"I ask you, being an Iraqi person, that if you reach a verdict of death, execution, remember that I am a military man and should be killed by firing squad and not by hanging as a common criminal." ~ Saddam Hussein
Saddam is dead. I am not going to post a lengthy entry on this. Everyone else will. I see no point in adding my two cents when others can add them so much more eloquently than I.
The only observation I will make is this:
He knew it was his time. He wasn't surprised. He had the benefit of having a chance to repent of his sins. Most of his victims didn't.
I have seen the videos of the beheadings of innocent civilians by Saddams supporters and terrorist insurgents in Iraq, and they were usually unprepared for that sudden fatal thrust of the blade. They didn't know they would be dead within seconds. They retained hope until the end.
Saddam knew his fate was sealed. He had months, if not years to contemplate the decisions he had made in his life. The decisions that ultimately led to his execution.
Even in death, Saddam gets off easy.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Fair And Balanced
"Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative." ~ Kurt Vonnegut
I confess that I am not a news junkie. When I get up in the morning I do not turn on the TV news. I will watch almost anything else. I usually get my news when I sign on to AOL in the morning, and AOL doesn't always report news fairly. It tends to report it with a left leaning bias. My regular readers may have noticed, over time, that I often refer to AOL news when I post a blog entry.
For instance, I noticed AOL reported that President Gerald R. Ford died (I think they were pretty fair overall on this story for a change), but no where was the news that Saddam's death sentence was upheld on appeal.
Perhaps that is not good news for the Liberal media.
Because I am not a news junkie, I remember very few details about President Ford, except, according to the news media, he seemed to fall down a lot. It seems since he was a Republican, that was the only thing about his presidency that the news media thought newsworthy. That and the pardoning of President Nixon, which eventually even the news media agreed was a good idea.
Over the Christmas holidays (Yes, I say "Christmas", not "winter solstice" or some other Liberal nomenclature) We had the pleasure of my fiancee's 84 year old father, who spent Christmas weekend with us.
He is a news junkie. While he usually prefers FOX news, he does, on occasion, watch one of the other major news channels. And because he was a guest, I allowed him to choose the channel we watched. So, I watched news. All weekend.
It's a good thing, really. Because I finally had the opportunity to see what people are talking about when they argue over whether FOX news is indeed fair and balanced. And I think I see the difference between them and the other news outlets.
Whenever MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC or CNN etc, presents what they consider fair and balanced opinion segments, this is what they do:
They put one Conservative commentator on the panel and at least 2, usually as many as 4, Liberal commentators on, and then they give more time to the Liberals.
This is what the Liberal media calls fair and balanced.
FOX news, on the other hand, puts one Conservative and one Liberal commentator on and gives them equal time.
This is what the Liberal media calls radical extreme right wing reporting.
Even one of their top programs, Hannity and Colmes, presents both sides with equal time and they have both Conservative and Liberal guests. I don't see that kind of format being used on any of the other news networks.
So, in my opinion, when FOX news say they are fair and balanced, I agree.
It is no wonder they have the best ratings.
I confess that I am not a news junkie. When I get up in the morning I do not turn on the TV news. I will watch almost anything else. I usually get my news when I sign on to AOL in the morning, and AOL doesn't always report news fairly. It tends to report it with a left leaning bias. My regular readers may have noticed, over time, that I often refer to AOL news when I post a blog entry.
For instance, I noticed AOL reported that President Gerald R. Ford died (I think they were pretty fair overall on this story for a change), but no where was the news that Saddam's death sentence was upheld on appeal.
Perhaps that is not good news for the Liberal media.
Because I am not a news junkie, I remember very few details about President Ford, except, according to the news media, he seemed to fall down a lot. It seems since he was a Republican, that was the only thing about his presidency that the news media thought newsworthy. That and the pardoning of President Nixon, which eventually even the news media agreed was a good idea.
Over the Christmas holidays (Yes, I say "Christmas", not "winter solstice" or some other Liberal nomenclature) We had the pleasure of my fiancee's 84 year old father, who spent Christmas weekend with us.
He is a news junkie. While he usually prefers FOX news, he does, on occasion, watch one of the other major news channels. And because he was a guest, I allowed him to choose the channel we watched. So, I watched news. All weekend.
It's a good thing, really. Because I finally had the opportunity to see what people are talking about when they argue over whether FOX news is indeed fair and balanced. And I think I see the difference between them and the other news outlets.
Whenever MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC or CNN etc, presents what they consider fair and balanced opinion segments, this is what they do:
They put one Conservative commentator on the panel and at least 2, usually as many as 4, Liberal commentators on, and then they give more time to the Liberals.
This is what the Liberal media calls fair and balanced.
FOX news, on the other hand, puts one Conservative and one Liberal commentator on and gives them equal time.
This is what the Liberal media calls radical extreme right wing reporting.
Even one of their top programs, Hannity and Colmes, presents both sides with equal time and they have both Conservative and Liberal guests. I don't see that kind of format being used on any of the other news networks.
So, in my opinion, when FOX news say they are fair and balanced, I agree.
It is no wonder they have the best ratings.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Choice: Death Or Death?
"One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one." ~ Agatha Christie
The extremely unreliable cable company here in the Fredericksburg area interrupted my internet service for a couple of days so I wasn't able to post this entry as soon as it was fresh in my mind.
I woke up in the middle of the night the other night with a realization that disturbed me and prevented me from getting back to sleep.
At last I am ready to concede that something has to be done in Iraq that isn't being done now.
Speaking as one American, I now think something must be done differently if we are to extricate ourselves from what appears to be lose/lose situation over there.
These ideas are not new and they aren't mine. I've heard them before, but now I think they seem to make sense.
The problem America is dealing with in Iraq is that we are not fighting a war against a recognizable enemy. We are not fighting an army, we are fighting civilians. It is against America's ethical policy to kill civilians in war and we will avoid it under almost all circumstances, sometimes in completely illogical ways.
My fiancee read a story in the newspaper the other day about a Marine in Iraq who was killed because of this commitment to innocent human life. A grenade landed near him and he had time to pick it up and throw it back, but doing so would have killed civilian women and children. Covering his head and letting it explode where it was would have likewise killed innocent women and children, so he did the only thing he could do under those extreme circumstance. He threw his body on the grenade and thereby saved all the civilians but killed himself.
The Liberals in our country would blame America for his death, and call it one more in a string of American servicemen deaths that are unnecessary.
I call it heroism.
What I was thinking about is this:
Whatever we do or don't do in Iraq is going to cost lives. The choice is whether they will be servicemen and women lives or civilians lives.
Now, a major part of the American armed forces training is to prepare them to sacrifice himself for his country. Dying is part of his job description. Obviously, men and women don't join the service to die, but they are all trained to understand it is part of the job of defending America.
The terrorists around the world understand that Americans will do anything to protect civilian lives so they take advantage of that fact by targeting civilians. They know our servicemen are trained to protect civilian lives by sacrificing themselves.
Osama bin Laden himself has said that America is a paper tiger. If we pull out of Iraq with anything short of total and obvious victory, it will be an incentive for more terrorists attacks on America.
I believe America has a choice at this point:
Americans are going to die. That's a given.
Will it be American servicemen or American civilians? There is no third option.
So, how do we end this thing?
Do we pull out and watch the terrorists take over and resume the attacks killing American civilians worldwide or do we stay, modify our tactics to be more effective, and continue to lose American servicemen lives?
I believe the answer is obvious.
My personal belief is an unpopular and repugnant one. The only thing these terrorists monsters understand is violence and death. If we are going to stop terrorism in the world, we will have to start using their own tactics against them. Start targeting their civilians, specifically, the families and friends of the terrorists themselves.
We need to use their own tactics against them.
Other than that, if we want to make sure America no longer suffers terrorist attacks on our civilians, the only option is total annihilation of all Muslims, and that is impossible. There are too many of them and they are not all terrorists.
We who believe the Bible are told that when Jesus returns to Earth, he will return with an army of Angels who will lay waste to the enemy and his followers, and the destruction will be bloody and final.
He will not be concerned about the lives of civilians or servicemen.
What will we choose? Dead American civilians, maybe yourself or your own family, or dead American servicemen, who are trained to sacrifice themselves for their country?
Either way something drastic has to be done to put an end to this thing, and unfortunately, all options involve more death and destruction.
The extremely unreliable cable company here in the Fredericksburg area interrupted my internet service for a couple of days so I wasn't able to post this entry as soon as it was fresh in my mind.
I woke up in the middle of the night the other night with a realization that disturbed me and prevented me from getting back to sleep.
At last I am ready to concede that something has to be done in Iraq that isn't being done now.
Speaking as one American, I now think something must be done differently if we are to extricate ourselves from what appears to be lose/lose situation over there.
These ideas are not new and they aren't mine. I've heard them before, but now I think they seem to make sense.
The problem America is dealing with in Iraq is that we are not fighting a war against a recognizable enemy. We are not fighting an army, we are fighting civilians. It is against America's ethical policy to kill civilians in war and we will avoid it under almost all circumstances, sometimes in completely illogical ways.
My fiancee read a story in the newspaper the other day about a Marine in Iraq who was killed because of this commitment to innocent human life. A grenade landed near him and he had time to pick it up and throw it back, but doing so would have killed civilian women and children. Covering his head and letting it explode where it was would have likewise killed innocent women and children, so he did the only thing he could do under those extreme circumstance. He threw his body on the grenade and thereby saved all the civilians but killed himself.
The Liberals in our country would blame America for his death, and call it one more in a string of American servicemen deaths that are unnecessary.
I call it heroism.
What I was thinking about is this:
Whatever we do or don't do in Iraq is going to cost lives. The choice is whether they will be servicemen and women lives or civilians lives.
Now, a major part of the American armed forces training is to prepare them to sacrifice himself for his country. Dying is part of his job description. Obviously, men and women don't join the service to die, but they are all trained to understand it is part of the job of defending America.
The terrorists around the world understand that Americans will do anything to protect civilian lives so they take advantage of that fact by targeting civilians. They know our servicemen are trained to protect civilian lives by sacrificing themselves.
Osama bin Laden himself has said that America is a paper tiger. If we pull out of Iraq with anything short of total and obvious victory, it will be an incentive for more terrorists attacks on America.
I believe America has a choice at this point:
Americans are going to die. That's a given.
Will it be American servicemen or American civilians? There is no third option.
So, how do we end this thing?
Do we pull out and watch the terrorists take over and resume the attacks killing American civilians worldwide or do we stay, modify our tactics to be more effective, and continue to lose American servicemen lives?
I believe the answer is obvious.
My personal belief is an unpopular and repugnant one. The only thing these terrorists monsters understand is violence and death. If we are going to stop terrorism in the world, we will have to start using their own tactics against them. Start targeting their civilians, specifically, the families and friends of the terrorists themselves.
We need to use their own tactics against them.
Other than that, if we want to make sure America no longer suffers terrorist attacks on our civilians, the only option is total annihilation of all Muslims, and that is impossible. There are too many of them and they are not all terrorists.
We who believe the Bible are told that when Jesus returns to Earth, he will return with an army of Angels who will lay waste to the enemy and his followers, and the destruction will be bloody and final.
He will not be concerned about the lives of civilians or servicemen.
What will we choose? Dead American civilians, maybe yourself or your own family, or dead American servicemen, who are trained to sacrifice themselves for their country?
Either way something drastic has to be done to put an end to this thing, and unfortunately, all options involve more death and destruction.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
More To The Story?
"Silence is a text easy to misread." ~ A. A. Attanasio
Today is my birthday. My fiancee, Patti, gave me a real leather Kansas City Chiefs jacket, an official NFL product. I will admit that it is my favorite of the gifts I recieved. She also gave me some Christmas themed boxer shorts and two Izod brand shirts. My son gave me the Seinfeld 7th season collection on DVD. Great choice!
I've never received so many gifts for one birthday. I feel positively wealthy today!
Unlike previous year's birthdays when I have said, "I don't feel any older", this year, I do. Aches and pains and periods of no patience mixed with periods of infinite patience, and being set in my ways. I must have reached the point of no return or something. (sigh)
Comes now a story via AOL news which epitomizes the reason I started my blog in the first place. Regular readers will no doubt remember that I have repeatedly stated my reason for creating this blog was to make comments on news stories that tend to make me say "What the...?"
Apparently, a television actor who I never heard of was involved in an automobile collision in which a 17 year old boy was killed. The story tells us that his SUV jumped a curb, collided with a tree, and three under 18 teens were injured, one fatally.
I smell a rat!
The story does not explain why three teenagers are riding around Hollywood at midnight with an adult.
Were these people partying? Were they inebriated? Were they on a double date? It seriously seems to me, based on what little information we are provided with, that Mr. Garrison may have been up to something unseemly.
Look at what we know so far:
4 people in a car. Late at night. 1 of the people being a 26 year old adult male. The others being 2 15 year old girls and one 17 year old boy.
Maybe it's my natural skepticism, but those particular facts send up a red flag as far as I'm concerned.
I think there needs to be some investigation as to the actors intentions and his habits.
Of course, it is Hollywood, and that means if there is something immoral going on here, it will no doubt be swept under the proverbial rug and not much will be heard about this again.
It is a tragedy that a 17 year old boy lost his life. I hope I don't appear to be minimizing that tragic fact. But there certainly seems to be an undercurrent of additional tragedy in this story.
I hope I am wrong.
Today is my birthday. My fiancee, Patti, gave me a real leather Kansas City Chiefs jacket, an official NFL product. I will admit that it is my favorite of the gifts I recieved. She also gave me some Christmas themed boxer shorts and two Izod brand shirts. My son gave me the Seinfeld 7th season collection on DVD. Great choice!
I've never received so many gifts for one birthday. I feel positively wealthy today!
Unlike previous year's birthdays when I have said, "I don't feel any older", this year, I do. Aches and pains and periods of no patience mixed with periods of infinite patience, and being set in my ways. I must have reached the point of no return or something. (sigh)
Comes now a story via AOL news which epitomizes the reason I started my blog in the first place. Regular readers will no doubt remember that I have repeatedly stated my reason for creating this blog was to make comments on news stories that tend to make me say "What the...?"
Apparently, a television actor who I never heard of was involved in an automobile collision in which a 17 year old boy was killed. The story tells us that his SUV jumped a curb, collided with a tree, and three under 18 teens were injured, one fatally.
I smell a rat!
The story does not explain why three teenagers are riding around Hollywood at midnight with an adult.
Were these people partying? Were they inebriated? Were they on a double date? It seriously seems to me, based on what little information we are provided with, that Mr. Garrison may have been up to something unseemly.
Look at what we know so far:
4 people in a car. Late at night. 1 of the people being a 26 year old adult male. The others being 2 15 year old girls and one 17 year old boy.
Maybe it's my natural skepticism, but those particular facts send up a red flag as far as I'm concerned.
I think there needs to be some investigation as to the actors intentions and his habits.
Of course, it is Hollywood, and that means if there is something immoral going on here, it will no doubt be swept under the proverbial rug and not much will be heard about this again.
It is a tragedy that a 17 year old boy lost his life. I hope I don't appear to be minimizing that tragic fact. But there certainly seems to be an undercurrent of additional tragedy in this story.
I hope I am wrong.
Monday, December 04, 2006
My Two Cents Worth
"History is a voice forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity." ~ James A. Forude
It has been a while since I have blogsurfed to any degree, except for my daily visits to Lone Ranger's and Tug's blogs (and occasionally, ER's), but this morning, I stopped by over at EL's place. He has an interesting thread going on over there in his comments section about the decision of Rev. Rick Warren to allow Senator Barack Obama (D) Illinois to speak at his church about the worldwide AIDS epidemic.
I started to add my two cents to the discussion, but my two cents quickly multiplied to a much larger sum than I had originally intended to pay, so I decided to state my position over here at my place:
I wasn't in attendance at that particular conference on AIDS, but I am willing to bet that neither Rev. Warren nor Senator Obama mentioned the only sure way to prevent AIDS and indeed, eradicate it from the world.
Cease all homosexual sex worldwide. Just put an end to it. Now, that, of course, is impossible, but it is the only way to prevent AIDS positively.
Despite all the assertions coming mainly from the left that AIDS is not a "gay" disease, it most certainly is a disease affecting mostly those who actively engage in homosexual activities.
This is not to say that heterosexuals can't get AIDS as we know they indeed do, but in nearly every case when a heterosexual is diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, it is because somewhere down the line they, or someone who has donated blood, or someone who used the same needle for intravenous drug usage, have had intimate sexual contact with someone who has had sex with a homosexual.
It always starts with a particular homosexual act.
Does anyone know exactly how AIDS is contracted? It is contracted initially from the introduction of protein containing a certain unstable bacteria (or virus, if you will) into the rectum. Only after it is contracted anally, can it be introduced by other means.
With that in mind, if Obama did not call for the cessation of the homosexual act as the primary means to prevent AIDS, and if Rick Warren does not do the same, it can be arguably assumed that they have determined that Homosexuality is normal.
This acceptance of something that God tells us is an "abomination" is what is known as "moral relativism", which is a tenet of that new Godless religion called "Humanism". Those who continue to insist that homosexuality should be accepted as normal are called "moral relativists", meaning that they believe that what is moral is determined by the individual rather than by God.
This is regarded by most Bible believing Christians as "apostasy" .
Actually Muslims believe the same, but their method of dealing with it is decidedly more extreme.
If either of them welcome homosexuals into their church for any other reason than to bring them to repentance for the sin of homosexuality and to save them from that particular sin, but to welcome and support their dangerous, destructive, and sinful lifestyle, they are as wrong as those who practice this abomination.
Any church (and by church, I mean the members of a particular body of believers)that fails to condemn the sin of homosexuality is apostate, at least in that regard.
Churches are scripturally correct to encourage homosexuals to join and participate in their churches, but only as a means to reach them, and convict them of their sin, that they might find repentance and grace and turn from their sin and follow Christ into the eternal kingdom of God.
No where in the scriptures does God say, "Trust in Me, and continue to sin." Jesus did not tell the woman taken in adultery (which is something one must commit in order to perform a homosexual act, by the way), "Your sins are forgiven, now go and continue to sin." He said, "Go and sin no more."
How hard is that for you moral relativists to understand?
It has been a while since I have blogsurfed to any degree, except for my daily visits to Lone Ranger's and Tug's blogs (and occasionally, ER's), but this morning, I stopped by over at EL's place. He has an interesting thread going on over there in his comments section about the decision of Rev. Rick Warren to allow Senator Barack Obama (D) Illinois to speak at his church about the worldwide AIDS epidemic.
I started to add my two cents to the discussion, but my two cents quickly multiplied to a much larger sum than I had originally intended to pay, so I decided to state my position over here at my place:
I wasn't in attendance at that particular conference on AIDS, but I am willing to bet that neither Rev. Warren nor Senator Obama mentioned the only sure way to prevent AIDS and indeed, eradicate it from the world.
Cease all homosexual sex worldwide. Just put an end to it. Now, that, of course, is impossible, but it is the only way to prevent AIDS positively.
Despite all the assertions coming mainly from the left that AIDS is not a "gay" disease, it most certainly is a disease affecting mostly those who actively engage in homosexual activities.
This is not to say that heterosexuals can't get AIDS as we know they indeed do, but in nearly every case when a heterosexual is diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, it is because somewhere down the line they, or someone who has donated blood, or someone who used the same needle for intravenous drug usage, have had intimate sexual contact with someone who has had sex with a homosexual.
It always starts with a particular homosexual act.
Does anyone know exactly how AIDS is contracted? It is contracted initially from the introduction of protein containing a certain unstable bacteria (or virus, if you will) into the rectum. Only after it is contracted anally, can it be introduced by other means.
With that in mind, if Obama did not call for the cessation of the homosexual act as the primary means to prevent AIDS, and if Rick Warren does not do the same, it can be arguably assumed that they have determined that Homosexuality is normal.
This acceptance of something that God tells us is an "abomination" is what is known as "moral relativism", which is a tenet of that new Godless religion called "Humanism". Those who continue to insist that homosexuality should be accepted as normal are called "moral relativists", meaning that they believe that what is moral is determined by the individual rather than by God.
This is regarded by most Bible believing Christians as "apostasy" .
Actually Muslims believe the same, but their method of dealing with it is decidedly more extreme.
If either of them welcome homosexuals into their church for any other reason than to bring them to repentance for the sin of homosexuality and to save them from that particular sin, but to welcome and support their dangerous, destructive, and sinful lifestyle, they are as wrong as those who practice this abomination.
Any church (and by church, I mean the members of a particular body of believers)that fails to condemn the sin of homosexuality is apostate, at least in that regard.
Churches are scripturally correct to encourage homosexuals to join and participate in their churches, but only as a means to reach them, and convict them of their sin, that they might find repentance and grace and turn from their sin and follow Christ into the eternal kingdom of God.
No where in the scriptures does God say, "Trust in Me, and continue to sin." Jesus did not tell the woman taken in adultery (which is something one must commit in order to perform a homosexual act, by the way), "Your sins are forgiven, now go and continue to sin." He said, "Go and sin no more."
How hard is that for you moral relativists to understand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
