Friday, June 29, 2007

Fairness? Doctrine?

"I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." ~ Charles De Gaulle

So now the immigration bill is dead, thanks the people exerting their will to force their Congressmen to do what they hired them to do.

If an illegal immigrant obeyed his boss like our senators and congressmen obey their bosses (constituents), he would be fired and quite possibly be forced to sneak back across the border. And his employers would save themselves a buck fifty an hour until they can hire another illegal alien.

So now the bill is tabled until the Democrats win the next Presidential election. Well, I can wait. Can't you?

Now, the next issue that confronts us and threatens to destroy America from within, is the so-called fairness doctrine.

This issue is neither doctrinal or fair.

This is yet another pathetic attempt by the to stifle Conservatives first amendment rights to free speech. Not Liberals right to free speech. Conservatives.

Can you imagine the outrage that would pour from Conservatives if Liberals had control of the nations airwaves? What would happen if we were subjected to Liberal spin every time we turned on radio or television news?

Wait a minute. What am I saying? They already do control America's airwaves. If you don't believe that, turn on your television, click your remote to any news channel you wish. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, even FOX News. They are all overwhelmingly Liberal, although admittedly, FOX News isn't as Liberal as the others. But they do present Liberal viewpoints objectively.

When CNN or any of those others listed presents a point-counterpoint type panel discussion, the Liberal points are well represented, usually by 3-4 Liberal attorneys, politicians, and/or reporters. The usually lone Conservative viewpoint is well represented by the third vice president of The John Birch Society or something.

I have a novel idea. I think we should give the Democrats what they want. Allow equal time to Liberals during Conservative and religious talk radio shows. For instance, Rush has a three hour daily show. Let the Liberals have one and a half hours of Rush's show to state their point of view. They could put on someone who rivals Rush in popularity such as Janeane Garafalo or Al Franken.

OK. I'm kidding about Franken and Garafalo.

Hijack half of Focus on the Family to promote Al Gore's religion, Global Warming. Let's be fair, and give him a chance to convert the unbelievers.
Take one and a half hours of Sean Hannity's radio show and give it over to say...Alec Baldwin to present his side. I see nothing wrong with doing that.

After all, that's fair, isn't it?

After a couple of months, radio will go back to an all music, all the time format. Why? Because people will stop listening to talk radio altogether. It isn't that I want to return to radio stations that play nothing but music, but I think my suggestion would prove the point to those who wish to legislate equality in airtime.

See, Politicians can make laws making it illegal to present only one side of an issue all they want.

But they can't make people listen.

Actually, the only way the Democrats could force radio and television stations to present opposing views equally, and make it a success, would be to also make a law requiring the people to listen.

But then we would have a "Big Brother" society, and Democrats don't really want that, do they?

Sunday, June 24, 2007

An Illegal Abortion

"If it were not for injustice, men would not know justice." ~ Heraclitus

Gayle, The Dragon Lady (not Hillary) mentioned over at her place, that she recently experienced some temporary blogger's block. I have suffered somewhat the same malady, except mine wouldn't be considered bloggers' block so much as a lack of passion. I just haven't been feeling that particular sense of outrage that makes me want to sit down and start pecking on this keyboard.

But yesterday, I heard the news that the body of a missing pregnant woman had been found, and her boyfriend, the father of her unborn child, arrested for her murder. That draws out the old familiar passion. Why passion for this one singular case as opposed to all the hundreds of murders that go on continually across this country?

The boyfriend, a police officer, was arrested on two counts of murder.

Two counts? He allegedly killed one woman. He only aborted the baby. After all, the baby wasn't out of the womb yet.

Why is he being charged with murder for something doctors all over the world are doing everyday legally?

According to Liberal law, made legitimate through unashamed Liberal manipulation of the Supreme Court of the United States, the unborn baby of Jesse Davis was not even a viable human being. The fetus before birth is actually only a lump of tissue. Why is it illegal to simply remove a lump of non-viable tissue? How, in our Liberal world, can Bobby Cutts Jr. be charged with murder?

It seems to me, if we are to be bound by the Supreme Courts ruling, the most he should be charged with in regard to the removal of a lump of tissue, is performing an abortion without a license, or maybe performing an abortion without presenting his girlfriend with a bill for his services.

Why isn't NARAL objecting to the additional charge of murder? Or Planned Parenthood? Or NOW?

Well, it's early yet.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU defends him, if not against both charges of murder, at least the charge of murder of the unborn baby. Sorry, I mean fetus.

Of course I am being facetious. The fact is, this time the law got it right. The killing of an unborn infant is murder. It's murder whether it is committed by an evil, murderous cop or a legally licensed doctor. Murder is murder. And murdering an unborn baby is particularly heinous.

To prosecute this murder and not abortionists is as much a murder of reason as it is a murder of a baby.

Oh, one more observation. The accused murderer is a black man. That means along with the ACLU, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will soon be descending on Canton bloviating about how Bobby Cutts is only being accused because he is black or because his civil rights are being violated or something. Somehow, they will manage to bring racism into the equation. They will probably blame the murders on the dead white woman.

But wait. In this Liberal society, logic doesn't count. Only emotion.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

How Was Your Father's day?

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child!"
~ William Shakespeare

How was your Father's day? Mine was adequate, due to the fact that my Fiancee made a big deal over it for me. I am not her father, so I don't understand the point, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

I have five kids. One gave me a gift. One called me and wished me happy Father's day. That's all. It's ok. I am not a good father anyway. It seems to me one should have to be a good father to deserve Father's day gifts.

My father was a good father. He must have been. He raised 6 kids, and all but one have become very successful, upstanding adults with fine upstanding kids of their own. None but me have ever been divorced and none but me have had kids who became juvenile delinguents, or any other kind of criminal.

My father is dead.

I really have no reason to celebrate Father's day, but I do appreciate it when others wish me well becaue I am a father.

I think my Father's day was pretty appropriate for me. I spent the majority of the day screaming as I tried to assemble an "easy to assemble" charcoal grill so I could spend 10 minutes grilling burgers for my fiancee's dad at his house. I bet I dropped a wingnut, or screw, or washer, or something on the ground at least 100 times. Who designs these things? Did the person who designed these things consider that it is all but impossible to attach a grill lid to a grill using wingnuts and screws while the lid is closed?

My son opted to stay home. It seems he prefers watching skateboard videos alone, at home, to spending time with his dad on Father's day.

But I'm not bitter. As I said, I believe one should have to be a good father to deserve Father's day wishes and gifts. It's not that I haven't tried my best, but I am not a good father.

Saturday, June 16, 2007


"Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." ~ Ulysses Everet McGill (From "O Brother, Where art thou?")

I wrote this enormously long comment over at Eric's place and then decided instead to go ahead and post my comment as an entry here, but after I copied what I wrote over there, and deleted it, I then copied another statement, thereby losing the entire content of my comment, which I failed to paste here first.

Does that make sense to anyone?

So, I am going to attempt to rewrite it. The original was brilliant, and this one will no doubt be far inferior to that one.

I begin with the original comment to which I was attempting to respond, (Parentheses are mine)to wit:

Erudite Redneck said...
Re, "Freedom of speech is not license to speak harmful hyperoble.
(sic)" (This statement was copied and pasted from Art's comment, made previously)

Yes, it is.

It is perfectly acceptable -- in fact, it is my patriotic duty! -- to scream FIRE in a theater if the theater is ON FIRE!

This country is on fire! And warmongering imperialists like George W. Bush and his lackeys -- using the concept of liberty as a makeshift human shield, as if she were a slut they can buy and sell, to hide their intent -- set the fire! Liberty?

They wants
(sic?) no liberty. They want an empire because they think THAT lowly of this country. They want it to be equal to the Ottoman, or the Soviet, or the Roman empire, the lowest forms of government -- beneath the worst of their subjects.

But we are CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS. And my First Amendment rights are more important that this stupid Iraq war, this president, or EITHER party. And if ewither
(sic) of you think othersise (sic), you are, in fact, traitors to the ideals of this nation. You've sold your birthright for a mess of porridge labeled "Bush," who is no conservative, no leader, no statesman, and no commander -- and you know it.

Yes. Well. I see we're back to an impasse.

God bless the Congress of these united states
(No capitalization? Could this be Freudian?): May it find its balls and take OUT this brainless, godless, soulless, senseless president before he destroys this country.


Now, I try to be fair and acknowledge a commenter when said commenter makes (in my opinion) a valid point, and this time is no exception. ER makes a valid point.

"Obi Wan" Pelosi and Harry "The body" Reid, are indeed guaranteed a first amendment right to make statements in dissension against American policy. They can announce the war is lost, or the surge is not working, or any General with whom they happen to disagree with is incompetent, even when they have no experience in military command themselves. They have every right to say anything they want.

They also have the right to be wrong. And stupid. And disagreeable.

But I think they have to also make use of some discretion when making statements that could undermine the efforts of our military, and at the same time, embolden our enemies.

Yes, we have a patriotic duty to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre when it is indeed on fire, however, wouldn't the chances of an ensuing panic be lessened somewhat by quietly going to each patron and calm urging them to leave the theatre quietly and orderly, yet quickly? Shouting fire would cause even more havoc, would it not? Wouldn't less people be injured by remaining calm than would be injured by a mad rush to the exits?

The press is complicit in this, too. Some of us are old enough to remember when the press used discretion. They knew more than they reported, yet they refused to divulge details that could compromise the country and politicians. They do that today, also, but not to protect The United States or it's leaders. Instead, they do it now to protect the guilty, tear down our leaders, and to undermine our country.

FDR, Eisenhower, and Jack Kennedy all cheated on their spouses but the average American didn't hear about it because the press didn't report the affairs. Babe Ruth and other famous sport stars lived scandalous private lives, but their accomplishments in their respective arenas were what the press reported. Reporting their bad behavior would have accomplished nothing positive.


Conversely, Today's media reports every negative accomplishment they can find, while playing down or even completely ignoring positive accomplishments of our leaders and our troops.

What word is the opposite of discretion? if there is such a word, it certainly applies to the modern media.

We all have the right to say whatever we want. But we also have the right...nay...the responsibility to use discretion, especially when refraining from doing so can result in catastrophe. Do Reid, Murtha, Pelosi, Durbin, and the others who continually harangue America and her troops use discretion? Does the press? Do any of them really care if American troops are killed as a result of their making use of their right to free speech?

I suspect the answer to that question can only be found in their hearts.

So, making liberal use of their first amendment right of free speech is not treasonous. But it certainly isn't helping our leaders and our troops, is it? What is the definition of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy?"

Taking advantage of our right to free speech to undermine our troops and our country's leaders isn't giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It's just not giving aid and comfort to our side.

Apparently, there's a fine line between patriotism and treason.

Hey! I think this post is even better than my comment over there!

Thursday, June 14, 2007

MADDENING!... Or A Suit With No Pair Of Pants

"Speak when you are angry--and you will make the best speech you'll ever regret." ~ Laurence J. Peter

Last night, I heard a story on WABC radio that I hadn't heard anywhere else, and I thought it was interesting enough to create a blog entry about, but now I can't remember what it was, and I can't find it anywhere on the Internet. It's maddening.

It sucks to get old and start losing ones short term memory.

I have been hearing a lot about one story, though, but I can't think of any comment to make about it, because the story speaks for itself. It is also maddening. Any comment I could make would be superfluous so, I won't comment, but I welcome comments from readers. From ABC news:

A Washington, D.C. law judge broke down in tears and had to take a break from his testimony because he became too emotional while questioning himself about his experience with a missing pair of pants.

Administrative law judge Roy Pearson is representing himself in civil court and claimed that he is owed $54 million from a local dry cleaner who he says lost his pants, despite a sign in their store which ensures "Satisfaction Guaranteed."

The case gained national attention soon after the lawsuit was filed. The pants are expected to be introduced into evidence, although the judge says the pants are not his, and the correct pants are still missing.

The sartorial loss caused Pearson to suffer what he calls severe "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."

You can read more here, if you aren't already nauseous.

Wait. I do want to make one comment. It entails a seeming contradiction in the Judge's story. Has the attorney for the defendant taken note of this?

According to ABC's initial reporting of the story: The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.

"Satisfaction Guaranteed."

Yet, the latest ABC installment reports:

Pearson has a long history with the Chungs. In 2002, after a disagreement over another pair of Pearson's pant which Custom Cleaners allegedly lost - and compensated him for with $150 - Pearson was banned from the store, defense attorney Christopher Manning claimed in court.

Manning said that Pearson pleaded with the Chungs to let him back into the store, because he didn't have a car, he said, and they were the only dry cleaners in the neighborhood.

So which is the real reason? Did Pearson patronize the store because they advertised satisfaction guaranteed, or because they were the only store he could walk to?

By the way, I've seen similar behavior from dry cleaning patrons before. A few years ago I witnessed a shameful tirade from a wealthy woman directed at a black dry cleaning store owner. She was angry that he failed to remove a spot from her dress. For those who don't already know this, there are some stains that dry cleaning can't remove.

She said, "Why don't you people stay in the ghetto where you belong?"

Could this lawsuit be racially motivated? Whether it is or isn't, I will be surprised if Manning doesn't somehow connect a racial motivation to Pearson's suit. Let's keep an eye on this.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The Facts On Thompson

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~ John Adams

Well, it seems that many Conservatives are salivating over the prospect that former Senator Fred Thompson (R) Tennessee, will be announcing his candidacy for President in the very near future. Some speculate it may be as early as the fourth of July.

My fear is that too many Conservatives are thinking Senator Thompson is another Reagan. I fear this may be wishful thinking. There is no guarantee, at least, not before thoroughly checking Thompson's voting record, that he is indeed another Reagan. Besides the fact that both Reagan and Thompson are actors, I am not so sure the similarities don't end there. Why? Because I know little about Thompson.

I remember I had the same reservations about Ronald Reagan when he ran for President. An actor? What does an actor know about running a country? This ain't a movie, Ronald.

There is one huge difference between the two actors. Thompson was a Senator before he was an actor.

So, this is what I did:

I went to a website called, "On the Issues" and I read there how Senator Fred Dalton Thompson voted on various issues when he was in the U.S. Senate. The website has determined Fred Thompson to be a "Moderate Populist Conservative" candidate.

What is that, you ask? It means, in a nutshell, that he has appeal to both Liberal and Conservatives, in different areas. Perhaps that is the kind of President America is looking for.

Check it out. See what you think. Do you agree with him? On how many issues?

So now, I'm impressed. He and I agree on so many issues, it's hard not to support him. I think I still prefer Rep. Duncan Hunter (R) California, but he is still not getting enough media attention. He needs recognition to expect to be taken seriously in the 2008 election.

Fred Thompson has the media attention and the popularity to win the nomination and the election. Add Duncan Hunter to the ticket as Vice President and we have what I consider a winning Conservative combination.

NOTE: Those of you who have been reading and appreciating Marshall Arts comments on this blog, as well as others, and are as impressed as I am with his intelligent, lucid, and well thought out opinions, will no doubt be happy to know (as I am) that Art has finally created his own blog. I have added it to my blogroll. Please be sure to visit and offer any comments you have. (Psst! Like Dan Trabue, he thrives on disagreement).

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Paris Hilton

"A person is never happy except at the price of some ignorance." ~ Anatole France

OK. So Paris Hilton had to go back to jail after a sympathetic sheriff gave her a nice ankle bracelet and sent her home. Then the judge sent her back. That's bizarre. By all accounts, she cried and screamed and pleaded with her mother to help her when it became clear she wasn't going to dodge the bullet any longer.

When I heard this news, one thought came to my mind:

She is a product of her environment.

I've heard all the comments about her being a spoiled little rich girl who gets special treatment because she is rich. To me, that simplistic explanation smacks of class envy.

I won't excuse Paris for what she did. She broke the law. She got what she deserved. Actually, I'm not so sure she didn't get some special treatment in this case. To me, forty five days seems to be a very short and easy sentence for repeated charges of drunk driving, along with failure to appear in court to answer those charges.

Driving while intoxicated should be treated much more seriously than it is currently, anyway. People should be made aware of the potential deadly repercussions of driving while intoxicated. A long stretch in prison would most certainly make that point clearly for the average offender.

But Paris Hilton is not your average drunk driver.

I realize that many people would challenge that statement.

No sentence will be short and easy for Ms. Hilton, and many people would say that is how it should be. And I will agree. But I also don't believe she needs to spend any more time in jail than she has already. Let me explain:

First, Ms. Hilton is a child of remarkable privilege. We poor average Americans tend to scoff at the super rich in this country, preferring to think of ourselves as somehow better, or more relevant to the real America. We are the people who do the real work, while people like the Hiltons take in the profits. Much of this simplistic view of the classes is true, but this view is nevertheless, simplistic.

I used to be afflicted with class envy, too, until I had an epiphany.

When I was a teen, back when the earth was cooling, you might say, I was involved in a church youth group, and most of the group were children of privilege. I was the only one among this small group of teens that didn't have a "rich daddy".

One of my friends was the daughter of a president of a large chemical corporation. One was the son of a man who owned a large prestigious Real Estate firm. Another friends father was a vice president for Boeing Military Aircraft division. My father was one of several thousand employees who worked at Boeing. He had worked his way up from a tool and die man to methods engineer, a fancy term for efficiency expert. He was moderately successful, but only made $15,000 a year when he retired. He retired in 1979, and back then, 15,000 was respectable but in no way could he have been considered wealthy.

The time of which I speak, I had an eye opening conversation with some of my friends that I still remember to this day. I was trying to explain why I couldn't go on some weekend trip with "the gang" because I simply couldn't afford the expense. One of the girls just smiled and said, "Why don't you just withdraw some money from your savings account?"

I was astounded. She really didn't understand that there were people in the world who couldn't buy everything they wanted without eventually running out of money. It was at this time that I realized these people were not to be envied. Instead, they were to be pitied for their ignorance of real people and real life struggles and the real value of a dollar.

A few years later, I was amused rather than astounded as I spoke with a friends wife, who was a daughter of a wealthy neurosurgeon. My friend's father was wealthy, too, but he had watched his father eventually attain millionaire status through hard work and perseverance. He understood the value of a dollar, while his wife had grown up with maids and butlers to help fulfill her every need. Once again, the topic was the need for funds. In her innocence, her response was, "Whenever I need money, I just ask daddy for it!"

She was blissfully and seriously ignorant.

My point in these examples is that Paris Hilton should not be vilified or even disdained for her behavior. It is the only life she knows. As I stated, she is the product of her environment.

Second, we must remember that one who has never been in real trouble is completely out of ones element when incarcerated for even a short period of time. Granted, Paris has escaped consequences of her many indiscretions in the past, but she was nevertheless wholly unprepared for the consequences of her hedonistic behavior.

No doubt she expected her public stature and family wealth to get her out of this latest predicament. This time it didn't.

Once again, I can relate to this situation. Although I have occasionally done things for which I should have been arrested for in my wilder days, I managed to keep myself out of jail.

But one time I did spend about four hours in the county lock-up. It was a severely traumatic experience for me. I can say, from personal experience, those four hours were more than enough to convince me that I never wanted to be placed in that situation again. And I never have been since.

The real reason, I suspect, that Ms. Hilton pitched such a fit in court, is that she already had experienced the reality of imprisonment, however short, and was given a false sense that she would never have to endure it again. Thinking back on my personal experience in a similar situation, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't react in much the same way, although I like to think I'd display a little less emotion.

Over all, I think Paris Hilton will ultimately learn a great deal from this. I think her incarceration will give her new insights and understanding of the less fortunate in our society.

If she hasn't learned her lesson by now, she never will. Any more jail time than she already has would be superfluous.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

A Tale Of Two Politicians

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." ~ Henry Kissinger

Today, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, received two and a half years in prison after he was convicted in March of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

At almost the same time, William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana has been indicted on charges of bribery, more than two years after he was seen on videotape accepting bribes, and after authorities found $90,000.00 in cold hard marked cash hidden in his freezer.

Caveat: An indictment is not a finding of guilt. In this country, a suspect in a crime, even one as obvious and well documented as this one, is considered innocent until proven guilty.

It's sort of like, "Who are you gonna believe? Me? or your lyin' eyes?"

What do you want to bet that Jefferson, if convicted, gets less time than Libby, if any time at all?

What is incredible to me is that there is a lot of hard evidence that Jefferson actually committed the crimes of which he has been charged, (in fact, he will be, if convicted, officially the most corrupt politician in modern history) but there is quite a lot of doubt that Libby did anything wrong. There wasn't even enough evidence to try him on the crime for which the Democrats wanted him to be convicted, the outing of a "covert" CIA agent.

And of course, unlike Republicans who get caught doing something unethical or downright illegal, he will stay in the House and fight, claiming complete innocence despite the mountain of evidence against him. Republicans, as we know, will resign immediately upon the mere suspicion of impropriety.

And Jefferson's behavior is likely what Speaker Pelosi was referring to when she said hers would be the most ethical Congress in history, no?

There will be more, much more, on this as time goes by.

Also, I have added another blog to my high quality but not so short blogroll. It is DUmmie Funnies, a blog devoted to taking comments directly from Democratic Underground and the daily Kos and making fun of them. It's pretty good comic relief, although not side splitting humor. That's probably because the DU regulars are more irrelevant and pathetic then they are funny.

But I have added the blog to my blogroll, nonetheless. Go there and see what you think.