"O Bla Dee, O Blah Da, Life goes on, bra! La la how the life goes on!" ~ John Lennon
Many interesting things have been going on in the news since my last posting. I have a few comments about them, hopefully short ones:
Senator Ted Stevens (R) Alaska, is under investigation for alleged corruption. According to the AP:
Federal agents searched the home of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens on Monday, focusing on records related to his relationship with an oil field services contractor jailed in a public corruption investigation, a law enforcement official said.
Frankly, I'm getting a little bit sick of all the charges of corruption regarding all politicians. In particular, I am disappointed in any GOP politicians who get themselves mired in such situations. They should know the Dems are out to get them, no matter how innocuous (or unfounded) the charges, therefore, they should conduct themselves in such a manner that there could not possibly be any reason to suspect them of any malfeasance whatsoever.
You don't have to be the head checker down at the Walmart to figure that out.
Moreover, I am not so sure Stevens isn't guilty. After all, he is the author of the infamous "bridge to nowhere" legislation. That was shameful.
I am so fed up with these jerks that I am re-considering my registration as a Republican and thinking seriously of re-registering, once again, as an Independent.
A woman in Ocean City, Maryland has been charged with murder of her unborn infant after she checked into a hospital emergency room bleeding profusely. Doctors examined her and discovered a placenta and half of an umbilical cord in her, indicating she had recently given birth. When authorities searched her home, a freshly aborted infant was found, plus three more infant bodies.
She had performed an abortion on herself, possibly several.
So, my question would be: Why is she being charged with murder? Abortion is legal, is it not?
The answer to that question is simple:
No doctor made money from this particular abortion, therefore, it is illegal.
The only reason Libs want to keep the murder of pre-born infants legal in this country is money. Abortion is a multi-million dollar business.
If a doctor wants to get rich(er) in this country, all he has to do is abandon morality and start performing abortions. And assisting suicides.
Chief Justice John Roberts fell on a dock at his summer home in Maine and was transported to the hospital, where doctors determined he had a seizure. Apparently, it is not so serious that it will cause him to abandon his seat on the Supreme court.
On a whim, I decided to visit the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground to see what the "party of compassion" had to say about Roberts' sudden medical situation.
I was surprised. A few commenters were sympathetic and wished him well.
A few.
Not a majority by any stretch of the imagination, but a few. Most wished him dead.
Iraq's Soccer team won a championship and thousands, if not millions of Iraqi's celebrated the victory.
What? I thought Iraq was a quagmire with innocent Iraqi civilians cowering in fear under their beds from the evil American imperialists. How have they managed to field a whole soccer team at all, let alone a championship team?
Is it possible the American media is giving us an inaccurate and incomplete picture of military successes in Iraq? (Bite your tongue)
Ok. There's more, but I broke my promise to keep my comments short. More later, if I don't get too disgusted with all the insanity.
By the way, uneducated blogger points to whoever can identify the book and author of the quote used in the title of this entry.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Alert The Media!
"Our character...is an omen of our destiny, and the more integrity we have and keep, the simpler and nobler that destiny is likely to be." ~ George Santayana
Alert the media! I know many will be surprised, but I disagree with a Conservative talk radio show host.
I only listen to talk radio when I am driving, and often, not even then. However, when I tune into talk radio between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM weekdays, I choose to listen to either Glen Beck here on Fredericksburg's local station 1230 AM, or Chris Core, a Conservative talk show host, on WMAL, the Washington DC station.
Yesterday, I was listening to Chris Core as he explained why Michael Vick shouldn't
be sent to jail should he be convicted in the now infamous dog fighting case.
That's right. I said he thinks Vick shouldn't be sent to jail. Why?
I have to admit Mr. Core has a unique perspective. He says if Vick is convicted and sentenced to six years it would effectively end his career as an NFL star quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. This is no doubt true. However, Core insists if Vick can't play for the team, hundreds of innocent people's incomes will be adversely affected. All of the people who make their living off Atlanta's football franchise will suffer a severe loss of income, according to Mr. Core. Therefore, Vick should be fined, given community service or something else instead of jail.
In my opinion, Chris Core is way off base on this one.
To begin with, The Atlanta Falcons made money before Michael Vick, and they will continue to make money long after he is gone. They will not lose a significant amount of money just because Vick is not playing. In fact, Atlanta hasn't made it to the Super Bowl since Vick has been quarterback. They won the Superbowl without him.
The notion that anyone will lose money besides Vick himself is simply ludicrous.
Additionally, if Vick goes to jail, the Falcons will have to use someone else as starting quarterback, and who's to say they wouldn't get a better one than Vick? He really isn't the best quarterback in history. In my opinion he isn't even the best among the current quarterbacks in the NFL.
It takes at least 11 players to make a football team, and each of these 11+ players has his own role on the team. Atlanta cannot win without each and every player doing the job they are contracted to play.
One player does not a team make.
People buy tickets to watch Atlanta play, and they will continue to pay for tickets regardless of who is starting quarterback.
The possibility that some people who earn money from the Atlanta Falcons football club will lose money because one player has shown a complete lack of character and integrity is no excuse to ignore the law.
No, it wouldn't seem to be fair, but who said life is fair?
Personally, I doubt Vick will go to jail. Sports stars rarely do time, even when they are convicted. Even if he is sentenced to a term in jail, he will probably be out within a couple of years, and if I know anything of NFL history, he will play again.
If Michael Vick is found guilty, he should go to jail. Because dog fighting is a crime. Because people who get convicted of a crime of this severity should do time, regardless of who they are or how much money they earn. Because anything short of jail time would be a travesty of justice. Because the eyes of adoring children are on him and they must be taught that even sports idols are not above the law. Because integrity cannot be compromised at any price.
And because it's the law.
Alert the media! I know many will be surprised, but I disagree with a Conservative talk radio show host.
I only listen to talk radio when I am driving, and often, not even then. However, when I tune into talk radio between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM weekdays, I choose to listen to either Glen Beck here on Fredericksburg's local station 1230 AM, or Chris Core, a Conservative talk show host, on WMAL, the Washington DC station.
Yesterday, I was listening to Chris Core as he explained why Michael Vick shouldn't
be sent to jail should he be convicted in the now infamous dog fighting case.That's right. I said he thinks Vick shouldn't be sent to jail. Why?
I have to admit Mr. Core has a unique perspective. He says if Vick is convicted and sentenced to six years it would effectively end his career as an NFL star quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. This is no doubt true. However, Core insists if Vick can't play for the team, hundreds of innocent people's incomes will be adversely affected. All of the people who make their living off Atlanta's football franchise will suffer a severe loss of income, according to Mr. Core. Therefore, Vick should be fined, given community service or something else instead of jail.
In my opinion, Chris Core is way off base on this one.
To begin with, The Atlanta Falcons made money before Michael Vick, and they will continue to make money long after he is gone. They will not lose a significant amount of money just because Vick is not playing. In fact, Atlanta hasn't made it to the Super Bowl since Vick has been quarterback. They won the Superbowl without him.
The notion that anyone will lose money besides Vick himself is simply ludicrous.
Additionally, if Vick goes to jail, the Falcons will have to use someone else as starting quarterback, and who's to say they wouldn't get a better one than Vick? He really isn't the best quarterback in history. In my opinion he isn't even the best among the current quarterbacks in the NFL.
It takes at least 11 players to make a football team, and each of these 11+ players has his own role on the team. Atlanta cannot win without each and every player doing the job they are contracted to play.
One player does not a team make.
People buy tickets to watch Atlanta play, and they will continue to pay for tickets regardless of who is starting quarterback.
The possibility that some people who earn money from the Atlanta Falcons football club will lose money because one player has shown a complete lack of character and integrity is no excuse to ignore the law.
No, it wouldn't seem to be fair, but who said life is fair?
Personally, I doubt Vick will go to jail. Sports stars rarely do time, even when they are convicted. Even if he is sentenced to a term in jail, he will probably be out within a couple of years, and if I know anything of NFL history, he will play again.
If Michael Vick is found guilty, he should go to jail. Because dog fighting is a crime. Because people who get convicted of a crime of this severity should do time, regardless of who they are or how much money they earn. Because anything short of jail time would be a travesty of justice. Because the eyes of adoring children are on him and they must be taught that even sports idols are not above the law. Because integrity cannot be compromised at any price.
And because it's the law.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
An Experiment
"One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one." ~ Agatha Christie
Let's get one thing out of the way first. I don't care if Senator David Vitter's number was on the DC madam's list. I won't back off my original predictions until proven completely wrong. There are thousands of numbers on that list, and Vitter's is one of them. One out of thousands. One number does not prove me wrong. Only until every name on that list is revealed will I recant. And then, only if it proves that I was wrong, and that there are more Republicans listed than Democrats.
Until then, I have only one more comment to make on the matter:
Larry Flint, publisher of Hustler magazine has offered a million dollars to anyone who comes forward with proof of sexual scandals involving Washington politicians. He wants to publish names of all Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, and any other politicians who have been caught with their pants down, so to speak, with the exception of those who aren't "hypocrites". Those are Flints words, not mine.
Who do you suppose are hypocrites in Larry Flints eyes? Here's a hint:
Flint is a Democrat.
If any more selected names are eventually revealed by Hustler, unless the entire list is published, mark my words. All the names published will be Republicans and/or religious leaders. And the Liberally biased American media will be happy to broadcast it to the unwashed masses.
Consider the source. It's Hustler. It is the nature of the beast. This isn't rocket surgery.
Now. That was not my intended topic for this entry. The following is:
I've been giving quite a bit of thought lately, to the ideological differences between Liberals and Conservatives in several seemingly eternal and divisive issues. The war in Iraq, National (socialized) health care, global warming, taxation, and welfare, among other things.
Liberals have, for the most part, embraced the concept of a "cut and run" policy in Iraq. They have expressed a belief that if we pull our troops out of Iraq, the terrorists will be satisfied and stop murdering innocent civilians and attacking Americans, both military and civilian. After all, they believe it is the United States fault that they have found it necessary to invade Iraq and protect Iraq from the evil American Imperialists, don't they? If we weren't over there, there would be no need for them to continue to bomb us.
Conservatives insist that if we pull out before the "job is finished", chaos would overrun Iraq, and terrorists attacks will increase dramatically, both here and abroad. it has often been said by many, (me included) that we are fighting them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them over here. It is predicted if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us to our shores and begin to attack American civilians.
Osama bin Laden has said, America is a paper tiger, meaning that we are weak-willed and will cave at the slightest hint that we are in danger. President Bill Clinton's pull out of Somalia (sorry Rick and Goat) after the "Black Hawk Down" episode is the inspiration behind bin Laden's famous quote. Osama saw how America reacted to the tragic events in Somalia and became emboldened to perpetrate further attacks on America and America's interests abroad.
The Liberals would have us believe that somehow we have made him change his assessment of America's resolve.
However, they can't tell us how we did that.
Conservatives (me included) believe if we remove our troops from Iraq, bin Laden and his support groups (including the New York Slimes, Washington ComPost, etc) will see that as a sign of weakness and will immediately move to complete the annihilation of any nation that isn't 100% Muslim, according to bin Laden's narrow definition.
We believe the Islamic terrorists ultimate goal is not to force the United States and their allies out of Iraq, but rather, global domination, by converting everyone in the world to Islam. If we don't convert, the only alternative is a swift and merciless death.
There is no other choice. Anyone that believes all religions can live together in peace and harmony is delusional. The Islamic Jihadists have made their point crystal clear.
Liberals appear to believe it is possible to negotiate with terrorists to achieve an ultimate goal of a one-world global utopia, where all people can live together with mutual respect for all religious and ideological differences.
There appears to be no way to resolve these differences between Liberals and Conservatives short of testing them.
So, I propose an experiment.
Firstly, let's establish some ground rules:
It is vitally important that no word of this experiment is allowed to leak out or the results will be tainted, and any conclusions reached will be rendered meaningless and neither side will be vindicated. Under no circumstances can the media be informed.
No one can be made aware that this experiment is ongoing except a very minimum of principles involved. Only the President and a select few military leaders can be allowed to know what we are doing.
With these conditions satisfied, the President should order a massive retreat of all forces in the Middle East, down to the last cook and bottle washer. Completely leave Iraq to only the citizens and insurgents. Re-deploy all the troops to friendly countries just as close to the Iraqi border as we possibly can.
Then, we wait to see exactly what the terrorists will do in response.
If, as the Leftists insist, they quietly and peacefully disperse back to their own countries and return to farming, or banking, or drilling oil wells, or whatever they did before they enlisted into bin Ladens army, we will know at last, that the Liberals were right all along, and we can all become registered Democrats.
But if, as I suspect, they immediately step up their attacks against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and abroad, and if they do indeed follow us to America and start blowing up amusement parks, football stadiums, casinos, and government and financial buildings, it will be proven that the Conservatives have been right all along and all Americans will register as Republicans.
And, if the terrorists run amok, as I believe they will, the President should not be questioned nor criticized should he decide to just nuke the entire Mideast, and thereby eradicate Islamic terrorism once and for all.
That should settle once and for all the question of whether surrender or achieving victory is the best policy.
Next: National Health Care. Stay tuned.
Let's get one thing out of the way first. I don't care if Senator David Vitter's number was on the DC madam's list. I won't back off my original predictions until proven completely wrong. There are thousands of numbers on that list, and Vitter's is one of them. One out of thousands. One number does not prove me wrong. Only until every name on that list is revealed will I recant. And then, only if it proves that I was wrong, and that there are more Republicans listed than Democrats.
Until then, I have only one more comment to make on the matter:
Larry Flint, publisher of Hustler magazine has offered a million dollars to anyone who comes forward with proof of sexual scandals involving Washington politicians. He wants to publish names of all Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, and any other politicians who have been caught with their pants down, so to speak, with the exception of those who aren't "hypocrites". Those are Flints words, not mine.
Who do you suppose are hypocrites in Larry Flints eyes? Here's a hint:
Flint is a Democrat.
If any more selected names are eventually revealed by Hustler, unless the entire list is published, mark my words. All the names published will be Republicans and/or religious leaders. And the Liberally biased American media will be happy to broadcast it to the unwashed masses.
Consider the source. It's Hustler. It is the nature of the beast. This isn't rocket surgery.
Now. That was not my intended topic for this entry. The following is:
I've been giving quite a bit of thought lately, to the ideological differences between Liberals and Conservatives in several seemingly eternal and divisive issues. The war in Iraq, National (socialized) health care, global warming, taxation, and welfare, among other things.
Liberals have, for the most part, embraced the concept of a "cut and run" policy in Iraq. They have expressed a belief that if we pull our troops out of Iraq, the terrorists will be satisfied and stop murdering innocent civilians and attacking Americans, both military and civilian. After all, they believe it is the United States fault that they have found it necessary to invade Iraq and protect Iraq from the evil American Imperialists, don't they? If we weren't over there, there would be no need for them to continue to bomb us.
Conservatives insist that if we pull out before the "job is finished", chaos would overrun Iraq, and terrorists attacks will increase dramatically, both here and abroad. it has often been said by many, (me included) that we are fighting them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them over here. It is predicted if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us to our shores and begin to attack American civilians.
Osama bin Laden has said, America is a paper tiger, meaning that we are weak-willed and will cave at the slightest hint that we are in danger. President Bill Clinton's pull out of Somalia (sorry Rick and Goat) after the "Black Hawk Down" episode is the inspiration behind bin Laden's famous quote. Osama saw how America reacted to the tragic events in Somalia and became emboldened to perpetrate further attacks on America and America's interests abroad.
The Liberals would have us believe that somehow we have made him change his assessment of America's resolve.
However, they can't tell us how we did that.
Conservatives (me included) believe if we remove our troops from Iraq, bin Laden and his support groups (including the New York Slimes, Washington ComPost, etc) will see that as a sign of weakness and will immediately move to complete the annihilation of any nation that isn't 100% Muslim, according to bin Laden's narrow definition.
We believe the Islamic terrorists ultimate goal is not to force the United States and their allies out of Iraq, but rather, global domination, by converting everyone in the world to Islam. If we don't convert, the only alternative is a swift and merciless death.
There is no other choice. Anyone that believes all religions can live together in peace and harmony is delusional. The Islamic Jihadists have made their point crystal clear.
Liberals appear to believe it is possible to negotiate with terrorists to achieve an ultimate goal of a one-world global utopia, where all people can live together with mutual respect for all religious and ideological differences.
There appears to be no way to resolve these differences between Liberals and Conservatives short of testing them.
So, I propose an experiment.
Firstly, let's establish some ground rules:
It is vitally important that no word of this experiment is allowed to leak out or the results will be tainted, and any conclusions reached will be rendered meaningless and neither side will be vindicated. Under no circumstances can the media be informed.
No one can be made aware that this experiment is ongoing except a very minimum of principles involved. Only the President and a select few military leaders can be allowed to know what we are doing.
With these conditions satisfied, the President should order a massive retreat of all forces in the Middle East, down to the last cook and bottle washer. Completely leave Iraq to only the citizens and insurgents. Re-deploy all the troops to friendly countries just as close to the Iraqi border as we possibly can.
Then, we wait to see exactly what the terrorists will do in response.
If, as the Leftists insist, they quietly and peacefully disperse back to their own countries and return to farming, or banking, or drilling oil wells, or whatever they did before they enlisted into bin Ladens army, we will know at last, that the Liberals were right all along, and we can all become registered Democrats.
But if, as I suspect, they immediately step up their attacks against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and abroad, and if they do indeed follow us to America and start blowing up amusement parks, football stadiums, casinos, and government and financial buildings, it will be proven that the Conservatives have been right all along and all Americans will register as Republicans.
And, if the terrorists run amok, as I believe they will, the President should not be questioned nor criticized should he decide to just nuke the entire Mideast, and thereby eradicate Islamic terrorism once and for all.
That should settle once and for all the question of whether surrender or achieving victory is the best policy.
Next: National Health Care. Stay tuned.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Another Sandwich Story
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us, Tae see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An’ foolish notion" ~ Robert Burns
Lone Ranger posted a humorous story today which reminded me of an interesting incident that happened to me once, many years ago, when the earth was cooling. So, I thought I'd depart from the usual political, moral outrage kind of blog entry and tell this true story:
My first wife and I went to a McDonalds for lunch. She found a place for us to sit and told me what she wanted to est, a fish sandwich with cheese and a pickle on it, and I went to the counter to place our order.
Try to imagine my surprise when the counter person informed me that they couldn't sell me a fish sandwich with a pickle. They said they weren't allowed to place a pickle on a fish sandwich.
"Why?" I asked. At this point, I am merely curious. It makes no difference to me whether her fish sandwich is made to her specific specifications or not. But, admittedly, I was mildly chagrined that this seemingly innocuous request should be denied.
"It's just not the way we make them", I was told.
No other explanation.
"You can't put a pickle on a fish sandwich". I repeated, and then, "You can't put a pickle on a fish sandwich?... Why can't you make them that way?"
"It's the rules."
I then proceeded to ask the same question ten different ways, and the only answer I got was, "It's the rules."
"Why is it the rules?" I was getting heated.
"I don't know," answered the counter person.
"Let me speak to your manager", I demanded.
Shortly, the manager appeared, and it was clear he had been prepped in advance to deal with an unreasonable customer. "How can I help you?" he asked, a little too sweetly.
I tried very hard to control my temper, as I intoned, "This person is trying to tell me McDonalds isn't allowed to put pickles on fish sandwiches."
The manager smiled grimly. I've read that phrase in cheap paperbacks before, but I must confess I'd never really understood how one could "smile grimly" until this moment. "That's correct" , he said, then placed his body in a defensive position, probably in expectation of a physical confrontation.
"Why?" I said again, for the hundredth time, "Why can't McDonalds put a pickle on a fish sandwich?"
"Sir, McDonalds is a corporation whose success is dependent on very specific ways of preparing the product, which maximises the marketability of the McDonalds product. If we were to change the things that make our company successful, it could seriously impair our ability to stay in business" , he explained, and then added, helpfully, "We can sell you our regular fish sandwich and put a pickle on the side for you."
Ignoring the now obvious and flawless logic of why McDonalds refuses to capitulate to an irate customer's unreasonable demands, I asked, "If you can put a pickle on the side, why can't you just eliminate the extra step and expense of using up a superfluous paper container by simply putting the pickle on the sandwich?"
"Can't do it. Not allowed. I could literally be fired for breaking the rule. It's kind of like a copyright. If we put a pickle on the fish sandwich we run the risk of infringing on some one else's copyright."
"I won't tell anyone." I was being sincere.
"Nope, sorry."
I changed strategy. "OK. Tell me something. What are you allowed to put on fish sandwiches?"
"Fish, cheese, and tartar sauce. We are allowed to sell fish sandwiches without the cheese or the tartar sauce, but we can't put a pickle on the sandwich."
"What's in the tartar sauce?" I asked, innocently.
"You mean, what's the tartar sauce made of? I'm not completely sure of all the ingredients. I think it's mostly mayonnaise and pickles."
"Then" , I said, triumphantly, "I want you to put tartar sauce on the sandwich, but leave out every ingredient except the pickles."
He hesitated. "I'm sorry, sir..." he began, but apparently found himself at a loss for words. He didn't finish the thought.
"OK", I caved. "Give me the sandwich with the pickle on the side."
I took the order to our table and an impatient angry first wife, and sat down fuming.
First wife asked, "What took you so long?"
I answered her, but that's a whole other chapter in the story.
Lone Ranger posted a humorous story today which reminded me of an interesting incident that happened to me once, many years ago, when the earth was cooling. So, I thought I'd depart from the usual political, moral outrage kind of blog entry and tell this true story:
My first wife and I went to a McDonalds for lunch. She found a place for us to sit and told me what she wanted to est, a fish sandwich with cheese and a pickle on it, and I went to the counter to place our order.
Try to imagine my surprise when the counter person informed me that they couldn't sell me a fish sandwich with a pickle. They said they weren't allowed to place a pickle on a fish sandwich.
"Why?" I asked. At this point, I am merely curious. It makes no difference to me whether her fish sandwich is made to her specific specifications or not. But, admittedly, I was mildly chagrined that this seemingly innocuous request should be denied.
"It's just not the way we make them", I was told.
No other explanation.
"You can't put a pickle on a fish sandwich". I repeated, and then, "You can't put a pickle on a fish sandwich?... Why can't you make them that way?"
"It's the rules."
I then proceeded to ask the same question ten different ways, and the only answer I got was, "It's the rules."
"Why is it the rules?" I was getting heated.
"I don't know," answered the counter person.
"Let me speak to your manager", I demanded.
Shortly, the manager appeared, and it was clear he had been prepped in advance to deal with an unreasonable customer. "How can I help you?" he asked, a little too sweetly.
I tried very hard to control my temper, as I intoned, "This person is trying to tell me McDonalds isn't allowed to put pickles on fish sandwiches."
The manager smiled grimly. I've read that phrase in cheap paperbacks before, but I must confess I'd never really understood how one could "smile grimly" until this moment. "That's correct" , he said, then placed his body in a defensive position, probably in expectation of a physical confrontation.
"Why?" I said again, for the hundredth time, "Why can't McDonalds put a pickle on a fish sandwich?"
"Sir, McDonalds is a corporation whose success is dependent on very specific ways of preparing the product, which maximises the marketability of the McDonalds product. If we were to change the things that make our company successful, it could seriously impair our ability to stay in business" , he explained, and then added, helpfully, "We can sell you our regular fish sandwich and put a pickle on the side for you."
Ignoring the now obvious and flawless logic of why McDonalds refuses to capitulate to an irate customer's unreasonable demands, I asked, "If you can put a pickle on the side, why can't you just eliminate the extra step and expense of using up a superfluous paper container by simply putting the pickle on the sandwich?"
"Can't do it. Not allowed. I could literally be fired for breaking the rule. It's kind of like a copyright. If we put a pickle on the fish sandwich we run the risk of infringing on some one else's copyright."
"I won't tell anyone." I was being sincere.
"Nope, sorry."
I changed strategy. "OK. Tell me something. What are you allowed to put on fish sandwiches?"
"Fish, cheese, and tartar sauce. We are allowed to sell fish sandwiches without the cheese or the tartar sauce, but we can't put a pickle on the sandwich."
"What's in the tartar sauce?" I asked, innocently.
"You mean, what's the tartar sauce made of? I'm not completely sure of all the ingredients. I think it's mostly mayonnaise and pickles."
"Then" , I said, triumphantly, "I want you to put tartar sauce on the sandwich, but leave out every ingredient except the pickles."
He hesitated. "I'm sorry, sir..." he began, but apparently found himself at a loss for words. He didn't finish the thought.
"OK", I caved. "Give me the sandwich with the pickle on the side."
I took the order to our table and an impatient angry first wife, and sat down fuming.
First wife asked, "What took you so long?"
I answered her, but that's a whole other chapter in the story.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Independence Day 2007
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Poison Pero posted the entire Declaration of Independence on his blog today and upon reading it I am struck by the relevance the ancient document has on events today.
The United States of America was founded as a Republic and governed by a Democratic process of government, which as Abraham Lincoln so aptly described, is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Today, it seems many of our duly elected representatives, both Republican and Democrat, have forgotten that the our Government is actually governed by the people, and not by them.
The recent vote on the Presidents immigration bill proposal has proven that once and in a while, our representatives must be reminded who is really in charge. The switchboards on Capitol Hill were literally jammed with calls. Calls that effectively communicated the will of the United States real government, that of the people of this great land.
I was born in freedom and liberty as were most who read this. Too often we forget what true freedom really is, but we need only to ask someone who was not born and raised in freedom to truly understand the gift that our founding fathers have bestowed on us.
As we celebrate our Independence on this Independence day of 2007, try to remember what the founders of this great republic had to endure to bring freedom to you and me, and to our children. And resolve this day to resist the usurping of our God given authority by certain elected so-called representatives of "we the people".
Enjoy your celebration.
Poison Pero posted the entire Declaration of Independence on his blog today and upon reading it I am struck by the relevance the ancient document has on events today.
The United States of America was founded as a Republic and governed by a Democratic process of government, which as Abraham Lincoln so aptly described, is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Today, it seems many of our duly elected representatives, both Republican and Democrat, have forgotten that the our Government is actually governed by the people, and not by them.
The recent vote on the Presidents immigration bill proposal has proven that once and in a while, our representatives must be reminded who is really in charge. The switchboards on Capitol Hill were literally jammed with calls. Calls that effectively communicated the will of the United States real government, that of the people of this great land.
I was born in freedom and liberty as were most who read this. Too often we forget what true freedom really is, but we need only to ask someone who was not born and raised in freedom to truly understand the gift that our founding fathers have bestowed on us.
As we celebrate our Independence on this Independence day of 2007, try to remember what the founders of this great republic had to endure to bring freedom to you and me, and to our children. And resolve this day to resist the usurping of our God given authority by certain elected so-called representatives of "we the people".
Enjoy your celebration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
