Monday, December 31, 2007
I found this video while searching for clips from the film, "On Borrowed Time". I have always liked this song. It's one of those songs that, once you hear it, kind of sticks in your head for days.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Here is a Thanksgiving story which could just as well be a Christmas story:
When I was living in Kansas City, I was in the midst of a long drawn out (and what I considered unnecessary) process of taking custody of my only daughter from my previous marriage. She had been moved out of her mother's home in another town, and temporarily placed in a group home for girls in my town, while the authorities struggled through mounds of red tape, attempting to ascertain whether I would be a fit parent for my own child.
This enabled me to visit her and even take her for day trips while the custodial determination process was processing. A long and tedious process.
We had to go to her group home to visit and pick her up. Most of the other girls, who were between 10 and 15 years of age, were there for other, primarily legal reasons. Many were runaways, and many had been removed from dysfunctional homes. Some had been arrested or had other kinds of legal trouble. Some had been abused physically, mentally, and sexually, by their parents or other family members.
Practically all were lonely, frightened, apprehensive, and suspicious of authority.
One day, shortly before Thanksgiving, my wife and I arrived to take Crystal out to spend a day with us, I noticed several of the other girls looking at us with what can only be described as envy. One of the girls boldly approached me and said, in the most heart rendering voice, "Can I go with you?"
It was at that moment that my heart went out to these girls, almost all of whom rarely had any visits or interaction with their own families, if any at all.
On Thanksgiving day, instead of spending the day with family, eating a sumptuous meal and watching football, My family showed up at the girls home with a complete Thanksgiving dinner, and every girl in the home was presented a small inexpensive gift. Needless to say, the girls were overwhelmed with gratitude. We enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving day with a whole house full of grateful, happy young ladies, who, at least for that one day, experienced true Christian charity and love.
It was the most wonderful and rewarding holiday I ever experienced.
Incidentally, some of the ladies in our church continued with weekly visits after I won full custody of my daughter, and the last I heard, the ministry is still thriving.
Sometimes, we get so involved in shopping, travel plans, cooking, and cleaning for the Holidays that we forget what's really important about Christmas. It isn't so much what we give to others at Christmas time, but that we simply give. Give our time. Give our love. Give ourselves.
It is the spirit of Christmas. It is the meaning of Christmas.
Today, while you celebrate the birth of Christ, take a few minutes to ponder the significance of it all, and enjoy Christmas.
And now, as my gift to all who happen to visit my humble blog, some videos:
MERRY CHRISTMAS, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Monday, December 24, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
It's been a while since I posted a meme, But Abouna has tagged me for a Christmas meme, so here goes:
1. Wrapping or gift bags?
Gift bags. I am lazy.
2. Real or artificial tree?
Artificial. I hate pine needles all over everything.
3. When do you put up the tree?
After my birthday, which is December 5. One "holiday" at a time.
4. When do you take down the tree?
After New Years day, or when I feel like doing the work.
5. Do you like eggnog?
I love egg nog, but it is extremely high in calories so I have to take it a little at a time. Left to my own, I would drink a whole half gallon in an hour, easily.
6. Favorite gift received as a child?
My parents bought my brother and I a bicycle that we had to share. First bicycle either of us ever had. I can't remember if my brother (2 years older than me) already knew how to ride a bike but I had to be taught. Oh, the memories of bruised everything!
7. Do you have a nativity scene?
Yes. It represents the true meaning of Christmas, so it is in the front yard, lit up by a spotlight, and prominently displayed front and center.
8. Worst Christmas gift you ever received?
Two Christmases ago, I received one western style shirt from my mom and nothing else from anyone. I don't wear western shirts.
9. Mail or email Christmas cards?
10. Favorite Christmas movie?
"The Cheaters" Little known film, and I never see it anymore, anywhere, but I'll never forget it. Second Place is "It's A Wonderful Life" and third would have to be the Musical version of "Scrooge". (starring Albert Finney to distinguish it from the thousands of others)
11. When do you start shopping for Christmas?
About two to three days before Christmas usually, not that I like doing it that way, it just happens.
12. Favorite thing to eat for Christmas?
I always have turkey and/or ham, and all the trimmings, but truth be told, I would be happy with a burrito from Taco Bell. (and I don't really like Taco Bell very much)
3. Clear lights or colored on the tree?
14. Favorite Christmas song?
"O Holy Night"
15. Travel at Christmas or stay at home?
I love to travel anytime, but usually there's a never a good time due to finances.
16. Can you name all of Santa’s reindeer?
Um, Is it Slasher, Flasher, Pansy and Bitchin', Vomit and Stupid and Bummer and Nixon? Oh, and Rudolph, the Disco reindeer.
17. Angel on the tree top or star?
Always an angel.
18. Open gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning?
Christmas morning for me. As soon as I buy then for the kids.
9. Most annoying thing about this time of year?
Navigating through rude Christmas shoppers and trying to find a parking place somewhere within a mile of the store entrance.
20. Do you decorate your tree in any specific theme or color scheme?
21. What do you leave for Santa?
Nothing. I can't remember ever believing there was a Santa.
22. Least favorite holiday song?
"Jingle Bells" It's not a Christmas song, and it annoys me that it is the most played of all, because it's a Winter song.
23. Favorite ornament?
Hmm. That would have to be the fiber optic angel on the top of the tree.
Paying it forward, I tag:
I don't know who to tag, really. If any reader would like to participate, leave your answers in my comments.
1. Link to the person who tagged you, and post the rules on your blog.
2. Share Christmas facts about yourself.
3. Tag random people at the end of your post and include links to their blogs.
4. Let each person know that they have been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Who never to himself has said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there be, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power and pelf,
The wretch, concentrated all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair reknown,
And doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonoured and unsung." ~ Sir Walter Scott
I received this in an e-mail this morning from blogger buddy Poison Pero:
Everyone says they support the troops, because saying otherwise would make them look like complete SOB's........But we all know there are many who not only don't support our military missions, they also don't support our troops.
Personally, I'd have more respect for people to come out and say they hate the troops......It would be refreshing to hear them speak the truth for a change.
That said, NBC has decided it can't run a few ads. Go to the links below (Note: You don't have to go to the links Pero provided because I have embedded the videos) to see the "horrific" ads which were turned down by NBC.......And then ask yourself if NBC "supports the troops."
WARNING: These ads are very controversial and hateful!!
If it is true that NBC is refusing to run these ads, perhaps we should contact NBC and ask them why they seemingly do not support the troops.
If enough Americans send messages to them, perhaps NBC will relent and run the ads. I already contacted NBC to express my feelings. I urge all patriotic Americans to do the same.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The above quotation (which I thought I had coined myself many years ago, but as it turns out, was coined by Mr. Karr first) is often used as a truism, but apparently, isn't always true, to wit:
While I was driving my son to school this morning (after he missed the bus for the umpteenth time this year), I questioned him about a startling revelation I had received a couple of weeks ago in a conference with his school counselor. The counselor told me the boys in the school don't take showers in P.E.
I don't know how the kids can stand going to the rest of their classes smelling of perspiration.
Well, maybe I can see that, but how can the other students stand them?
I then wondered aloud why the kids don't shower after all that physical activity, and my son said the idea of showering in gym was "gross".
"Not", I replied, "as gross as going to the rest of your classes stinking".
Then, after I dropped him off, I reflected on why they stopped showering, and also if other schools across the country have the same non-policy.
Do they? Does anyone reading this know? And if so, why?
I have my own uneducated, unresearched, and uninformed hypothesis:
Could it be the ever increasing acceptance of the gay lifestyle in our schools perhaps?
Think about it for a minute. Society, the schools, and public opinion have come together in the last 30 years or so to make all of us more sensitive to the plight of the poor, persecuted gay minority in this country. We have, for the most part, as a people, accepted the fact that gays live among us, and have successfully assimilated themselves into polite, moral society. So much so, in fact, that now, we who consider the lifestyle abhorrent have been forced to sit on the sidelines and pretend to approve.
Oh, sure, there is still some unrepentant and unabashed gay bigotry around. There always will be, I suspect.
As for myself, although I believe the lifestyle is perversion, I nevertheless treat any gay I meet as an equal. It is not, after all, the sole indication of their character. I can honestly say I have never known a homosexual, male or female, that I didn't personally like.
But has the gay lobby and activists been as successful at removing the stigma as we think?
I suggest they haven't. It would seem to me that the army's policy of "don't ask, don't tell" might work to lessen the amount of open discrimination against gays, but it does little to erase the bigotry that is still very much prevalent, particularly among high school boys.
I'm not suggesting that bigotry isn't somewhat deserved. After all, most right thinking people still consider homosexuality an abomination, as God pronounced it in Leviticus. There are those, (me included) who believe homosexuality is a choice, and not genetic.
But I digress.
When I was in high school, we took showers. We didn't want to attend the rest of the days classes stinking of perspiration. If we suspected any boy in our gym class was a "sissy", we took pains to not let that particular student see us naked, and, Heaven forbid, don't drop the soap in front of him.
Perhaps that attitude was ignorant but it was, nevertheless, the way we felt.
I know I wouldn't want some homo ogling me while I shower.
If any student ever got an accidental erection while showering with the other boys, his reputation within the school was effectively ruined for as long as students memories lasted.
So, to tie this all together, could it be that in their efforts to assure gay students are not discriminated against in high schools, the school administrators believe it necessary to ban showering in the boys locker room in gym class? Could they be merely protecting straight students against gay sexual harassment?
Is not taking showers in gym class a voluntary inaction by the students themselves or is it school policy? Are high school students more modest than students in my day?
Considering the breakdown in morals in the last 30 years, I find that scenario extremely unlikely. If anything, students would be more likely to parade around naked in the halls during school hours than to dive into lockers to hide their shame.
And the school administrators would be less likely to hand out any significant punishment for that singular behavior than they would have 30 years ago.
Ah, probably the only reason they don't take showers anymore is time constraints.
Friday, December 14, 2007
So Dan says, "No One says Global warming is a myth".
I say, "I do".
And so do a lot of other people, including actual climatologists, geologists, and meteorologists.
Many scientists concur with my common sense conviction that Global Warming is a myth. The following videos (which I, the only living global warming denier, according to Dan, didn't create) demonstrates this fact:
Then there's this one:
And then, this:
And, if you have time and/or are so inclined, click on the videos and you will be directed to the youtube pages on which they are found, and there you will find several links to web sites with further information from real actual scientists who agree that Global Warming is indeed a myth.
Just for starters, though, check out this interview with Dr. Timothy Ball.
One video I watched referenced a petition that was signed by 19,000 scientists who all agree Global Warming is a myth. That's a little more than the 928 scientists or so AlGore claims agree with Global Warming.
As I say. Global Warming is a myth.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Today, I was going to create a post debunking the theory of Global warming, but Lone Ranger beat me to it, by posting a youtube video of actual objective scientists explaining why AlGore and that illustrious consensus of Global Warming so-called scientists are not telling us the truth.
Here is the video, for those who are unwilling to visit LR's blog:
The scientists in his video made two of the points I was going to bring up. One, the fact that the rise in temperature causes the rise in CO2 levels, not the opposite, as AlGore states.
The graph ALGore uses in his film, "An Inconvenient Truth" , to provide positive evidence of our impending demise via Global Warming, actually shows just the opposite. Using the same graph, the scientist in LR's video pointed out that CO2 levels followed, not preceded, the rise in Global temperature by as many as 800 years. If the CO2 levels don't rise before the temperature levels, it stands to reason that CO2 emissions are not the cause of Global warming.
Incidentally, a previous post by Lone Ranger explains that CO2 is an essential element to life on this planet. Humans breathe in oxygen, and expel carbon dioxide. Plants breathe in Carbon Dioxide and expel oxygen.
I suppose if the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere was significantly higher than the amount we need to maintain life on this planet, it might create a serious problem, but remember, there are many more trees, plants, flowers, weeds and blades of grass on this planet than there are humans.
As Lone Ranger eloquently puts it, "It's a perfect symbiosis, brought about by the totally random effects of the Big Bang."
Heh heh heh.
As I always say, the myth of Global Warming can be easily debunked by the use of simple common sense and logic.
The other point is the lie that water levels will rise by 20 feet if the polar ice caps melt. The scientists in the aforementioned video say the oceans water level would rise by no more than 23 inches.
The point I was going to make was this:
Fill a glass with water and ice and measure the water level before the ice melts and then again after it melts. The water level in the glass would remain virtually unchanged.
Then, calculate how much water levels would actually rise if the polar ice caps did indeed melt. Considering the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers make up 2/3 of the world, and the ocean is miles deep, the possibility that melting ice caps would raise the collective water level of the earth's waters significantly defies logic and common sense.
And yet, ALGore and friends insist the water levels would rise 20 feet or more. Where does AlGore say all this excess water will come from?
As it happens, it was a point I didn't need to make as the scientists in the video more than adequately make the point for me.
Here is a point I was going to make that wasn't made in the video:
AlGore's consensus of Scientists say that the average mean Global temperature year round, has risen 7/10 of 1 percent in the last century. That means if the average temperature was 65 degrees in 1907, it would be 65.7 degrees now in 2007. (I don't know exactly what it is, that's an example)
For all you Global warming believers out there, here is a little mathematical exercise for you:
Calculate for me, please, how long it will take for the average mean temperature on the planet to get so hot that it seriously endangers man's existence on this planet. Be sure to take into account that the average temperature on the polar ice caps is around 30-40 degrees below zero year round (the lowest recorded temperature of Antarctica is -126 degree F), and humans can withstand temperatures of over 90 degrees indefinitely, even without air conditioning. You may even include ALGore's position that the water level will rise 20 feet if the polar ice caps melt if that will help you skew your results better.
Then explain to me again how Climate Change is a more imminent threat to us than international terrorism.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
It is approximately 7:05 AM. At this precise moment fifty-six years ago, I was making my mother scream for drugs.
I hate getting old.
On the plus side, there's gifts.
This happens this same time every year. It's no big deal. If it didn't happen, it would be a big deal. At least for me.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
I discovered David Bromberg way back in 1970 or 71 at a concert in Wichita, Kansas, at Henry Levitt arena on the WSU campus. He was one of the opening acts for a mega show starring the Earl Scruggs Review and The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. (Known as simply "The Dirt Band" now) The featured artists gave predictably great performances, but in my mind Bromberg stole the show.
Incidentally, the other opening act was an obscure, unknown comedian billed as "Banjo Funny Man Steve Martin". Yes, the same Steve Martin who is now a super star comedian, actor and director. And yes, he was hilarious then, too.
Bromberg is one of the best guitarists I've ever heard. He has a horrible voice, but somehow it lends itself well to ballads. At the time of the concert, he had one song that actually made it to the top forty charts, a rock and roll song of sorts called "Sharon".
His music can't be categorized as country or rock or blues or jazz or bluegrass, because frankly, he does them all and he does them well.
Anyway, after the show, I went right out and bought my first David Bromberg album. There was is an amazing solo acoustic guitar piece on it, a medley of Irish fiddle tunes.
Bromberg rarely performs anymore. He lives is Wilmington Delaware where he owns a Violin store, but sometimes he travels to some music festival someplace where he often gets together with more famous musicians, such as Arlo Guthrie, Jerry Jeff Walker, and John B. Sebastian.
Somewhere within the last 30+ years, I lost the album, and was never able to find a copy of that medley since. Until last weekend, when I ordered a CD of the same album online. Apparently, the only way to hear the medley is to get the CD.
The Title of the CD is "Demon In Disguise" and the following Youtube video is the title cut, from a performance at Iowa State in 1985, which has a pretty darn good solo guitar piece in it as well:
In case you hadn't noticed, John Sebastian plays harmonica in this clip.
Friday, November 30, 2007
If anyone has any doubt that MSNBC is Liberally biased, this video should erase any such doubts:
Someone should be fired, but I'm not saying who.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Yesterday's local newspaper featured a front page story entitled, "12 year old plans to be President".
According to the article:
"When Bobby Washington was 10, his mother found him asleep in his room with a 1,008-page autobiography of former President Bill Clinton on his chest.
Bobby, now 12, has policy positions on the environment and the war. He's pushing for battery-operated cars, and he wants the war in Iraq to end."
This story should send a signal to Conservatives that the hoped for end to liberalism by selective breeding, is not so near. By selective breeding, I mean abortion. See, most Liberals are pro-abortion, and most Conservatives are pro-life, so it stands to reason that eventually, Liberals will more or less breed themselves into a minority.
Or, more accurately, UN-breed.
Obviously, even if Liberals stopped procreating, there are still negative Liberal influences out there that will turn our children into mind numbed robots of Liberalism.
We still, unfortunately, have public schools.
And now, we see why Liberals hate the idea of school choice so much, don't we?
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Black Friday. Oh yes. Let me tell you of my "Black Friday" adventure:
Best Buy's circular advertised an E-machine desktop computer for the unbelievable price of $199.97. Regular price was $619.97. It comes complete with a printer!
There were only 15 of them in stock in each Best Buy store, and no rain checks would be issued. The circular informed readers the way to procure this computer was to arrive at the store by 3:00 AM (that's AM!) and wait in line, (assuming there would be a line, of course) and the first 15 people who were there for the computer would be issued a ticket for the particular item they came to purchase.
First come, first served.
When the store opened at 5:00 customers would then be allowed to enter and purchase their item of interest.
My own desktop computer recently broke, and I have been wanting a replacement for quite some time, so I conceived a plan whereby I could procure this computer. There wasn't a lot of information on the specifications, but I reasoned beggars can't be choosers.
My last computer was an e-machines, too, and it was, at the time, the absolute cheapest I could find. Ideally, the next desktop would include the new Windows Vista, a CD/DVD player writer, more memory and power.
This is the Desktop advertised, below:
I figured even if the new one didn't meet my qualifications, I could always sell it on E-Bay and make enough profit (remember: regular price is $619.97) to get one more to my liking.
I considered arriving at the store around midnight, to insure a good place in line, but the night was the coldest of the year so far, and I had no one to go with me in case I needed someone to stand in my place if I needed to answer natures relentless call. So, instead, I drove to the store, timing my arrival for about 10 minutes before 3:00.
When I drove into the parking lot, I realized I made the wrong plans. There was a line beginning at the store entrance and snaking around the corner all the way to the back of the store, and more were arriving. Many people were in tents and sleeping bags. And I only had on a leather jacket and gloves. Even if only a small percentage of the 100+ people already there were planning on purchasing the computer, there were still many more computer buyers than 15 in line.
So, I continued through the parking lot and drove off to Walmart, to buy some Diet Mountain Dew. Then I went home and went to bed.
But the adventure doesn't stop here.
Later in the day, my fiancee informed me that she desperately needed $150.00 immediately, so I deposited that into her bank account.
Now, it was clear that if I had purchased that computer, and then deposited the money in her account, it would have put a serious strain on my already meager bank account.
And I have a habit of making bad economical decisions.
I considered that Someone was looking out for me.
But that still isn't the end of the story.
Later that afternoon, I received a call from my boss, who offered to give me a desktop. He had recently sold a successful business and had a couple of office computers left over, which he was going to donate, but then he had remembered I had mentioned a while back that my computer broke.
He will bring the computer to the office on Monday.
I haven't seen the computer, and I don't yet know if it has Vista, or a CD/DVD writer, etc, and I didn't ask. What kind of person would I be if I looked the proverbial gift horse in the mouth?
Friday, November 23, 2007
Well, Thanksgiving is over and today I am reminded why I'm thankful Thanksgiving comes only once a year. I never work so hard in one day (excepting maybe Christmas) as I do on Thanksgiving day. Between cooking and cleaning, eating, then cleaning up afterwards, I wonder why we continually put up with the headaches year after year.
All for one, albeit, sumptuous meal.
Why was yesterday a frenzy of activity, punctuated with arguments over who was doing the most work and whether whatever each of us did was helping the others?
Why do we put ourselves through so much suffering only to enjoy a 30 minute dinner, during which we stuff ourselves so full of a variety of foods that we feel bloated and uncomfortable for the rest of the day?
And why must we have two meat courses, four or five vegetable courses, and several choices for dessert? And why do we feel we must sample every one of those choices, especially since I am not supposed to be eating anything with sugar?
Why, on this one day, do we feel the necessity to try to commit suicide by gluttony?
Considering the work and frustration we put into it, I wonder why we bother.
Because it gives us a fleeting opportunity to spend quality time with family and friends, and reminds us that we have much to be thankful for, regardless of the tribulations of everyday existence.
Taking all these things under consideration, one realizes that the prize is worth the pain.
And now, we have--Black Friday.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
and doleful dumps the mind opresses,
then music, with her silver sound,
with speedy help doth lend redress."
When I was searching Youtube for examples of Scottish folk music for my last post, I stumbled across this video, and I was literally amazed. The group is called "Celtic Woman".
These women sing with the voices of angels.
It is a song often heard around Christmas time, but I just couldn't wait until Christmas to share this beautiful music:
Incidentally, when I was sharing this with a friend, I pronounced the name of the group, "Seltic woman", and was immediately corrected. The correct pronunciation, I was told, is "Keltic woman"
I said, "Not in Boston".
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
I've mentioned before I once traced my family tree to 17th century North Carolina. I know my early ancestor immigrated to America from Scotland, but that is where my search ended, not because there are no more records of my family history, but because being of Scottish ancestry, I have retained the traits of a true Scotsman--I am thrifty.(translation: Cheap)Any further research requires a fee, so I couldn't (or wouldn't) dig any more.
But what I discovered furnished me with enough information that I was able to ascertain my family origin. I am likely descended from a sept of the Clan Gunn, one of the Highland Clans of Northern Scotland. Specifically the Clan Gunn's roots spread out from the town of Caithness, in the Scottish Highlands, to SW Sutherland. The word, "sept" basically means "extended family". Hence, my surname is one of many cousins to the Gunn's.
Here is the Gunn Clan tartan plaid:
And here is the Gunn Crest:
The Latin phrase translates to "Either Peace or War".
I've mentioned all this and more before, but since I learned how to post videos on here, I can now share a couple of my favorite Scottish folk songs. Here is one that makes mention of the history, customs, industry, and even common plants (thistle)and animals (Badger and Fox), of Scotland, and also promotes the Scots stubborn independence.
It's called "Dawning of the Day", by the famous Scottish folk duo, The Corries:
This one is a song penned by the famous Scottish poet, Robert Burns,(known as "Rabbie" to Scots) and sung by Eddie Reader. The name is "Charlie is my Darling":
Most of Scotlands folk songs tell of a long history of fighting fierce battles for independence. Scots are a proud and stubborn people. They simply will not allow themselves to be enslaved, and will fight against overwhelming odds to that end. Their history is a beacon for freedom loving people everywhere.
I am proud to be a Scotsman.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Yesterday, when I posted my blog entry, I got a little carried away and strayed from my original subject, and ended up making two posts in one. If you didn't see it, I am not going to explain.
Anyway, I am rectifying that today, by separating the two subjects into two separate posts, to wit:
I realize it may appear I am picking on ER specifically, but it just happened that I visited his blog shortly after he posted a humour piece, that could nevertheless be construed as unflattering about our Vice President, Dick Cheney.
Other than how he mispronounces his own last name, I know of nothing Cheney has done that warrants such denigration.
Be that as it may, ER posted two pictures, one of actor Lionel Barrymore (now deceased) in his famous role of the curmudgeonly wicked old man Potter, from the movie "What a Wonderful Life". The other picture was of Vice President Dick Cheney (he pronounces it Chaney). Then ER pointed out a physical similarity between the two, and implied the two shared a similar personality.
(Incidentally, my favorite Barrymore film is an obscure little picture in which Barrymore, who plays a curmudgeonly old man confined to a wheelchair, magically traps Death, played by Sir Cedric Hardwicke, in an apple tree. Oh! The name of the movie is "On Borrowed Time")
I have no doubt that ER intended the piece to be humorous, and indeed it is.
But it reminded me of a post I created back in April, 2006 in which I posted pictures of Democratic representative Cynthia McKinney and Rocket J. Squirrel in order to point out the similarities in their physical appearance.
I made no implications that the two are similar in any other way. In fact, The gist of that particular post was a defense of Ms. McKinney, a fact that was apparently lost on ER, as his first comment on the post was:
"You're just being mean. Who wants to comment on that? Quit being a jerk."
I'm still trying to figure out how I am a jerk when I post pictures that suggest a physical comparison between a fictional character and a real human being and ER is just being funny.
Once again, as I pointed out in yesterday's post:
It does make one wonder if Libs are somewhat hypocritical, does it not?
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
We are forever hearing our Liberal and Democrat and Liberal Democrat friends sanctimoniously insist that they support the troops. We are told we are being unpatriotic if we suggest that Libs are treasonous when they use language that undermines the United State's military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Liberals get offended when we Conservatives suggest they are not themselves patriotic because they constantly denigrate our troops and George W. Bush, the current Commander-in-Chief of those same armed forces they claim to support.
With the preceding statements in mind, I decided, on a whim, to visit a few Liberal blog sites just to see how they honor the veterans of our armed forces this past Veteran's Day, both the traditional holiday on November 11th, and the "official" day, this year celebrated on November 12th.
Since I have only one Liberal blog on my blogroll, ER's blog was the first I visited. And, because I don't have the url's of any other Liberal blogs, I clicked the links to other blogs on ER's blogroll to access a variety of Liberal blogs.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered, much to my chagrin, that none of the Liberal blogs I visited had any mention at all of any veterans. So, it goes without saying there were no tributes to our veterans nor even any acknowledgement that a Veterans day even exists in the Liberal world.
As in zero, zilch, nada, diddley squat.
This is not to say they don't honor veterans, but it does tend to make one suspect a little bit of hypocrisy on the Libs part.
A lack of acknowledgement of Veterans Day nor even a cursory nod to veterans in general is not necessarily indicative of any disrespect to our veterans and members of our current armed forces. Some Conservative blogs made no mention of Veterans day, either. Does that mean they aren't supportive of our troops?
I think the general overall attitude of the whole of the various blogs, rather than one or two days posts is the litmus test of whether they truly support our troops or not. Of course, I see no indication of support from reading the rest of their posts, either.
But it does make one wonder, does it not?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Friday, November 09, 2007
I am going to need Tug's help on this one. Perhaps Tug will correct me if I'm wrong.
As someone who has to drive to make a living, I have become increasingly aware of a shift in the attitudes of professional truck drivers. They used to be courteous and polite. They were the drivers one could depend upon to help out in emergency situations on the highways. They were quick to back off and let aggressive drivers bully their way between vehicles in search of that added two or three car lengths for the sake of every other driver's safety.
Not anymore. Today, they are the aggressive drivers. They are the bullies. What has happened?
I am not a truck driver so I am unfamiliar with the ICC regulations, but I am fairly sure the growing problem of aggressive truck driving is directly linked to over regulation of the trucking industry.
In this morning's Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, a report of a singular aggressive driving incident has illuminated this problem.
Here is a snippet:
"Sgt. F.L. Tyler of the state police said the driver, Van Kimball Lewis, 35, was charged with driving under the influence of drugs, namely PCP, after he fought rescue workers and police officers who tried to get him out of the cab, where he was pinned in the overturned truck.
He was also charged with possession of a controlled substance, three counts of assault on a police officer and one count of aggressive driving."
I have been offered some encapsulated insights from some drivers as to what is causing this phenomena in America. I was told this trend is a direct result of the regulation of the truck driving industry. Truck drivers are now required to rest after a set period of time driving, whether they are tired or not. At the same time, trucking companies are becoming more and more insistent that drivers reach their destinations in time.
This forces truck drivers to exceed the speed limits in order to drop their loads on time. Trucking companies are having to impose strict time frames on their drivers in order to stay competitive in the marketplace. The aggressive driving is a direct consequence of the drivers doing whatever they have to do to complete their runs to the satisfaction of their bosses.
Just last night, I was driving interstate 95 myself. I was driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit, which is as fast as I dare to drive. After over 35 years driving, one thing I have realized. If I ever even unknowingly accidentally creep more than 5 miles per hour over the limit, I will be caught. Every time.
But I digress. As I was speeding along the interstate, a semi-trailer truck rolled up behind me probably going at least 15 miles an hour more than I was, and proceeded to almost park his cab on top of my back bumper. This was, of course, because other traffic prevented him from passing me at that time. Maybe I am just a scaredy-cat, but this kind of driving frightens me. What happens if my car suddenly blows a tire or drops it's drive shaft, or a deer darts out in front of me at this speed? Will the aggressive truck driver who is tailgating me be able to stop before he creams me?
Of course not. He knows that but yet, his fear of losing his job outweighs his fear of killing another motorist. And I fear my self preservation instincts will not help me one bit in that sort of situation.
This is yet another example of how Government over regulation and meddling into the rights of businesses for the sake of traffic safety has had the opposite effect. It hasn't created less traffic fatalities and less accidents. It has created more.
Maybe I'm all wrong about this, but I remember when truck drivers were the courteous and polite drivers.
All three entities are culpable for the reduction of civility on our nations highways. The Government, the Trucking companies, and the individual drivers.
Government regulations notwithstanding, I think it goes without saying that truck drivers are directly responsible for any actions that cause injury and death on our nations highways. I am not saying truck drivers are justified in abdicating their own culpability and responsibility in causing these accidents.
Whatever the law requires, they are nevertheless responsible for their own actions, but I believe there should be some sort of investigation into the responsibility of the trucking companies and the government.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
OK. I am outraged again, but not about anything the Libs are doing or saying, although they continually do and say outrageous things. The fact is, Libs are so outrageous so often that they have ceased to outrage me--at least for the time being. Usually they are just comical. Actually, I think they do us all a service by keeping us laughing about the stupid things they say and do continually.
No, this time I am outraged (actually not really outraged so much as mildly chagrined) over "Reverend" Pat Robertson endorsing Rudolph Guiliani for President. I put "Reverend" in quotes because, frankly, I believe he is a phony.
This guy represents himself as a Conservative Christian leader and yet he endorses a man who openly supports gay marriages and abortion? Not only is that not Conservative it's not even representative of most Christian's viewpoints.
Actually, I'm OK with gay marriage. It's not gay marriage that concerns me as much as the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle that bugs me. And if you allow gays to marry you are basically saying the lifestyle is a legitimate, normal, and acceptable way to live.
But if gays want to marry each other they do the rest of us normal people a favor by keeping perversion within their own community. As long as they aren't allowed to adopt and raise children I am OK with gay marriage.
Allowing gay people to raise children is child abuse.
And then there's abortion.
What kind of Conservative Christian would ever, ever endorse a pro-abortion candidate for dog catcher, let alone President? What is Robertson thinking?
I'll tell you what I believe he is thinking. There is money in this for him somewhere. Pat Robertson is all about money. Watch his broadcast sometime, if you can get through it without gagging. 90% of what he talks about is money. He is obsessed with money.
I suspect Rudy bribed him to obtain his endorsement. And that is giving Robertson the benefit of the doubt. He may really be in favor of gay marriage and abortion himself but won't admit it, as it would most certainly destroy any credibility that remains after his money obsession becomes publicly known.
Oh yes, I am aware many Conservative leaders are throwing their support behind Rudy. Sean Hannity claims he likes all the Republican candidates for President, but if you spend any time listening to his radio broadcast, it is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that he is a "Rudy man".
So what about Sean's argument that Rudy has promised that if elected he will appoint strict constructionist Justices in the model of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts?
If you believe that, I know a fellow in Florida with some prime real estate to sell you cheap.
Why would a pro abortion President appoint pro-life Justices? That just doesn't make sense. If he appointed any pro-life Justices it would be because they agreed with him about other issues, and abortion would be simply a fortunate coincidence. In other words, just because he says he will appoint strict constructionist judges, it doesn't mean he will appoint pro-life justices.
Obviously, if a Justice is a true constructionist, he would not be able to find a right to abortion in the Constitution, but as we have seen, that doesn't necessarily mean he would judge accordingly. As Laura Ingraham points out in her book, "Power to the People", sometimes Justices change their judicial philosophy once they occupy the bench. They stop being constructionist Justices and become activist Justices.
Think Souter and Kennedy.
No, I don't trust Guiliani, and I certainly don't trust Robertson. And if Robertson endorses him, he might as well tell me personally, "Don't vote for Guiliani".
But let me be clear. If Guiliani is chosen by the Republican party to be our Presidential candidate in '08, I will vote for him. Why? Because even the very worst Republican is better than the very best Democrat.
And Sam Brownback endorses John McCain? Sheeeeeeeeesh! Say it aint so, Sam!
It's no wonder many Conservatives say the Republican Party has lost it's way.
May God and Duncan Hunter save us.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
As I expressed previously in comments, I am tired of being outraged, and yet, there is little to be positive about lately.
Yesterday, here in Virginia, local and state elections were held. I voted Republican for the most part. I had some information on a couple of independents that are actually more Conservative than the Republicans they ran against, so I voted for them. I believe most of the candidates won, although the one I was most hoping to win didn't. Chris Yakabouski, Republican, ran for State Senate on a platform that promised to prevent special benefits for illegal aliens. The number of illegal aliens in Virginia is a serious problem, costing us taxpayers millions of dollars that could be better spent protecting, rather than endangering America's security.
But "Yak" lost. Illegal immigration has won. For the time being. The only solace I have is the knowledge that fortunately, Democrats usually do little of significance that they promise. I believe we are still safe. I hope.
That is just part of the reason I am feeling so anxious today. Another part of the equation has to do with the fact that I haven't posted any meaningful posts as of late. The fact is, I am simply tired of being outraged.
I am losing my mental faculties. This morning alone, I misplaced my car keys and had difficulty locating my shoes. And there have been many other similar episodes in the last few weeks. It worries me because this is totally unlike me. I don't lose things. I am not absent minded. At least I didn't used to be.
I am also starting to make mistakes. Not mistakes that are particularly dangerous, just silly little mistakes in my concentration. For instance, this morning I went to the grocery store and attempted to write a check for my purchase. The purchase was a mere $2.82, but I began to write my check for the amount of "two hundred...".
Next, although this isn't really anything I mistakenly did, but the check printer approval machine/computer wouldn't work and I stood for at least 15 minutes waiting for the cash register computer to unfreeze so they could process my check.
My right knee and ankle are mysteriously and suddenly causing me no small amount of pain. I don't know or understand why, because I haven't twisted, bumped or otherwise done anything that would create the pain. So, standing at the check out counter waiting for approval of a two dollar eighty-two cent check didn't help. I may soon have to acquiesce to the possibility that I'm getting old.
Maybe all this is a kind of Karmic ying/yang response to the things I do. Just before I wrote my check I helped an elderly woman unload some heavy items out of her cart onto the conveyor belt at the checkstand.
I drove into the 7-11 to get gas right behind a middle aged black woman who was limping into the parking lot on a flat tire. I offered to change her tire for her but she refused.
But I need to write. Something. Anything. Writing on this blog is a catharsis for me. I was in the throes of a full blown anxiety attack when I began this post, but already I feel much better. Just from writing.
I knew it would help.
I think my next post will be something expressing my outrage about something outrageous the Democrats or Libs (is that redundant?) are doing or saying or have done or said.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
A boy playing with matches started a Southern California wildfire that scorched more than 38-thousand acres and destroyed 63 structures, according to the L.A. County Sheriff's Department. "After talking with the suspect, he admitted playing with matches and starting the fire," the report said. The boy was released to the custody of his parents, police said. The case will be presented to the Los Angeles County district attorney for possible charges.
How should he be punished? He says it was an accident, but does he deserve criminal charges? Do we have an obligation as a society to take action, or should this be left up to his parents? Does it matter how old he is? What would you do if this were your son?
This was the subject on the "Grandy and Andy Morning Show" this morning on WMAL radio.
My question is this:
Why must there be any punishment at all? Why do we have to have someone to blame for everything? Is it not possible that sometimes things are simply an accident, and nobody deserves punishment? Isn't the regret and remorse the boy undoubtedly feels adequate to assure this kid will be more careful with matches?
Why must we always have to have somebody to blame?
Yes, I know there have been tremendous losses as a result of this fire, and yes, the victims deserve some sort of recompense. But then, that's what insurance is for, isn't it?
Fred Grandy (remember "Gopher" from Love Boat?) suggested if the boy is not old enough to be responsible (the report did not specify the child's age), perhaps his parents should be held responsible. Why? Does anyone think the kids parents actually taught their child to be irresponsible or foolhardy?
We've all been kids. and now and then, it made no difference how many times we were instructed to be responsible and not to do something that might result in injury or other serious consequences, we often did it anyway.
That is the nature of children.
When I was a child, I remember my older brother and I were playing with matches on one occasion. It was an Indian Summer day in Wichita, Kansas, and it was dry and windy. (Those who have spent any time in Wichita know it's always windy) My brother dropped a lit match into some dry grass, with a predictable, but unintended result. The dry grass blazed, and soon we were stomping and beating the flames with our coats trying unsuccessfully to put the fire out.
After the fire department brought the fire under control, just in time to prevent a propane tank in the midst of it from exploding, a fireman questioned my brother about his role in the incident. I don't remember if he or my parents were punished, but I do remember the look of fear on my brothers face. I had never seen him so vulnerable, so frightened and so traumatized, and I have never seen him in that way since. As far as I'm concerned, the terror experienced by the thought of what might have been was punishment enough.
Were my parents responsible? They weren't even there. They were at work. They had no doubt warned us many times of the danger of playing with matches, but we were kids. Kids do stupid things.
As a parent I can attest that kids sometimes don't listen to their parents and do irresponsible, even stupid things. It isn't that I don't teach my children responsibility and integrity. But sometimes they don't do as they've been instructed. Should I be punished because my children chose to disobey me?
I know there are parents who are completely irresponsible themselves. Parents who don't instruct, discipline, or serve as good role models to their children. Some are criminals themselves. In that case, I believe holding them responsible would be appropriate.
But I'm referring to the majority of parents, who try their best to instill good values and judgement into their progeny. There is no value in punishing them for their children's irresponsibility.
I know I incessantly talk about personal responsibility, but in what way can the parents be held responsible for the disobedience of their children? And why should they?
I say don't punish the kid. Don't punish the parents. Just this once, can't we just accept the fact that accidents happen, and understand that sometimes irresponsibility has unfortunate consequences? Those consequences in themselves are punishment enough. Let him make a sincere apology and move on. This kid will no doubt remember the rest of his life that playing with matches isn't smart.
And after all, isn't the assurance that he won't do it again the whole point of punishment?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Sayin' we'll meet all your demands
But we'll shout from the bow your days are numbered!" ~ Bob Dylan
Today was a beautiful Indian Summer day. The sun was shining, and the air had that slightly cold crisp feeling that signals us that Autumn has come and Winter is not far away.
I was grocery shopping, exited the store, and as I walked to my car with my groceries, this song popped into my head. I don't know why. It has no special significance that I know of, and I don't remember seeing or hearing anything that reminded me of it, and yet, bits and pieces of the song came back to me as if I heard it for the first time yesterday. I hadn't heard it or even thought of it in years:
Bob Dylan is apolitical, meaning he doesn't make his political views public. He may be a Democrat, or he might not be. This song can be considered political by people who perceive special messages in music, but I prefer to just enjoy the music.
Here are the lyrics:
Oh the time will come up
When the winds will stop
And the breeze will cease to be breathin'
Like the stillness in the wind
'Fore the hurricane begins
The hours when the ship comes in.
And the seas will split
And the ship will hit
And the sands on the shoreline will be shaking
Then the tide will sound
And the wind will pound
And the morning will be breaking.
Oh the fishes will laugh
As they swim out of the path
And the seagulls they'll be smiling
And the rocks on the sand
Will proudly stand
The hour that the ship comes in.
And the words that are used
For to get the ship confused
Will not be understood as they're spoken
For the chains of the sea
Will have busted in the night
And will be buried at the bottom of the ocean.
A song will lift
As the mainsail shifts
And the boat drifts on to the shoreline
And the sun will respect
Every face on the deck
The hour that the ship comes in.
Then the sands will roll
Out a carpet of gold
For your weary toes to be a-touchin'
And the ship's wise men
Will remind you once again
That the whole wide world is watchin'.
Oh the foes will rise
With the sleep still in their eyes
And they'll jerk from their beds and think they're dreamin'
But they'll pinch themselves and squeal
And they'll know that it's for real
The hour that the ship comes in.
Then they'll raise their hands
Sayin' we'll meet all your demands
But we'll shout from the bow your days are numbered
And like Pharaoh's tribe
They'll be drownded in the tide
And like Goliath, they'll be conquered
Sunday, October 28, 2007
And it came to pass, that the time for the primaries hath come, and the bumper stickers are brought forth upon the bumpers and the bleating of the candidates is heard throughout the land.
And the Republicans hath counseled among themselves, saying, "Soon shalt cometh the elections. If we couldst but raise Reagan from the dead, we wouldst have a mighty champion and slayer of Democrats."
And they hath searched their hearts.
Some crieth out for Romney, King of Mass, but his detractors saith "He flippeth and floppeth upon the issues, wherefore, we trust him not."
Some suggesteth Rudy, the mighty King of New Jerusalem, but he is regarded as deficient, for he is not the husband of one wife, and he tolerateth the sacrifice of infants to the God of Convenience.
Some clamoreth for Paul, the apostle of Libertarianism, but he is considered by the rulers to be possessed of an evil spirit and unelectable.
Still others endorseth Huckabee, deposed ruler of the southern kingdom, who humbles himself before God, and escheweth Liberalism. But the Moderates regardeth him not, and saith, "Is he not overmuch righteous?"
A few hath called out for McCain, Chief of the Desert tribes, but the chiefs considereth him, and findeth a taint, for he hath drunk not from the cup of gold water.
Many calleth out for Thompson, the champion of Law and Order, for he hath sat in judgment of kings and acted wisely in divers places.
The wiseth of the seers calleth out for Hunter, Counselor of Cal, and the scribes hath praised him, saying, "Is he not the mightiest Conservative of them all?" But their words are as sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal, for the people regardeth him not as a viable candidate.
Thus are the Republicans lined up on the right side, ready to do battle against the enemy on the left. And in between is the valley of Credibility Gap.
Wherefore I saith unto ye, my brethern, let us pray.
Friday, October 26, 2007
We've all seen this clip, or at least, heard it by now.
OK. So Pete Stark has apologized. And, as a good Conservative should do, we will do the honorable thing and accept his apology.
Now he needs to resign. Why? Because he makes stupid statements like this all the time! He hasn't learned, and he isn't really sorry.
I wonder. Are the Democrats embarrassed yet?
Having fun with my new-found techno-moron type knowledge of how to post videos in my blog, I came across this amusing little video, which brought up some interesting points I'd never thought of before, like:
Who said the 72 virgins have to be female?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
I got this idea from Lone Ranger. Once in a while I wake up with a song running through my head.This is the song that was running through my head this morning.
I wonder if there is any psychological significance to this?
By the way, yesterday I woke up and my Computer hard drive was fried. As in Kaput. This is my first posting with a laptop. I hope someday I will get used to this."
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The recent argument (found here, starting around the 54th comment or so)in favor of Janet Reno's storm trooper style "rescue" of Elian Gonzales from his oppressive family in Miami to be returned to his loving father in freedom loving Cuba seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous especially coming from a Christian.
Just after I woke up this morning, I turned the TV on and coincidentally, it was tuned to the channel that airs "The Coral Ridge Hour" , which this morning featured a report on atheism, particularly in oppressive Communist countries. It reminds all of us, once again, of the horrors of Communism.
Communist regimes kill Christians and Jews.
As in murder.
Of all things, religion is the biggest threat to a Communist society.
In reminding readers that Communism is a bad thing previously, I neglected to mention perhaps the most egregious pillar in the Communist philosophy is the creation of an atheistic state.
In order for a Communist society to exist, it is necessary to abolish religion.
In a Communist country, religion is outlawed. All religion. The only God the people are allowed to worship is the state.
Our resident Liberal commentator, Dan, would have us believe the Christian thing to do in Elian Gonzalez's case, is to remove him from a freedom loving, Christian family, and return him to his father in atheistic Communist Cuba. A father, who may or not be a pawn (or at least,under the influence)of Fidel Castro, the dictator of Communist Cuba.
I find it incredible that any Christian would support forcing a child, or anyone else, to live in a society where Christianity is illegal and often punishable by death.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Surprisingly, my last post, in which I merely copied and pasted something I received in my e-mail received a lot of comments. It featured several quotes by Hillary Clinton that appear to be paraphrased quotes from Marx and Engles' "Communist Manifesto" , and would suggest by these quotations that Hillary is a Communist. I began to add another comment but chose instead to just create another post to explain what I believe to be Hillary's real agenda.
I don't know how any of us can really know what Hillary thinks for real. Everything she says, or does, is calculated specifically to get herself elected. She says what she believes the majority of people want to hear.
We (and she) can easily see how much class envy effects people emotionally. Hillary recognizes how many people have class envy, and she exploits it. So do most Democrats. She is just particularly good at manipulating the people most severely effected.
For those of you in Rio Linda, Class envy is a pejorative term sometimes used to describe resentment of the rich and powerful by the poor and less powerful. The basis of class envy is a perception that the wealthy don't deserve to have the money they have earned, and that they have oppressed the poor to expand their power and influence. This resentment is usually not deserved.
Sometimes there are indeed people who would step on their own grandmothers to achieve success, and some who were born into wealth, but the majority of the wealthy came by their wealth through honest hard work and perseverance through difficulties.
This is to be envied but not resented.
When Hillary says, "We must take from the [evil] rich to help the poor children", she likely doesn't mean that. She probably wouldn't give up a penny of her own money to help a poor person. She just understands how to get votes.
Target the people who have class envy. Make them think she will help each of them have as much wealth as those they envy, or that she will make the wealthy as poor as they are. That's her formula for success.
Another issue she exploits is the issue of affordable health care. Everyone wants good health and no one wants to have to pay ridiculously high prices for health care. It's no-brainer for Hillary. Tell the people that you will fix the health care system so everyone can get health care free, and you will get votes from the people who don't consider how she intends to pay for these changes.
And then there's "the children". This isn't only Hillary's idea. Democrats have been using that phrase effectively for decades. They know if they can convince the people that whatever program they are pushing will help our nation's children somehow, they will get votes from voters who don't thoroughly research the issues. Tell the people your social programs are "for the children", and you get votes.
She probably isn't a Socialist at all. I would say she most likely fits the description of an opportunist. She will not allow an opportunity to get herself elected president get by her.
Only after she becomes the leader of the free world will we know what she really thinks.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
I found this in my e-mail today:
Note your answers, then check answers below:
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx
D. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
The question is not "Are we ready for a woman President?",
the question is, "Are we ready for a Communist President?"
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
I was listening to Sean Hannity's show and as usual, he was ranting about the dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency. He continually warns us that should Hillary become President, she will turn the United States of America into a Socialist country. And he is pretty close to correct in my opinion. Hillary Clinton certainly does appear to embrace a Communistic ideology.
The problem is, Hannity uses the term, "Socialist" as if it is a bad thing.
(What? Is Mark saying socialism isn't a bad thing? Has he lost his mind?)
No, I am not saying that. Communism is most definitely a bad thing. The problem is few average United States citizens across this country realize why it's an undesirable system.
The majority of Americans don't listen to Hannity, or any other talk radio show, and when the news comes on TV, they quickly change channels to catch the latest installment of "American Idol", or "Dancing with the Stars", or whatever. Anything but boring old news shows.
Plus, the Americans, ignorant of Communism, who do listen to newscasts and read newspapers are getting their news mostly from the decidely Liberally biased mainstream media.
The average American is blissfully ignorant of anything that has important far reaching and possibly devastating repercussions upon this country. Or for that matter, anything political.
They don't read newspapers unless they are reading to find out the latest gossip about Britney, Lindsay, and Paris, the latest sports scores, and/or the comics. They don't watch news programs or presidential debates or interviews with our country's most influential newsmakers.
What our culture has spawned in the last few decades since the 1960's are entire generations of people who don't know "Shiite" from shinola.
Watch Jay Leno's "jaywalk" feature sometime. Listen to the occasional man in the street interview from time to time. The average American is brain dead when it comes to things of national importance.
So, when Hannity and Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh warns us of the impending danger of a Hillary Clinton presidency, average rank-and-file Americans respond with a collective yawn.
Is it because they don't care? Or is it because they are under-educated about the horrors of a Communistic state?
We need to remember what kind of information has been spoon fed to Americans in the last several years.
The few average older Americans who remember the "Red scare" of the 50's, the Cuban missile crisis of the early 60's, the bloody invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union, etc, unless they were directly involved, don't remember the atrocities committed by Communist regimes worldwide. Either they don't remember or have buried the memories somewhere hoping against hope they won't resurface.
And don't look to the younger generation for redemption. The institutions of higher learning in this country are turning out graduates who have learned not the oppression of Communism, but instead have been indoctrinated in the lie that Socialism is the ultimate Utopian society. One which is to be admired, not reviled. Nearly every College and University in this country has become a cookie cutter that creates Communist adoring cookies.
Neither the older Americans or the younger generation know anything about the millions of murders and tortures inflicted on the people of Communist countries in the last century and today. Nor do they care.
Our children and our children's children have not been taught the truth of Communism.
The television and radio programs that the average American tunes into are overwhelmingly influenced by these same forces, even when they are just entertainment programs. Comedians, news anchors, talk show hosts and guests, sportscasters, your local disc jockeys, television and movie characters offer their opinions and the average American sits and listens, and digests whatever political and social ideology they hear, and they don't even realize they are being brainwashed.
For that matter, the majority of the aforementioned celebrities who regurgitate the Socialist pablum and distribute it to the average American don't realize to what extent their own minds have been manipulated.
The people they should be listening to, the ones who know and attempt to share the truth with Mr. and Mrs. Average American, are routinely demonized and marginalized by the overwhelmingly Liberal media and academia, to the point where they are no longer given any credibility.
It is an uphill battle for the hearts and minds of the average American. And common sense is the casualty.
Hannity, and Levin, and Rush, and the others need to not only tell the people what and who to fear, they need also to tell them why to fear.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
I have mentioned in the past that I do door-to-door fund raising for volunteer fire and rescue departments. Last night I spoke to man who informed me his son works for a fire department and he supports them. Feeling encouraged by that statement, I proceeded to explain to him the suggested donation amount, and to whom to write the check.
At that point, he interrupted me to say, "No, thanks", turned, and slammed the door in my face.
I walked away wondering about that abbreviated conversation. How can one say they support a volunteer fire department and then refuse to submit even a small donation? Is that really support? If he truly supports the fire department, in what other ways can they be supported? Does he, upon meeting a member of the fire department, pat him on the back and say, "Attaboy"? Is that what he means by using the word, "support"?
And then, I thought further. I say I support the troops. Republicans say they support the troops. Democrats say they support the troops. Most Americans say they support the troops. But what do we mean by that? Do we really support our troops? If so, how?
I don't really have an answer. I suppose for my part, I mean I don't call them baby killer or spit on them. I don't hate the troops, by any means. I have great respect for the troops. I passionately defend the troops upon hearing them being denigrated, but in what other ways can I be supportive?
How do you support the troops?
How can our Democrat controlled Congress honestly say they support the troops while denigrating them? Democrats have called them Nazi's, Soviets in their Gulags, and pawns of a Pol Pot type regime.
How is calling them Nazi's supportive?
They have called them cold blooded murderers in front of America.
How is calling them murderers supportive?
They have accused our soldiers of terrorizing innocent Iraqi women and children in the dead of night.
How is calling them terrorists supportive?
Hillary Clinton told General Petreaus his report to Congress "requires the willing suspension of disbelief".
How is calling General Petreaus a liar supporting the troops?
Now Harry Reid is accusing Rush Limbaugh of calling the troops "phony soldiers". He knows Rush was only referring to one soldier, who has been proven a phony, yet he stands on the floor of the Senate and lies to America.
Harry Reid is attempting to discredit Rush, who has been a strong supporter of the troops for decades, by accusing him of something he never said.
It is much more credible to suggest Harry Reid might call the troops phony than Rush Limbaugh.
Harry Reid doesn't support the troops. Harry Reid has said we have already lost the war.
How is that supporting the troops?
Several Senators and Congressmen, all Democrats, voted against additional funds and equipment for our troops. The same People who claim they support the troops. In what world is denying them the tools to do their jobs a move which signals support for the troops?
The Democrats do not support the troops.