recent Jack Abramoff conviction to see how the Democrats have implicated decent honest Republicans to make a connection that goes directly to the President in their vain attempts to sully President Bush, and in so doing, the entire Republican party.
"Culture of corruption", indeed.
Do the Democrats, and the Kennedys expect us to believe this crock? Why not? Americans have believe their lies for years, and with the help of their willing accomplices in the media, they will continue to get away with them.
Will the Democrats eventually admit Kennedy is lying about this? Don't bet the farm.
Will the Democratic party apologize to the American people for inflicting the blight of the Kennedy clan on us? When Hell freezes over.
Will the Democrats be do anything about the continual corruption in their midst? When pigs fly.
Are the Democrats embarrassed yet?
What do you think?
The first line in Laura Ingraham's book, "Shut Up and Sing!" reads, "They think we're stupid." What she is referring to is the Liberal elite's presumptuous (and wrong) opinion that we Americans are too stupid to recognize when we are being lied to, manipulated, and bamboozled.
And now, the Liberal leftists are attempting to fool us again, this time involving (again) the infamous Kennedy family. Look at this story from the AP:
WASHINGTON (May 5) - Rep. Patrick Kennedy was cited for three traffic violations after his early morning car crash near the Capitol, according to a police report.
The report by a U.S. Capitol Police officer said Kennedy, D-R.I., drove his green 1997 Ford Mustang convertible into a security barrier near the Capitol shortly before 3 a.m. Thursday, and that Kennedy had red, watery eyes, slurred speech and unsteady balance.
Kennedy said in a statement he had taken a sleeping pill and another drug that can cause drowsiness, but had not been drinking alcohol before the accident.
Kennedy, 38, told the police officer he was "headed to the Capitol to make a vote," the report said. He was charged with failure to keep in proper lane, traveling at "unreasonable speed" and failing to "give full time and attention" to operating his vehicle.
Kennedy spokeswoman Robin Costello acknowledged that the police report was filed, but said "we have no knowledge of any citations." Kennedy aides received the accident report Friday morning at his congressional office, said Costello, who is Kennedy's spokeswoman in Rhode Island.
Capitol Police had no comment Friday beyond a statement posted on their Web site, said spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. That statement said, "The United States Capitol Police are continuing to investigate."
Kennedy -- the son of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and nephew of the late President Kennedy -- was first elected to Congress in 1994.
He planned to return to Rhode Island on Friday in hopes of defusing the controversy surrounding the Thursday morning crash, including allegations he got special treatment from police who did not administer field sobriety tests. Kennedy has denied asking for any favorable police treatment.
In a statement released Thursday night, Kennedy said he crashed his green Ford Mustang into a security barrier at 1st and C streets, near his Capitol Hill office, a few blocks away from the Capitol.
He said that he'd gone home Wednesday evening after work and taken "the prescribed amount" of Phenergan, a prescription anti-nausea drug that can cause drowsiness, and Ambien, a sleep medication. But he said he consumed no alcohol before the crash.
The attending physician for Congress had prescribed Phenergan to treat Kennedy's gastroenteritis, an inflammation of the stomach and intestines. According to the drug's label, Phenergan can increase the effects of sleep medicines such as Ambien.
Ambien comes with a warning to patients that it can cause confusion, strange behavior and hallucinations. Also, it is to be taken only when patients have time for a full eight hours of sleep, allowing its effects to wear off, according to its Food and Drug Administration-approved label.
Louis P. Cannon, president of the Washington chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, who was not on the scene, said the congressman had appeared intoxicated when he crashed his car.
Cannon said the officers involved in the accident were instructed by an official "above the rank of patrolman" to take Kennedy home and no sobriety tests were conducted at the scene.
In his statement, Kennedy said he was apparently disoriented from the drugs when he got up a little before 3 a.m. Thursday and drove to the Capitol thinking he needed to be present for a vote.
A letter written by a Capitol Police officer to Acting Chief Christopher McGaffin said Kennedy appeared to be staggering when he left the vehicle after the crash about 3 a.m. The letter was first reported by Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper.
Kennedy reportedly told the police he was late for a vote, but the final vote of the night had taken place some six hours earlier.
It seems the apple doesn't fall far from the proverbial tree in the Kennedy orchard.
What I find interesting in this, is that it's the Democrats that call the Republicans the "culture of corruption". That, to me, is the pot calling the kettle black. This post is already too long for me to go into all the different cases of Democratic corruption. Do I need to mention Cynthia McKinney, William Jefferson, and even Ted Kennedy, and his murder of Mary Jo? There are others. Many, many others.
Another familiar tactic of the Liberal Democrats is to propogate the guilt by association myth, when it comes to denigrating perfectly honest and upstanding Republicans. One only needs to point to the recent Jack Abramoff conviction to see how the Democrats have implicated decent honest Republicans to make a connection that goes directly to the President in their vain attempts to sully President Bush, and in so doing, the entire Republican party.
"Culture of corruption", indeed.
Do the Democrats, and the Kennedys expect us to believe this crock? Why not? Americans have believe their lies for years, and with the help of their willing accomplices in the media, they will continue to get away with them.
Will the Democrats eventually admit Kennedy is lying about this? Don't bet the farm.
Will the Democratic party apologize to the American people for inflicting the blight of the Kennedy clan on us? When Hell freezes over.
Will the Democrats be do anything about the continual corruption in their midst? When pigs fly.
Are the Democrats embarrassed yet?
What do you think?
Thursday, May 04, 2006
A Travesty Of Justice
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." ~ Martin Luther King Jr.
Well, as I had suspected, admitted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui escaped the death penalty that he had earned for his complicity in the September 11, 2001 attacks on America. I knew it when it became clear that the jury wasn't going to reach a verdict in the first 15 minutes. Anytime a jury takes a long time to come to a decision, the verdict usually goes against the prosecution.
I think it was a bad decision. The animal deserves death.
Part of the reason why he shouldn't be allowed to live is that he can now talk to the other prisoners and attempt to convince them to convert to his particular perverted idea of Islam. He can create more terrorists in prison. Don't think he won't try.
It is for a similar reason that we who believe he should be executed may be able to take some comfort in the failure of the jury to execute this scum. Many of the prisoners are Americans who were just as outraged at the attacks on 9/11 as the rest of us, but unlike us, have no particular aversion to beating this devil to death.
I think it's entirely possible that he will suffer the same fate as Jeffery Dahmer and others have suffered. And I, for one would be happy to hear the news that he suffered a long, torturous, and painful death at the hands of convicted rapists and murderers, etc. In fact, that death would be more appropriate and fair than a painless lethal injection. He deserves to suffer.
And I hope he does.
There is speculation that some of the reasons he beat the reaper in this case were that he had been abused as a child, and that he didn't actually take part in the attacks, physically. That is Liberal anti-death penalty BS.
But the most ridiculous reason they have brought up is that they don't want him to become a martyr for bin Laden and al Qaida to rally behind. What a crock. As Mark Levin says, "A dead Martyr is better than a live one". I agree.
Personally, I think maybe it is a good thing that he will live at least a little while longer. It will delay the inevitable time when he at last meets his just desserts. And when he finally does, and finds that his 72 virgins are instead 72 demons who will inflict unimaginable pain on him for eternity, I draw some comfort.
Through out the entire trial Moussaoui continually made disrespectful comments about America and about the victims of the attacks. He derided the prosecutor and the Judge. He plainly deserved the death penalty.
I think this travesty of justice can best be summed up in the words of the condemned man himself. As he was led from the courtroom he flashed the victory sign, smiled and said, "America, you lost."
Sadly, he's right.
Update: Not really an update. I've just been thinking. Maybe the jury did do the right thing. The terrorists believe it is Allah's will if they die, for their cause. If Moussaoui spend the next 50 years alone in a lonely prison cell for 23 hours a day, he won't die, and won't serve Allah. Perhaps this is the message we should send to the terrorists. Will they really want to risk life in prison, unable to serve Allah if they fail in their suicide missions? Maybe they will just consider that is too great a sacrifice.
To not sacrifice at all. Perhaps that is the greater deterrent.
Well, as I had suspected, admitted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui escaped the death penalty that he had earned for his complicity in the September 11, 2001 attacks on America. I knew it when it became clear that the jury wasn't going to reach a verdict in the first 15 minutes. Anytime a jury takes a long time to come to a decision, the verdict usually goes against the prosecution.
I think it was a bad decision. The animal deserves death.
Part of the reason why he shouldn't be allowed to live is that he can now talk to the other prisoners and attempt to convince them to convert to his particular perverted idea of Islam. He can create more terrorists in prison. Don't think he won't try.
It is for a similar reason that we who believe he should be executed may be able to take some comfort in the failure of the jury to execute this scum. Many of the prisoners are Americans who were just as outraged at the attacks on 9/11 as the rest of us, but unlike us, have no particular aversion to beating this devil to death.
I think it's entirely possible that he will suffer the same fate as Jeffery Dahmer and others have suffered. And I, for one would be happy to hear the news that he suffered a long, torturous, and painful death at the hands of convicted rapists and murderers, etc. In fact, that death would be more appropriate and fair than a painless lethal injection. He deserves to suffer.
And I hope he does.
There is speculation that some of the reasons he beat the reaper in this case were that he had been abused as a child, and that he didn't actually take part in the attacks, physically. That is Liberal anti-death penalty BS.
But the most ridiculous reason they have brought up is that they don't want him to become a martyr for bin Laden and al Qaida to rally behind. What a crock. As Mark Levin says, "A dead Martyr is better than a live one". I agree.
Personally, I think maybe it is a good thing that he will live at least a little while longer. It will delay the inevitable time when he at last meets his just desserts. And when he finally does, and finds that his 72 virgins are instead 72 demons who will inflict unimaginable pain on him for eternity, I draw some comfort.
Through out the entire trial Moussaoui continually made disrespectful comments about America and about the victims of the attacks. He derided the prosecutor and the Judge. He plainly deserved the death penalty.
I think this travesty of justice can best be summed up in the words of the condemned man himself. As he was led from the courtroom he flashed the victory sign, smiled and said, "America, you lost."
Sadly, he's right.
Update: Not really an update. I've just been thinking. Maybe the jury did do the right thing. The terrorists believe it is Allah's will if they die, for their cause. If Moussaoui spend the next 50 years alone in a lonely prison cell for 23 hours a day, he won't die, and won't serve Allah. Perhaps this is the message we should send to the terrorists. Will they really want to risk life in prison, unable to serve Allah if they fail in their suicide missions? Maybe they will just consider that is too great a sacrifice.
To not sacrifice at all. Perhaps that is the greater deterrent.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Changes
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." ~ Douglas Adams
I mentioned the changes happening at the company I am contracting for on a previous post. These changes are both inconvenient and infuriating.
To begin with, as I mentioned before, my dispatcher was laid off. She was a very good dispatcher. Much better than I thought apparently. Losing her is more unsettling than I would have anticipated. Before, when I came into work in the mornings, she would have my bags laid out, in order, with the paperwork already filled out except for times of pick up and delivery, lying on top of them.
Now I go in and find a pile of bags that I have to sort through, and place in order, and I have to fill out the paperwork myself. It is a small thing, but one that I had grown accustomed to not worrying about.
Also, before, if I walked into the office, I did not need to call and check in. This eliminated the necessity to use my cell phone everytime I picked up and dropped off. Now, since we have no office, I have to call in about 3 times more often. I will probably need to upgrade my cell service and add more monthly minutes now. That will cost me.
Up until now, we have been encouraged (and it is a good idea, anyway) to make copies of all our paperwork until we get paid on the jobs, to insure that we are getting proper credit for all that we did. And we also have to use the copier to make copies of our paperwork before it's filled out, so we always have extra blanks to fill out.
But we no longer have a copy machine. So, if we want copies we have to go somewhere that charges for every copy we make. The absolute lowest price on making copies I've found is 10 cents a copy. That isn't a lot, but considering that I have at least 4 pages of paperwork every day, and often times as many as 10 in one day, that adds up quickly.
So it looks as though I will have to invest in my own copy machine. I've been pricing them and I can get a Cheap printer/scanner/copier from Walmart for about $55.00. In the long run, having my own will be cheaper. Plus, I will have a scanner on which to scan photos from newspapers and magazines to use on my blog.
Now time is an issue, as well. The rules are, bank proofs, the cargo we typically carry, are considered highly sensitive documents, and cannot be left unattended. We are working out of a storage facility. One that is surrounded by security fences that can only be accessed by keying in a numerical code. In addition, we each have a key to the padlock that locks the overhead door to the storage compartment.
As far as I know, the only time we can leave bags in this storage compartment is when they are empty. I see no reason to even have a storage facility if we have to stay with the proofs until someone else can pick them up.
But we do. And guess who has the longest wait.
Since implementing the new procedures on Monday, I have had to sit in my car and wait for another driver to come and relieve me of my work for at least an hour. This is the time I used to drop off my work at the office and then go home for lunch, where I would have approximately 2 hours to eat, and work on my blog, or visit other blogs, or just play computer games.
Now, I am lucky if I get 30 minutes at home before I have to make my afternoon run. Instead, the time I had to do those aforementioned things (and any thing else that I needed or wanted to do) during that time, is no longer available to me. Because I have to babysit the bank proofs.
And the stupid thing to me here, is, I don't see how the proofs are any more safe in the trunk of my car than they would be inside the locked storage unit. As I see it, there really isn't any reason to even have a storage unit if we aren't allowed to leave proofs there until the next driver arrives.
The management says they are going to adjust the times so we will have less waiting time between connections, and if they do that, hopefully, I will have more time for doing things I used to do between morning and afternoon runs.
There are more things about these changes that annoy me. Including the fact that I have to call in to dispatchers that are unfamiliar with our particular trips. It is bad enough that I have to use my valuable cell phone time to call in, but since they are so unfamiliar with our procedures in this area, oftentimes the individual calls themselves take longer to go through. And I get annoyed with having to go through details that Sharon already knew when she was dispatcher.
Well, I am always resistant to changes of any kind. Perhaps once we get used to the new routine it will be better. I don't know.
All this to explain why I don't have the time to blog and visit other blogs that I used to have.
I mentioned the changes happening at the company I am contracting for on a previous post. These changes are both inconvenient and infuriating.
To begin with, as I mentioned before, my dispatcher was laid off. She was a very good dispatcher. Much better than I thought apparently. Losing her is more unsettling than I would have anticipated. Before, when I came into work in the mornings, she would have my bags laid out, in order, with the paperwork already filled out except for times of pick up and delivery, lying on top of them.
Now I go in and find a pile of bags that I have to sort through, and place in order, and I have to fill out the paperwork myself. It is a small thing, but one that I had grown accustomed to not worrying about.
Also, before, if I walked into the office, I did not need to call and check in. This eliminated the necessity to use my cell phone everytime I picked up and dropped off. Now, since we have no office, I have to call in about 3 times more often. I will probably need to upgrade my cell service and add more monthly minutes now. That will cost me.
Up until now, we have been encouraged (and it is a good idea, anyway) to make copies of all our paperwork until we get paid on the jobs, to insure that we are getting proper credit for all that we did. And we also have to use the copier to make copies of our paperwork before it's filled out, so we always have extra blanks to fill out.
But we no longer have a copy machine. So, if we want copies we have to go somewhere that charges for every copy we make. The absolute lowest price on making copies I've found is 10 cents a copy. That isn't a lot, but considering that I have at least 4 pages of paperwork every day, and often times as many as 10 in one day, that adds up quickly.
So it looks as though I will have to invest in my own copy machine. I've been pricing them and I can get a Cheap printer/scanner/copier from Walmart for about $55.00. In the long run, having my own will be cheaper. Plus, I will have a scanner on which to scan photos from newspapers and magazines to use on my blog.
Now time is an issue, as well. The rules are, bank proofs, the cargo we typically carry, are considered highly sensitive documents, and cannot be left unattended. We are working out of a storage facility. One that is surrounded by security fences that can only be accessed by keying in a numerical code. In addition, we each have a key to the padlock that locks the overhead door to the storage compartment.
As far as I know, the only time we can leave bags in this storage compartment is when they are empty. I see no reason to even have a storage facility if we have to stay with the proofs until someone else can pick them up.
But we do. And guess who has the longest wait.
Since implementing the new procedures on Monday, I have had to sit in my car and wait for another driver to come and relieve me of my work for at least an hour. This is the time I used to drop off my work at the office and then go home for lunch, where I would have approximately 2 hours to eat, and work on my blog, or visit other blogs, or just play computer games.
Now, I am lucky if I get 30 minutes at home before I have to make my afternoon run. Instead, the time I had to do those aforementioned things (and any thing else that I needed or wanted to do) during that time, is no longer available to me. Because I have to babysit the bank proofs.
And the stupid thing to me here, is, I don't see how the proofs are any more safe in the trunk of my car than they would be inside the locked storage unit. As I see it, there really isn't any reason to even have a storage unit if we aren't allowed to leave proofs there until the next driver arrives.
The management says they are going to adjust the times so we will have less waiting time between connections, and if they do that, hopefully, I will have more time for doing things I used to do between morning and afternoon runs.
There are more things about these changes that annoy me. Including the fact that I have to call in to dispatchers that are unfamiliar with our particular trips. It is bad enough that I have to use my valuable cell phone time to call in, but since they are so unfamiliar with our procedures in this area, oftentimes the individual calls themselves take longer to go through. And I get annoyed with having to go through details that Sharon already knew when she was dispatcher.
Well, I am always resistant to changes of any kind. Perhaps once we get used to the new routine it will be better. I don't know.
All this to explain why I don't have the time to blog and visit other blogs that I used to have.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Who Shifted The Focus?
"The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way." ~ Henry David Thoreau
It has been said, "when you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp" I think this applies perfectly to the current news of the day about illegal immigration. Or immigration rights, depending on which side you are listening to.
Does anyone remember what created this big flap in the first place? The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Seems to be quite a leap to go from defending America to arguing over whether Mexicans who have entered the country illegally have the right to be treated as American citizens.
This is how it happened:
After years of jumping up and down screaming that something must be done about the numbers of people sneaking across the border between Mexico and the United States, someone finally got the attention of Congress. And the Media.
It suddenly occurred to some pretty astute individuals that if the Mexicans can get across the border undetected, others from other countries and cultures could, too. We had been attacked by terrorists, some of whom were in the country illegally. Someone somewhere made the connection.
If Mexicans can get across the borders so effortlessly, it is entirely possible that a terrorist or two could, also.
So, the campaign to seal the porous border began. Not to keep hard working people from entering our country to find gainful employment and make a better life for themselves and their families, but to avoid another heinous attack against our country by terrorists.
So why has Congress allowed themselves to be distracted from the original purpose? There are many reasons, I believe, but the bottom line is money.
As yesterdays rallies and boycotts across the country have demonstrated, Mexicans contribute a lot to America, and yes, they cost America a lot, also. They supply and consume mass quantities of goods and services in this country, and that definitely helps to keep our economy strong. I don't think anyone can argue with that.
They also are a tremendous drain on our economy. Many of them get social services, and other benefits. Not to mention the growing numbers of illegal immigrants that commit crimes in America.
I don't have any problem at all with Mexicans coming to America, and getting jobs, and raising their families in prosperity. They certainly can't get that in Mexico, where there is virtually no hope of working their way out of poverty.
I do have a problem with criminals. Sugar coat it all you like but when they cross the border without going through the proper procedures, they are breaking the law. When one breaks the law, one becomes a criminal. Anyone that crosses into another country illegally is a criminal. Criminality is not supposed to be rewarded. It is supposed to be punished. Criminals certainly shouldn't be given all the rights that non-criminals work so hard for years to achieve legally.
It is a tremendous problem for America and one that definitely needs to be addressed. But it is not the problem that was originally intended to be addressed.
There are several possible solutions to this problem,none of which are adequate, and none seemingly address the original objective. Stopping terrorists from entering our country and mounting another attack which could conceivably be worse than 9/11.
Somebody shifted the focus. I fear that while we are engaged in arguing over whether illegal aliens should be permitted to enjoy the rights of legal immigrants, the real threat to America will march right in and set up a series of terrorist cells, and the next thing we know, we are up to our asses in terrorists.
And then, we will have real problems.
It has been said, "when you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp" I think this applies perfectly to the current news of the day about illegal immigration. Or immigration rights, depending on which side you are listening to.
Does anyone remember what created this big flap in the first place? The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Seems to be quite a leap to go from defending America to arguing over whether Mexicans who have entered the country illegally have the right to be treated as American citizens.
This is how it happened:
After years of jumping up and down screaming that something must be done about the numbers of people sneaking across the border between Mexico and the United States, someone finally got the attention of Congress. And the Media.
It suddenly occurred to some pretty astute individuals that if the Mexicans can get across the border undetected, others from other countries and cultures could, too. We had been attacked by terrorists, some of whom were in the country illegally. Someone somewhere made the connection.
If Mexicans can get across the borders so effortlessly, it is entirely possible that a terrorist or two could, also.
So, the campaign to seal the porous border began. Not to keep hard working people from entering our country to find gainful employment and make a better life for themselves and their families, but to avoid another heinous attack against our country by terrorists.
So why has Congress allowed themselves to be distracted from the original purpose? There are many reasons, I believe, but the bottom line is money.
As yesterdays rallies and boycotts across the country have demonstrated, Mexicans contribute a lot to America, and yes, they cost America a lot, also. They supply and consume mass quantities of goods and services in this country, and that definitely helps to keep our economy strong. I don't think anyone can argue with that.
They also are a tremendous drain on our economy. Many of them get social services, and other benefits. Not to mention the growing numbers of illegal immigrants that commit crimes in America.
I don't have any problem at all with Mexicans coming to America, and getting jobs, and raising their families in prosperity. They certainly can't get that in Mexico, where there is virtually no hope of working their way out of poverty.
I do have a problem with criminals. Sugar coat it all you like but when they cross the border without going through the proper procedures, they are breaking the law. When one breaks the law, one becomes a criminal. Anyone that crosses into another country illegally is a criminal. Criminality is not supposed to be rewarded. It is supposed to be punished. Criminals certainly shouldn't be given all the rights that non-criminals work so hard for years to achieve legally.
It is a tremendous problem for America and one that definitely needs to be addressed. But it is not the problem that was originally intended to be addressed.
There are several possible solutions to this problem,none of which are adequate, and none seemingly address the original objective. Stopping terrorists from entering our country and mounting another attack which could conceivably be worse than 9/11.
Somebody shifted the focus. I fear that while we are engaged in arguing over whether illegal aliens should be permitted to enjoy the rights of legal immigrants, the real threat to America will march right in and set up a series of terrorist cells, and the next thing we know, we are up to our asses in terrorists.
And then, we will have real problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
