"Nothing's cold as ashes, after the fire is gone" ~ Conway Twitty
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?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
When 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!" ~ 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
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
The Begatting Of A Candidate
"God bless thee; and put meekness in thy mind, love, charity, obedience, and true duty!" ~ William Shakespeare
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.
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
Pete Stark
"Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." ` Mark Twain
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?
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?
Fun With YouTube
"Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped." ~ Groucho Marx
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?
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
What I Woke To
"Another Saturday Night and I aint got nobody" ~ Sam Cooke
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."
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
A Christian Defends Atheism
" Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." ~ Karl Marx
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.
Kill.
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.
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.
Kill.
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
Hillary A Socialist?
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." ~ Joseph Goebbels
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.
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
From My In Box
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ~ Mark Twain
I found this in my e-mail today:
A Quiz.
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."
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
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
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
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."
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers:
(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?"
I found this in my e-mail today:
A Quiz.
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."
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
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
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
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."
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers:
(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
What's Wrong With Socialism?
"The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking." ~ John Kenneth Galbraith
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.
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
Support The Troops
"They also serve, who only stand and wait" ~ John Milton
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
