At Last. Spring!

"Tis Spring, and a young mans fancy lightly turns to thoughts of what the dirty old man has been thinking of all year long." ~ Isaac Asimov

As I write this, it has been officially Spring for a little more than 12 hours. Otherwise known as the vernal equinox.

I love Spring. Most people celebrate New Years day on the first day of January. I celebrate it on the first day of Spring, because to me, Spring represents a new beginning, a fresh start.

It is a time when green buds swell on the trees and flowers bloom and new blades of grass begin to emerge from the previously frozen ground.

In higher elevations, winter snows begin to melt and the resulting streams run down the mountains, forming crystal clear pools and unmuddied lakes of ice cold water.

It is the day that I exorcise all the dormant demons that I buried beneath the dead leaves the previous summer. It represents to me a new awakening, when I can put mistakes of the past behind me and resolve to make positive changes in my life. Each Spring is a fresh start.

Wait. Was that me, waxing poetic?

Speaking of wax, I don't care what your wife or girlfriend says, bikini waxes are painful. I don't recommend getting one. Especially if you are a man.

Don't ask.

That's a whole other kettle of fish. And speaking of kettles of fish....well, never mind. All I have to say about that is if you add an old fashioned manually cranked egg beater and a SCUBA wet suit to those things, you can have a very interesting party.

But I digress.

Speaking of eggs, It has been said that at high noon on days of the vernal equinox, you can place an egg on it's end, and it will stand there, on end, unassisted, for a few seconds. I never have tried it, because I don't know if they are referring to high noon GST or EST or EDT, or even PST.

But anyway, that trick can be facilitated much easier by boiling the egg first. Then, with a rapid downward motion, bringing it down forcefully upon a hard flat surface, thereby smashing one end flat. It will then remain standing unassisted, for the remainder of the day, or until someone picks it up, peels, and eats it.

Incidentally, eggs have had a substantial influence on scientists and other visionaries through out history.


Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand were not convinced that the world was round, even after Columbus showed them an egg. Perhaps he would have had an easier time of persuading them had he not broken and fried it first.

And then there was the time that an egg fell out of the tree and hit Sir Isaac Newton on the head and led to the discovery of gravity, after which, a great many eggs have since fallen and made quite a few messes.

Ok, I know it was an apple, but that doesn't fit in with my subject, and I can't think of any other times when eggs contributed to great discoveries.

Never mind.

Have a wonderful Spring.

How Has The War Changed Us?

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." ~ John Stuart Mill

Recently, I received this e-mail:

Hey Mark:

Shaun Mullen here from a small blog called Kiko's House (http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/). I stumbled on your blog this morning and noticed your post on supporting the troops (which I do, and not just because I'm a veteran) but not the war. Good stuff.

I'm asking readers of my blog and others in the know to comment on the following on the third anniversary of the war in Iraq:

How has the war changed the U.S.?

I'd love for you to put together a few well chosen words.

Thanks in advance and keep up the good work, Shaun

The words, "but not the war" sent up a red flag for me, but, nevertheless, I clicked the link to his blog. I couldn't get in. It wouldn't load except for just enough for me to see he is plainly a raving Liberal. So, no thanks. I won't be commenting at his place. If I want to be attacked and abused by left wingers, I will comment over at ER's place.

Remember, he says he supports the troops but not the war, however, in one of his many posts for Sunday, the 19th, he writes:

"[T]he military and Bush administration deserve to be skewered -- and then some -- for condoning what is clearly a policy of allowing torture."

The military deserves to be skewered? Oh yeah, he supports the troops.

What I saw when I linked over there, as far as my server would let me, was a diatribe against South Dakota for outlawing abortions. Obviously Mr. Mullen hasn't read too many of my blogposts, or he would know just how passionately I believe in the right of unborn babies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They can hardly do that if they're dead.

I noticed then, that he wasn't afraid to use the oft repeated bumper sticker phrases that are so popular among the leftists, like "back-alley solution", and "repression of women's reproductive rights".

By the way, That phrase, "reproductive rights" when referring to abortion is about as disingenuous a phrase as the phrase, "I support the troops but not the war". Especially when he admits that he thinks American troops should be "skewered".

Killing unborn babies is not reproductive, whether it's a right or not. It is counter-reproductive. Has Mr. Mullen ever considered what the word "reproductive" means? How is one re-productive if they are preventing the reproduction?

The word is abortion. Don't be afraid to say it.

What he is advocating is not reproductive rights, but the right to kill innocent babies. And no one has that right.

No one.

But I will admit that he is a very good writer, and could very likely "skewer" me with words, which, admittedly, is another good reason why I won't be commenting on his blog. His profile says he is an award winning writer and editor. I am flattered that someone of his status would think that my humble opinion is worth soliciting.

As for my "putting down a few well chosen words":

I rarely choose my words well. Usually, when I sit down to type out a post on my blog, I have only a germ of an idea of what I want to comment on, but I definitely don't have any well-chosen words in mind.

But, since he asked so politely (which I appreciate, mind you, as so few leftist appear to have the capacity to be polite), I will put down a few not-so-well chosen words regarding how the world has changed since the war on terror began 3 years ago:

I don't know.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, "All I know is what I read in the papers, and on blogs, and hear on the radio and television". My view of the world is pretty much confined to my little corner of western Maryland and central Pennsylvania.

With that in mind, I can only speak for myself.

I've changed. I am more aware of how tenuous a hold we have on our own mortality. But it wasn't the war that changed me so much as the attacks on September 11, 2001. Suddenly we realized we are vulnerable to outside forces of absolute evil. No more thinking that we, as Americans, are unassailable.

I don't like or want war, but I think that fighting this war is essential to the overall safety of Americans. Consider how much worse things would be if we hadn't mounted an assault on the forces of evil in the middle east. How many more 9/11 type attacks would there have been here in America?

I also think, that even if Bush had lost the election and Kerry was now our President, we would still be waging war against terrorism. In spite of what Kerry and the other Democrats who now say they oppose the war say, I think in a time of crisis such as this, Americans who love freedom rise to the defense of the country.

Even Liberal Democrats.

The present opposition to the war they are displaying is simply, as far as I'm concerned, political in nature. The Democrats believe that opposing this war is their ticket back to political majority in the Congress and the Presidency. And as long as they have backers such as Mr. Mullen in the major media, they may be on the right track. I have stated before that the majority of the American people are more concerned with just trying to chase the American dream than they are with politics. And that is the hope for the Democratic party. That the everyday American stays ignorant about the consequences of voting for someone who may put America in danger.

I do think the world is safer since we removed the murderous dictator Saddam from power and put Osama bin-Laden on the run. When bin-Laden is pre-occupied with saving his own hide, he has less time to plan elaborate attacks on America.

I absolutely believe it is necessary to fight them over there to prevent having to fight them over here. I do believe if we cut and run, that it would encourage the terrorists to bring their Jihad to our shores. We would prove bin-Ladens assessment that we are indeed a paper tiger.

What leader, with only a modicum of common sense, wouldn't take advantage of what would seem to be retreat to chase down his enemy and finish them?

Overall, I would have to say the world, in general, is better off.

Hmmm, maybe I will comment over at his place.

Liberal See, Liberal Do

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An’ foolish notion: What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us, An’ ev’n devotion!" ~ Robert Burns

I was going to discuss this topic anyway, and then I read, over at Daffy’s place, my good friend Tug’s assessment. Sometimes it’s downright frightening how much alike we think.

Tug said, “One reason that America, and the Left especially, are so willing to believe that the President would be willing to sell America off to the highest bidder is because of the example that the former President Billy Bob Clinton set.

He let the Chinese buy ports, both on the Left coast, and at both ends of the Panama Canal, and he sold missile technology to the Chinese which allowed them to construct Nuclear Missiles capable of striking the American homeland.

Watch very carefully.

EVERYTHING THAT THE LEFT ACCUSES PRESIDENT BUSH OF DOING, BILL CLINTON DID, AND THEN SOME.

He used the IRS and the Justice Department to illegally spy on his political enemies.

He put cronies and former business partners in charge of Government agencies.

He lied to the American public.

He started Wars on foreign soil for purely personal reasons.

He took campaign donations from inappropriate sources.

He sold his Presidential influence. (To the highest bidder.)

If you want to see what your opponent is capable of, just watch what he accuses YOU of.”

Now, I’m no psychologist or sociologist, but I have observed throughout my 54 years on planet Earth, that people generally expect others to think and behave the way that they themselves do. What I mean by that is we all tend to measure the actions of others by whatever standard we possess ourselves. For instance, if I tend to be distrustful of people, I expect others to be distrustful, also. If I immediately like people, I expect others to immediately like me, too.

It is simply human nature.

Speaking from my own personal experience, I believe I can offer a pretty good example:

When I lived with my family in Kansas City, Kansas, we owned our own home for a while. It was a very nice home for the price but it was in a less than favorable location. Our home was broken into several times. One of those times, I caught the perpetrator in my house, and held him until the police arrived. But, the damage had been done in a previous robbery. We had $1,000 deductible insurance and the total losses were approximately $1,000.00. So, we were out a television set, and the best stereo I ever had, and my daughter had lost some cash, that she had earned working at Cracker Barrel.

Still, having been raised in a Christian home, I trusted people, overall.

Then, I lost my job, and it took a while before I finally found another one, and consequently, we lost the house. Then we had to either move into the projects or under a bridge somewhere.

We chose the projects.

It was while we were living in the ghetto that my observations of human behavior was modified into a hypothesis, to wit:

I began to notice that almost all of my neighbors removed the license tag from it’s place on the back bumper to inside of the car, facing out the back window. Why? Because they didn’t want their tag stolen.

What made them think someone might steal their tag?

Simple. If they had found themselves in a position where they needed a tag and couldn’t afford to go purchase one right away, they thought nothing of stealing a tag from someone else’s car themselves. If they would do it, they reason, so would everyone else. Generally speaking, they were almost all extremely distrustful of one another. Not that there is anything wrong with that attitude, given the environment in which it is fostered. It is, as I stated, human nature to adapt to one’s environment accordingly.

In contrast, I had grown up in a home in which I had been taught that stealing is wrong. It never occurred to me that someone might steal my tag. On the contrary, I reasoned, because stealing is wrong, no one would attempt the theft of my tag.

I wouldn’t do it, so others wouldn’t either.

I actually had my tag stolen once, and I immediately contacted the police department, filled out the appropriate reports, and paid for a replacement tag. And then placed it in it’s proper spot on the back bumper. Still believing in the honesty of people.

Naïve?

Yes. But that is human nature. We measure the actions of others by our own standards of behavior.

Which brings us back to Tug’s assessment of the Democratic mindset.

They keep talking about President Bush committing high crimes and/or misdemeanors, and about impeachment or censure. They say he is unequivocally guilty. Yet, they have no concrete evidence of any wrongdoing.

In some cases, they even mischaracterize the alleged “crimes”. They keep calling the NSA surveillance program “Domestic surveillance”, for instance. Of course, it is not that at all, and they are fully aware of that fact. They just choose to use semantics to intentionally misconstrue what the program really does, in a calculated effort to misinform the mostly naïve sector of American people.

And it’s not hard to trace this mindset back to it’s origin.

Bill Clinton committed high crimes and misdemeanors while in office. That fact is not in dispute. Democrats equate what they allege Bush has done with what Clinton really did.

They say, for instance, that Bush lied about the reason for invading Iraq, and while there have been charges alleging that the intelligence was wrong, there is no evidence that it was, or that he intentionally lied to the American people. At worse, we could concede that he may have been mistaken, but there is no evidence that he lied.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that Clinton lied, both to the American people, when he stood before the nation and looked into the cameras and said, with a straight face, “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”, and when he made the same statement in front of a Grand Jury, which constitutes perjury by all definitions, especially legal.

So, when the Democrats accuse Republicans of deception and malfeasance, etc, it is only because they measure them with the same standards, or lack of standards that they themselves possess.

It is human nature, but it is still inexcusable.

Wichita State Shocks Seton Hall

"For when the One Great Scorer comes
To write against your name,
He marks-not that you won or lost-
But how you played the game." ~ Grantland Rice


Wichita State University's Basketball team showed America that the lowly Missouri Valley Conference belonged in the prestigious NCAA Tournament with an impressive 86-66 win over Seton Hall on Thursday. Seton Hall was seeded 10th in the East regional bracket, as opposed to Wichita State's 7th seed.

Even though Seton Hall was seeded lower than the Shockers, Media Basketball "experts" had been dismissing the smaller, less publicized Missouri Valley conference teams as irrelevant, as if they weren't in the same class with the likes of the Big East, ACC, Big 10, PAC 8, Big 12 conferences, etc. Indeed, Seton Hall was one of 8 teams from the Big East conference represented in the tourney.

I am an alumnus of Wichita State, but for the sake of the Missouri Valley Conference, I will be rooting for all 4 of the teams represented in the tournament from the Missouri Valley. Hopefully, they will attain some measure of credibility with the elitist sports media.

I watched the game via CBS online streaming video feed, and I have to say, if one had merely listened to the game rather than watched it, one might think that Seton Hall lost the game rather than Wichita State won it. The announcers at Big East friendly CBS were definitely biased in Seton Halls favor, and actually seemed almost heartbroken at Seton Halls poor showing.

Just for fun, I looked up what the New York Times had to say about the game, and it was, as I expected, reported as if it were a surprise that the upstart Shockers won so handily.

Here is part the first paragraph from the Times article:

"The seeding favored No. 7 Wichita State going into its first-round N.C.A.A. tournament game against No. 10 Seton Hall on Thursday at Greensboro Coliseum. But surely, Seton Hall had the resume to pull off this mild upset. It was the Missouri Valley Conference versus the Big East, after all."

(I just discovered how to change the color of the font, so I thought I would put that quote in Shocker gold)

The fact is that the game was well played on both sides. It was one of the cleanest and most sportsmanlike basketball games I have seen in quite some time. Wichita State simply out played the Pirates.

Wouldn't it be a slap in their collective faces if there was an all Missouri Valley conference final four?

Saint Patrick's Day

"Then Father Murphy, from old Kilcormack,
Spurred up the rocks with a warning cry;
"Arm! Arm!" he cried, "for I've come to lead you,For Ireland's freedom we fight or die." ~ Irish Folk Song (Author unknown)


Today we celebrate St. Patrick's day, a day traditionally celebrated by consuming massive quantities of alcohol along with generous helpings of corned beef and boiled cabbage. Today, as we say, we are all Irish. Ireland and St Patrick share a rich tradition and history. It is a tradition that any free thinking, freedom minded American can appreciate. Ireland, like America, was once ruled by the British Monarchy, and, like America, had to fight for its eventual freedom.

My heritage is Scottish, and the Scots too, share a common bond with Ireland. In many ways, Ireland symbolizes the sheer determination that it takes to free oneself from the yoke of oppression, And Saint Patrick's tumultuous life mirrors the struggle that created such a strong and independent people.

I found the following Bio of Saint Patrick. It is long but well worth the read:

The Life of Saint Patrick

The Patron Saint of Ireland was born into either a Scottish or English family in the fourth century. He was captured as a teenager by Niall of the Nine Hostages who was to become a King of all Ireland.

He was sold into slavery in Ireland and put to work as a shepherd. He worked in terrible conditions for six years drawing comfort in the Christian faith that so many of his people had abandoned under Roman rule.

Patrick had a dream that encouraged him to flee his captivity and to head South where a ship was to be waiting for him. He travelled over 200 miles from his Northern captivity to Wexford town where, sure enough, a ship was waiting to enable his escape.

Upon arrival in England he was captured by brigands and returned to slavery. He escaped after two months and spent the next seven years travelling Europe seeking his destiny.

During this time he furthered his education and studied Christianity in the Lerin Monastery in France. He returned to England as a priest. Again a dream greatly influenced him when he became convinced that the Irish people were calling out to him to return to the land of his servitude.

He went to the Monastery in Auxerre where it was decided that a mission should be sent to Ireland. Patrick was not selected for this task to his great disappointment. The monk that was selected was called Paladius, but he died before he could reach Ireland and a second mission was decided upon.

Patrick was made a Bishop by Pope Celestine in the year 432 and, together with a small band of followers, travelled to Ireland to commence the conversion.

Patrick confronted the most powerful man in Ireland, Laoghaire, The High King of Tara as he knew that if he could gain his support that he would be safe to spread the word throughout Ireland. To get his attention Patrick and his followers lit a huge fire to mark the commencement of Spring. Tradition had it that no fire was to be lit until the Kings fire was complete, but Patrick defied this rule and courted the confrontation with the King.

The King rushed into action and travelled with the intention of making war on the holy delegation. Patrick calmed the King and with quiet composure impressed the King that he had no other intention than that of spreading the word of the Gospel. The King accepted the missionary, much to the dismay of the Druids who feared for their own power and position in the face of this new threat. They commanded that he make snow fall. Patrick declined to do so stating that this was Gods work. Immediately it began to snow, only stopping when Patrick blessed himself.

Still trying to convince the King of his religion Patrick grasped at some Shamrock growing on the ground. He explained that there was but one stem on the plant, but three branches of the leaf, representing thblesseded Trinity. The King was impressed with his sincerity and granted him permission to spread the word of his faith, although he did not convert to Christianity himself.

Patrick and his followers were free to spread their faith throughout Ireland and did so to great effect. He drove paganism (symbolised by the snake) from the lands of Eireann.

Patrick was tempted by the Devil whilst on a pilgrimage at Croagh Patrick. For his refusal to be tempted, God rewarded him with a wish. Patrick asked that the Irish be spared the horror of Judgement Day and that he himself be allowed to judge his flock. Thus, the legend that Ireland will disappear under a sea of water seven years before the final judgement, was born.

Patrick died on March 17th in the year 461 at the age of 76. It is not known for sure where his remains were laid although Downpatrick in County Down in the North of Ireland is thought to be his final resting place.

His influence is still felt to this day as Nations the world over commemorate him on March 17th of every year.

The Irish National Anthem

The Soldier's Song is the National Anthem of Ireland. It was written in 1907 by Peadar Kearney, but was not widely known until it was sung both at the GPO during the Easter Rising of 1916 and later at various camps where Republicans were interned. Soon after, it was adopted as the Irish National Anthem, replacing God Save Ireland. The second and third verses are hardly ever sung, just as we Americans rarely sing the 2nd and 3rd verses of our own national Anthem. In fact the chorus itself is sometimes sung on it's own.

Listen to the chorus here.

A Soldier's Song

We'll sing a song, a soldier's song,
With cheering rousing chorus,
As round our blazing fires we throng,
The starry heavens o'er us;
Impatient for the coming fight,
And as we wait the morning's light,
Here in the silence of the night,
We'll chant a soldier's song.

Chorus:
Soldiers are we , whose lives are pledged to Ireland;
Some have come from a land beyond the wave.
Sworn to be free, No more our ancient sire land
Shall shelter the despot or the slave.
Tonight we man the gap of danger
In Erin's cause, come woe or weal
'Mid cannons' roar and rifles peal,
We'll chant a soldier's song.

In valley green, on towering crag,
Our fathers fought before us,
And conquered 'neath the same old flag
That's proudly floating o'er us.
We're children of a fighting race,
That never yet has known disgrace,
And as we march, the foe to face,
We'll chant a soldier's song.

Chorus :

Sons of the Gael! Men of the Pale!
The long watched day is breaking;
The serried ranks of Inisfail
Shall set the Tyrant quaking.
Our camp fires now are burning low;
See in the east a silv'ry glow,
Out yonder waits the Saxon foe,
So chant a soldier's song.

Feingold's Folly

"Clearly, Russ Feingold has cheese for brains." ~ Laura Ingraham



This is hilarious! Senator Russ Feingold made a complete ass of himself Tuesday on the Senate floor when he called for a censure against President Bush, which was followed immediately by...total silence. Except for the sound of many Democratic feet scurrying for the exits in an attempt to distance themselves from Feingold as quickly as possible. The Democrats own propagandist, The Washington [Com]Post reports:

"Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost."

They went on to describe the various vain attempts to corral any Democratic Senator who might be willing to give them an assessment:

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

He served in Viet Nam, but apparently The Washington Post is more fearsome than any Viet Cong.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.

Feingold himself announced his proposal for censure, then left the chamber immediately thereafter, not even slowing down long enough to engage in a debate with Senator Arlen Spector, who couldn't resist taunting him.

Which reminds me of a line from "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" in which Mr. Lund, the blind owner/operator of the radio station where the Soggy Bottom Boys recorded their big hit, said, (paraphrased) "He sang into yonder can and skeedaddled!"

Feingold "skeedaddled".

I'm thinking that Mr. Feingold may have been having second thoughts after his announcement went over like a lead balloon.

And then, like a bad penny, showed up yesterday to accuse his fellow Democrats of "cowering", rather than joining him on trying to censure President Bush over domestic spying.

The Post goes on to say, "At a time when Democrats had Bush on the ropes over Iraq (So they think), the budget and port security, Feingold single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush has the advantage -- and drove another wedge through his party."

The statement contained within the parentheses is all mine. And remember, The Washington [Com]Post is a left leaning publication, so, coming from them, it is a stinging indictment of Feingold's rash actions.

By the way, I looked up the word censure in the dictionary, and this is what I found:

"censure[1]
(noun) 1 : a judgment involving condemnation; 2 archaic : OPINION , JUDGMENT ; 3 : the act of blaming or condemning sternly; 4 : an official reprimand
censure[2]
(transitive verb) 1 obsolete : ESTIMATE , JUDGE ; 2 : to find fault with and criticize as blameworthy"

Basically, what Feingold and a couple of others want to do is tell President Bush, "Shame on you for trying to protect our country without asking us for permission first. Bad President! Bad boy!"

Well, I have to give credit where credit is due. At least Senator Feingold is doing something. That is more than can be said for the majority of Democratic Lawmakers.

In the end, the Democrats are hoping to bring an article of impeachment against President Bush. But then, they've been trying to find a reason to do that since the Clinton administration ended. The feel they "owe the Republicans one", in the words of blogger buddy, ER. Why else would they keep making up scandals, no matter how trivial? They are practicing the age old tactic of throwing all the fecal matter against the wall in hopes some of it will stick.

It won't happen, of course. Not unless the Democrats win back the majority in Congress in the upcoming Congressional elections. If they get the majority, they will have at least enough votes to start the proceedings. Getting a conviction will be a little more tricky. But then, I doubt they really want to remove Bush from office. They just want to even the score.

Sounds a little like kids on a playground fighting over which team gets to bat first, doesn't it?

So, Democrats like Feingold will keep trying and keep making asses out of themselves, and before you know it, the Bush Presidency will be history.

Kind of seems like a waste of tax payers money to me.

I wonder if the Democrats are officially embarrassed yet?

Life Or Death

"Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong." ~ Theodore Roosevelt

Someone help me understand something. Zacarias Moussaoui has pleaded Guilty for his complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He has admitted he took an active part in killing 3,000 innocent American men, women, and children. He wants to die.

What is the problem?

I couldn't find this story on the front page of AOL News. Nor did I find it in the Drudge report. I was looking for it because I heard a short blurb about it on the radio news. Eventually, I found it on Newsmax.

Why was I looking for this story in particular? It all goes back to why I started blogging in the first place. I hear things in the news occasionally that make me say, "What the....?" This is such a story.

I don't personally like Newsmax very much because they are as right wing as the New York Slimes is left wing, and I want impartial news if I can find it. But, since Newsmax got the story from the AP, I suppose it is pretty accurate. Not that it matters much, in this case. For what it's worth, I have copied and pasted part of the story here:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- The judge in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial dealt a serious blow to the government's death-penalty case Tuesday, barring roughly half of the prosecutors' key witnesses because a federal lawyer improperly coached several of them on their testimony.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected a Moussaoui defense request that she go further and dismiss the government's death-penalty bid for the al-Qaida conspirator outright. She put off resumption of the trial until Monday to give the government a chance to appeal.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said the ruling was being reviewed. While not addressing the likelihood of overturning it, she added that "it is important to remember" Moussaoui has pleaded guilty and at a minimum will be imprisoned for life with no chance of release.

Testimony from the barred witnesses was to make up about half of the government's case, prosecutors have said.

Brinkema imposed the sanctions after being informed that a lawyer in the federal Transportation Security Administration, Carla Martin, had urged seven witnesses from the Federal Aviation Administration to read trial transcripts and had prepared them for certain questions on cross-examination.

You can read more here if you are so inclined.

So, I ask again. What is the problem? He is guilty. The penalty for murder during commission of an act of terrorism is death. To further cement his fate, he has done some things that are intended to prejudice the court against him, including shouting in court, "Allah curse America. Bless Osama bin-Laden". That quote may be inaccurate since I am quoting him from memory, but it's close enough. You get the idea.

So why should the coaching of some witnesses make a difference?

Ok. I know there are legalities. I know there are proper rules of jurisprudence involved here. I know there are some who would insist that he has rights. But personally, I don't care about his rights. This animal deserves death and everyone knows it.

He didn't much care about his victims rights.

Actually, I am torn on the issue of whether to execute him or sentence him to life imprisonment without parole. On one hand, I think possibly we should keep him imprisoned the rest of his life. Then he would have to wait for his 72 virgins. That couldn't be a pleasant prospect for him. It would almost be torture.

On the other hand, we know there will be no 72 virgins on the other side. So maybe we should allow him to go there and see for himself how wrong he was. Yes, I think that is preferable.

I still remember Lone Ranger saying it might be a good idea to set up a video camera at the gates of Hell so we could see the expressions on the faces of those who find themselves entering, when all the time they thought they were doing God's work here on earth. I'm sure a video camera at the gates of Hell would make a great deterrent to terrorism.

I don't know about a camera at the gates of Hell. I think it would be better to position it where we could get a close up of the terrorists faces when they hear the words, "Depart from me, I never knew you."

The Enemy Within

"Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives." ~ John Adams,

I can't believe it, but I have found what just may be the most offensive site on the web. It is even worse than the blog from last summer that I reported on in which a blogger said he wasn't going to contribute to Katrina victims because he hates George W Bush.

This site actually rejoices at the news of American deaths in Iraq. They call the American soldiers "occupation war criminals" and they call the terrorists "freedom fighters". Here is a tiny excerpt:

Good News: Iraqi Freedom Fighters Down Occupation Aircraft
by Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent Tuesday, May. 17, 2005 at 6:40 PM.

Iraqi freedom fighters killed nine occupation war criminals by shooting down RAF Hercules with 'ageing anti-aircraft gun.'

It gets worse from there.

I find it ironic that those "occupation war criminals" are the very reason he is allowed to make such treasonous statements without fear of retribution.

I am reminded of an old joke told when Russia was still the main entity in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

American: In my country we can climb the steps of the Capitol and shout, "The President is a liar!" and not get in trouble for it.

Russian: We can do that in Russia, too.

American: Really?

Russian: Da. We would not get in trouble if we climb the steps of the Kremlin and shout, "The American President is a liar!" either.

Well, I don't exactly recall how it goes. I'm sure the exact version was funnier than that.

My father used to say that if the Russians (this applies to al-Qaida terrorists, too) were to win a war with the U.S. and take over our country, the first ones to be executed would be the ones who protested America's involvement in the war. The reasoning being, "if they cannot be loyal to their own country, how could they be expected to be loyal to ours?"

If I was standing in front of him right now, I would only have one thing to say to "Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent" before I go "occupation war criminal" on him:

"If you think the terrorists are so wonderful, go join them, but wear your knife proof turtle neck sweater when you go, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out."

There may be some truth to the old theory that if this country ever falls, it's demise will come from within. There are certainly some people that want to see that happen, and indeed, are prepared to do whatever it takes to assure that it will.

March Madness Fever

"Sports serve society by providing vivid examples of excellence." ~ George F. Will

When my second son was applying for admission to college, the admissions advisor searched the school computer's database and found my name. Apparently, I had garnered enough credits in my short time at Wichita State University back in the early 70's to actually be considered an alumnus.

Unlike 3 out of my 5 siblings, I didn't earn a full academic scholarship to attend college, so I went to school on a combination of my money and my parents money, which soon ran out and I had to drop out. Additionally, I admit, I was more interested in other pursuits to get much out of college anyway.

So, when my son called me and told me I was an alumnus of Wichita State, I was surprised. Since then, I have paid a little more attention to their sports teams. The one's they have left, anyway. They scuttled the football program in the 70's. It never really got back on it's feet after the tragic team plane crash in 1970, which took the lives of almost all of the first team plus the head coach and coaching staff.

One of the players who died was a high school acquaintance of mine, Steve Moore, linebacker. He was a Senior when I was a sophomore, so I didn't know him real well, but he treated me decently when we were in the same P.E. Class. He had plans to go into the ministry after college.

Anyway, I noted, yesterday that my college basketball team had made the NCAA national tournament this year. They are seeded 7th in the Washington DC bracket. The first game will be Thursday, against Seton Hall.

Don't count the Shockers out yet. They had a very good season, and finished first in the Missouri Valley Conference, although they lost the Conference Championship game. Their record is 24-8. That's pretty good. Cincinnati (19-12) is whining that they didn't get a berth in the tournament and the sports writers are all saying they were shafted, but they have losses in double figures!

Incidentally, the name "Shockers" is short for "Wheatshockers". Those are the hourglass shaped bundles of wheat that are often seen at wheat harvest time in Kansas. Hence the stalks of wheat in the WSU logo. It has nothing to do with electricity, but if they advance past the first round, watch the news media refer to their name when talking about their "upset" win.

By the way, has anyone noticed how good headline writers are at making puns? Sports writers are the best at that.

Me in my Wichita State Shocker ball cap

Wichita State's baseball team is always very good. Over the weekend they were ranked 20th in the nation in some rankings, and their record is better than most of the teams ranked higher, currently 17-2. It is difficult for Wichita State's teams to get noticed by some national publications for some reason. USA todays' rankings don't even have them in the top 25.

They have played in the College World Series many times since 1976, and played in the National Championship game several times, actually winning the National Championship in 1989. They have also produced many first team all-Americans, including MLB World Series MVP Joe Carter, who was a first team All-American three years in a row.

OK. So I never graduated. I can still be proud of my College. After all, I am an alumnus.

Homeowners Associations

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~ Margaret Mead

Well, here's a good one. A woman in Florida is in trouble for putting a cardboard sign reading "Support our troops" up in her front yard.

From reading the article, one might get the sense that this woman is being persecuted because she is showing support for the troops. One might think that her neighbors were a bunch of unpatriotic anti war socialists or something.

Not at all.

According to the AP article:

It was an issue that caused a conflict for the association's president, who is also an Army reservist. Daryl Manning, an Iraq War veteran, said he hoped that some compromise could be worked out.

"I've been there. I know right where her husband is. I've been in [the] country. I was over there for 20 months," he said.

"There's a violation to have any sign in any homeowner's yard, regardless of what it says," Manning said.

Manning said the association's rules about signs, which only allow "For Sale" or "For Lease" signs, were in place to keep the community clean and keep the peace.

"The problem could arise where it could be a neighbor across the street or across the road that says, 'Bring the troops home. Get out of the theater. Cut and run.' What happens when that occurs? So we cannot make exceptions in this case," he said.

I never have liked homeowners associations. I have never lived in a neighborhood that had one, and I never will. I have had friends that lived in those kind of neighborhoods. They have all had their problems with associations. One friend of mine's wife was a board member on one, and she found herself at odds with the majority from time to time herself.

Homeowners associations are the modern secular Pharisees.

I suppose, though, if you find the house you like, and the price is right, and the location is ideal, and there is a homeowners association, you have to take the good with the bad.

There are various solutions to this problem. She can take the sign down, and pay her fine, and shut up. The homeowners association can change the rules accordingly. She can move. She can leave the sign up and keep paying the fine.

This is supposed to be a free country. She should be allowed to keep her sign up.

Still, on the other hand, rules are rules, aren't they?

Ms. Kelley signed an agreement when she moved in to follow the rules of the association. If she didn't want to follow the rules, she shouldn't have agreed to them.

Americans Dislike Muslims

“It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not.” ~ Andre Gide

Lately, I haven’t posted a comment on anything political, or even interesting to most people. It isn’t that there isn’t anything happening, it’s just that I can’t come up with an analysis from a different perspective that hasn‘t been already covered by someone else. I refuse to write the same things everyone else writes about. I am not so clever that I can out write anyone else. My various blogger buddies do a fine job of commenting on current events on their own. Adding anything to what they write seems to me to be redundant.

Additionally, I refuse to borrow opinions from talk show hosts, as I have stated time after time ad nauseum. I want what I write about to be my own opinion, which is why I intentionally refuse to listen to the talk shows before I post my daily thoughts.

But I think the real reason I haven’t posted on anything significant is because I have to write about something that I feel passionately about. Otherwise, I have no inspiration. And I just haven’t felt the passion recently.

With that in mind, elashley wrote a provocative piece a couple of days ago about a poll taken by the Washington Post and ABC News, in which they demonstrate a remarkable ability to grasp the obvious. At once, the passion returned.

From the Washington Post poll:

“… [N]early half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Muslims were often targeted for violence.”

The following is a part of the comment I made about his post:

“Hmmmm, Muslims fly airliners filled with innocent men, women, and children into buildings filled with more innocent men, women, and children. They saw off the heads of innocent contractors who are only in their country to help the people rebuild it. They saw off the heads of journalists who, incidentally, are for the most part, on their side. They set off car bombs and people bombs in the midst of innocent crowds of people going about the daily task of trying to make a life for themselves and their children, and Americans hate Muslims?

Perish the thought!”

The Liberals still think we can talk these animals out of wanting to kill us if we just try a little harder to understand them. And change whatever we are supposed to be doing to them that makes them hate us so much. And presumably, if we discover that, we can change and mold ourselves to fit in with them and their peculiar religious philosophy. Then, maybe they won’t want to kill us, right?

Is that what the Liberals want? For us to live under 7th century conditions? For our women to cover all parts of their body, even their face, and not go anywhere unless accompanied by a male? No more going to school, and work, and aerobics classes.

What do you think the ladies of NOW will feel about that? What about NARAL? Do they know Muslims don’t believe in abortion?

What about the gays and lesbians? Do they know that the Muslims don’t believe homosexuality is normal? Do they know what the Muslims do to homosexuals?

And for you Liberal Christians. Are you prepared to renounce Christ so you can live in peace and harmony with your new masters? Is it OK with you that if you don’t convert to Islam you will be beheaded?

I can go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point.

Just last night, I heard a report on the news that Tom Fox, one of the four Christian peace workers who were captured last November has been found dead on a Baghdad street. Remember them? They went over to Iraq to try to negotiate a peace with the terrorists.

Do you think the Liberals get it yet?

You cannot negotiate with terrorists. They want us dead. All of us. Our armed forces, yes, but also our peace workers. They will agree to a peace when everyone who doesn’t agree wholeheartedly with them is dead, dead, dead. That is the only thing they want. There is no other choice.

Here’s a news flash:

The terrorists are all Muslim! All of them! Not just some of them. Not most of them. Not even 98% of them. All of them are Muslim.

Americans are a unique people. We vary in color to off white to dark brown, and every gradation and chroma of hue in between. We come from every country on earth, and we are descended from every culture on the planet.

We are proud.

If we are injured, we bleed. If we are attacked, it is our nature to be angry with whomever attacks us.

The majority of Americans are the rank and file Joe Lunchbox, just living and working and chasing the American dream. All we ask is to be treated fairly and left alone to pursue life, liberty, and happiness where ever it can be found.

The Muslims want to take that away from us. That makes us angry, and rightfully so.

And the Washington Post finds it surprising that American’s have negative feelings about Muslims. How profound is that?

Next, they’ll be reporting the news that the world is round.

Black White

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely re-arranging their prejudices." ~ William James

Wednesday I watched that new Television show called "Black White". If you haven't heard about it yet, it is a new show in which two separate families change their race through use of a new makeup technique to see what it's like from the other race's perspective. It is on the FX channel.

Both families were moved into the same house and there is a session at the end of each day to compare notes.

I admit I was expecting a very liberal perspective, but I was pleasantly surprised at the sensitivity to both races that was portrayed. Since it is a pre-recorded show, it would have been easy to manipulate the results of the project to indict either race through selective editing. I thought the producers presented the observations of both races in a very objective way.

One thing that I noticed was that the white man experienced no signs of prejudice from anyone while out shopping as a black man. When he went into a retail store to look at a suit of clothes, the salesman came up to him instantly and very politely asked him if he could help him.

Everyone who came into contact with him was very polite and non-judgmental. Or so it would seem. Later, when the two families got together to discuss the days activities, the black man told him the sales clerks were approaching him because they were "sizing him up", indicating that he thought the white sales clerks didn't trust a black man in their stores.

That resonated with me, personally, because when I worked in retail, one of the ways they train you to discourage shoplifting, is to approach and speak to anyone you may suspect might be a shoplifter. He may have a point there. I didn't see it at the time, but when you think about it, it makes sense.

On the other hand, the black man, in white makeup, was hired at a sports bar in a predominately white neighborhood. During the course of his work day, he engaged in a conversation with a middle aged white man who was encouraging him to move to the neighborhood as it was a nice neighborhood that had thus far managed to keep undesirables out. He never mentioned race in his discourse, but to the black man, the implications were clear.

Overall, I came away with the impression that the black family carried a little bit of a chip on their shoulder, the father of the family in particular. Another interesting part was the white wife, who said she had been raised in a very liberal family, but nevertheless, seemed as if all she knew of black family's was a completely stereotypical misunderstanding of the black culture.

I predict she will be the first to be surprised at exactly how prejudiced she really is.

I regret that I don't make a very good Television critic. Someone else may have gotten a completely different impression of the program. Did anyone reading this see the program? What was your impression? Did you learn anything? Were you surprised by anything you saw?

Re-Learning an Old Lesson

"How poor are they who have not patience! What wound did ever heal but by degrees." ~ William Shakespeare

I went to get gas at a Flying J Truck stop last night. I was going to pay cash so I just pushed the pay inside button and removed the handle and tried to pump my gas. Nothing happened. I looked for a sign that said pay before pumping, but there wasn't one. I pushed the intercom button to tell the attendant something was wrong, but I was ignored.

I put the pump handle back in it's cradle and repeated the process. Still nothing. I got back into my car and drove it around to another pump and repeated the process at the other pump. Still nothing.

So finally I went into the store and told them, while customers were standing in line, that the pump wasn't working. The lady said it's pre-pay. I've never had to pre-pay for gas before at this truck stop. It must be something new. I said I didn't see any signs telling me that. (There are no such signs, I discovered)

She just shrugged her shoulders as if telling me she doesn't know why.

This, I've found, is the standard answer to customer complaints at this particular truck stop. I stop there often because they have the cheapest gas along my regular route between Hagerstown, MD and Lititz, Pennsylvania. But when someone has a complaint, they always just shrug their shoulders and feign ignorance.

Now, this particular station is always very crowded and they never have enough people working there, so there is always a long, long line of people lined up to pay for their purchases. Always at least a 10 minute wait to be waited on, if that soon.

Another annoying thing they do there: Even if you pay at the pump by credit card, if you want a receipt, (which I do) you still have to go in and stand in a very long line for several minutes to get your receipt. The pump doesn't give you one. You actually have to go inside and stand in line anyway. So, there goes that benefit of paying at the pump.

So, I'm thinking...I have to stand in a line for 30 minutes to pay for gas and I don't even know how much I'm going to spend yet as I am filling the tank. So if I give the lady a twenty and then go out and pump my gas, then I will have to go back in and stand in line again just to get my change and/or receipt.

It isn't worth it. The gas station across the street is charging the same amount of money for their gas and there are no lines. It's just inconvenient if you are southbound because there is one of those pesky medians in the way. You can't just cross the street there. You have to go down the street a ways and then make a U-turn.

(Oh God, don't get me started on medians. They are a complete waste of taxpayers money. All they do is inconvenience the driver. Does anyone know what their purpose is supposed to be?)

I went across the street, but not before telling the lady behind the counter what I thought of the way they do business. I didn't yell at her, but my tone wasn't polite.

Now, I am feeling guilty that I was so thoughtlessly rude to the lady behind the counter. Obviously, the stupidity and apathy of the truck stop management is not her fault. She probably gets rude people yelling at her all the time for something over which she has absolutely no control.

I feel ashamed because I make it a point to try to treat people the way I would want to be treated, and this time, I failed miserably. I suppose the people who work there are pretty much accustomed to rude and thoughtless customers, but I don't need to be one of them.

Usually, I handle situations like this with patience and politeness. Normally, I would say something like this:

"Oh, The pumps are pre-paid? I didn't know that. Are there any signs? Cause I didn't see them. Perhaps you could do your customers a favor and let the management know that it might be a good idea to put signs up letting them know your policy has changed. It would probably save the loss of some business in the future."

And I would smile while saying it, without sarcasm.

This is a perfect example of the constant struggle Christians have to work through in their daily walk with Christ. We are not perfect, just forgiven for being imperfect, and yet, Jesus tells us, in Matthew 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect". He is not saying we should be perfect, he is saying we must continually strive for perfection. He knows we can't be perfect, no matter how hard we try.

I tend to re-learn this lesson often. Some day maybe it will sink in permanently.

Overreaction

"Education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices." ~ Laurence J. Peter

Recently I received an e-mail from one of my son's teachers updating me on an assignment he was supposed to be doing. The assignment is a book report but, according to the teacher, it is something more than a mere book report. After reading the assignment, I don't see the difference.

I knew nothing about this assignment before I got the e-mail, but my son had asked me previously to go rent Mel Gibson's movie, "Man Without a Face". I've seen that movie and I couldn't for the life of me understand why he would want to see that movie specifically. Putting two and two together it became clear why. He has to make his report on the book the film is based upon, and he doesn't want to go to the trouble of actually reading it.

I like to read, and it troubles me that he doesn't, but nevertheless, I decided to do some research into the book in question to see if I could help him somewhat with his assignment since it is very important in regards to his final grade, and I don't want him to fail.

This is what I found:

From Wikipedia: "The Man Without a Face is a 1993 drama starring and directed by Mel Gibson. The movie is based on Isabelle Holland's 1972 novel. Most critics were impressed with what was Gibson's directing debut, but noted that the book's criticism of homophobia had been obscured in the film version."

"The book's criticism of homophobia?" Red flags going up now. Is my son's teacher pushing a politically correct agenda on his students? Is he attempting to indoctrinate my son and his peers with an inappropriate subject, one in which no one but the parents have any business delving into? Is he trying to normalize a decadent lifestyle, or worse still, to make my son gay?

I will not stand for that!

I was preparing for a fight with the school, and the school system, and ultimately with the state itself. I envisioned angry letters to the editor of the local newspaper. National news media picking up the story and creating a major controversy. Possibly an appearance on The Today Show, Larry King, Hannity and Colmes, etc. A precedence setting lawsuit. Or Two. Or three. Fame, wealth, and all the accoutrements.

No one has the right to cram their own values (or lack of them) down my son's throat without my approval. I do not want my son being taught what to think. I want him to be taught how to think.

Oh, The outrage!

So, when I spoke to my son about this later, I asked him, "Did the teacher assign this book to you, or did you choose it yourself?"

His answer? "He took us to the library and told us to pick a book to write about".

"So you chose to read this book?" I asked, my hopes for notoriety fading quickly, "He had no part in your decision of which book to read?"

"No", he answered, "I picked it out myself".

The next words out of my mouth?

"Well, you can't make your report from the movie. The movie doesn't make the major point of the book. You'll have to read the book."

And he'd better, too. If he doesn't, I'll kick his you-know-what.

Hitler Compares With No One

"The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes." ~ Henry Kissinger

In a previous post, I discussed Jay Bennish, the Colorado High School teacher who was caught on tape in an anti-Bush rant in his Geography class. My point was that it's perfectly ok, in my opinion, for a high school teacher to present his own opinion on any political issue in class as long as the opposing viewpoint is also presented. It's only fair.

One of my commentators, Mary, from Freedom Eden, pointed out this obvious fact:

"No teacher should compare Bush to Hitler. Period."

To which another commentator responded:

"No president's action should cause Hitler to come to mind. Period."

While that statement is absolutely true on it's own, taken in context, and knowing the author of the statement, it is obviously a reference to President George W. Bush, which I find highly offensive.

Comparing ANY American President to Hitler is just wrong and shows an ignorance of history unparalleled. I am not saying that particular commentator is ignorant. Quite the contrary, he most definitely is not ignorant. But that's what makes his statement all the more objectional.

If any President could be compared in any way with Hitler, there are two that come to mind, and both of them don't really compare. FDR, with his internment camps, and Clinton, whose path to the White House was strewn with the bodies of his political enemies, both literally and figuratively.

In FDR's case, his motive in moving Japanese Americans into internment camps was to protect America against attacks from within, by Japanese Americans sympathetic to Japan in a time of war. The ethics of this internment has been argued and questioned ever since. But at least he wasn't herding them into showers and then gassing them, thousands at a time.

Hitler's concentration camps were designed and built for one purpose only, that being the eventual total extermination of the Jews. Period. He literally murdered millions of people.

A far cry from just interning them to protect the citizenry.

Clinton has been accused of having people killed who he perceived to threaten him or his presidency. I am not one of those conspiracy theorists, and I don't believe even Clinton would have murdered to protect his legacy, however, there are many people who were at one time or another associated with Clinton who ended up dead. And not from old age. So many, in fact, that it does indeed appear to be more than just coincidence.

But, as I said, I don't believe he had anyone kiilled. Not literally. But it is well known that he ordered IRS audits of many who he considered to be political enemies, and otherwise intimidated and coerced them. One could make the case that he figuratively killed them. Or politically. And still, there is no comparison between Clinton and Hitler.

Hitler had his perceived enemies executed, assassinated, and just plain murdered. Literally.

Obviously, neither of these two former Presidents compare to Adolph Hitler in terms of ruthlessness, callousness, and pathological viciousness.

And none of the others do, either. Especially not George W. Bush. I would go so far as to say, if anything, he isn't strong enough in protecting the people of the United States.

If I were President, I would attempt to close off the borders, profile all middle eastern appearing men 18-35 in airports, train stations, and seaports, wiretap anyone who is even the least bit suspected of being affiliated with al-Qaida, and send a couple of hundred thousand extra men into Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.

I do not care about our enemy's civil rights. They certainly don't care about ours. The way I see it, they give up their rights when they attempt to take ours away, and that especially means our right to life.

And damned be he who cries foul!

And after all that, I still wouldn't be as bad as Hitler. There would still be no comparison.

So stop comparing President Bush to Hitler. It is not appropriate. PERIOD.

What Liberal Bias?

"Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists." ~ Norman Mailer

I am always taken back somewhat by claims from some Liberals that the media has a right leaning bias. Personally, I have rarely seen that. I think many times when the media is being accused of Conservative bias, it's simply a matter of them telling the truth.

Yesterday, I finished reading a book by Bernard Goldberg, "Arrogance". The subtitle is "Rescuing America from the Media Elite." It is about bias in the media. In it, Mr. Goldberg points to several examples of bias in the media. The following quotes come from The Media Research Center, which, as far as a lot of Liberal media elites are concerned, is a right wing outfit that spends too much time monitoring television sets and reading too many newspapers and getting too excited when they spot even the slightest hint of Liberal bias in the news:

"I think there's a big difference when people told (Haitian President) Father Aristide to sort of moderate his views, they were concerned about people being dragged through the streets, killed....I don't think that is what Newt Gingrich has in mind. I think he's looking at a more scientific, a more civil way of lynching people." ~ NPR reporter Sunni Khalid, on C-SPAN's Journalists Roundtable, October 14, 1994

"If being racist is no longer acceptable, then how come the schools are in such bad shape, and black kids don't get a good education still and the criminal justice system is filled with young black men?" ~ Mara Liasson, on FOX News Sunday, November 2, 1997

(That's FOX News)

"The [GOP] Platform is, again, very strongly pro-life and rejects abortion rights, and the platform specifically comes out against gay unions, and against legal protections based on sexual preferences. So is this really an open, compassionate, intolerant party?" ~ Charles Gibson to Lynne Cheney, on ABC's Good Morning America, August 16, 2000

"Since September 11, the word 'Terrorist' has come to mean someone who is radical, Islamic, and foreign. But many people believe we have as much to fear from a homegrown group of anti-abortion crusaders." ~Reporter Jami Floyd, on ABC's 20/20 November 28, 2001

"The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on it's legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor." ~ Dan Rather, on the CBS Evening News, March 16, 1995

"There are 60 million Catholics in America, and for many of them he also speaks with the voice of a conservative crank when he stonewalls on abortion, birth control, married priests, women priests, and so on." ~ Washington Post reporter Henry Allen, referring to Pope John Paul II, October 2, 1995

"TV viewers saw a well-orchestrated image of a moderated Republican Party, portraying itself as a pro-woman, pro-minorities, and pro-tolerance. This is in sharp contrast to the delegates on the floor, sixty percent of whom self-identified as conservative Christians." ~ Bonnie Erbe, NBC Radio News/Westwood One reporter, hosting, To the Contrary on PBS, August 16, 1996

I find that last remark particularly offensive as a Conservative Christian. Personally, I have more compassion than the majority of leftists for women and minorities, who hold them down By propagating the "victim mentality".

And finally, there's this gem, under the heading of, "You can't make this stuff up":

"If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age." ~ Charles Pierce, in a Boston Globe Magazine profile of Senator Kennedy, January 5, 2003

Abe Rosenthal, former executive editor of the New York Times, summed up one of journalism's golden rules when he said, "I don't care if my reporters f**k the elephants, but if they do, they're not covering the circus."

Apparently, some very important people in journalism don't understand that sentiment.

The Street Car Conductor

"Everyone rises to their level of incompetence." ~ Laurence J. Peter

For as long as Harvey remembered, he had always been fascinated by street cars. Growing up, as he did in the 1890's, street cars were the preferred method of modern mass transportation within the city limits.

Even as a child, Harvey had already decided on his chosen vocation. He was determined to be a street car conductor. When he attended grammar school, he eagerly read up on everything about street cars and street car conducting he could find in the school library. Everyday, he would barely make it to school on time because he spent so much time watching the street cars pass, that he quite forgot that there was someplace he had to be.



Right up through high school, the prevailing thought that continually occupied his mind was street car conducting. One might say, if one had a penchant for bad puns, that Harvey had a "one track mind". And one would be correct in that assessment.

He was, nevertheless, an exemplary student, and never missed being on or near the top of the honor roll in high school. He applied for, and won a full scholarship to Harvard's prestigious School of Street Car Conducting.

Harvey excelled in college, and graduated at the top of his class in street car conducting, recieving a SCD (Doctor of Streetcar Conducting). He was selected as the valedictorian of street car conducting school, and had many offers from all the best street car companies around the world.

He interviewed for, and had no trouble procuring a job with the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority as a Street Car Conductor.

It soon became apparent that education and practical application of that education were very much two different concepts. Harvey soon became aware that he was not a very good street car conductor, in spite of all his acquired knowledge and training. After an unfortunate accident, in which he ran over a newly wed couple who were crossing the tracks, apparently so much in love that they were blissfully unaware that Harvey's street car was coming, he was unceremoniously asked to tender his resignation, in an obvious attempt by the street car company to avoid a lawsuit.

From there, he landed in Boston, where an eerily similar situation came up in which he struck and killed an elderly woman, who apparently didn't hear the bell that Harvey so furiously rang in an attempt to warn the hard of hearing pedestrian.

Fired from that position he wandered to Phildelphia, where his ability as a street car conductor failed to improve and he had another unfortunate accident which also resulted in a fatality, and another dismissal.

He experienced much the same problems in the subsequent cities and towns in which he traveled, his impressive scholary achievements in the field of street car conducting being the only reason he could still manage to secure employment as a street car conductor. However, there came the day when he could no longer avoid the inevitable refusal of street car companies to take a chance on hiring him, and he was left with the option of either trying to start a new life in another field, or travel to Europe, where street car companies were not as particular as to who they hired.

But alas, Harvey had the same experiences there, and, after trying to expunge the curse at every major city in Europe, and failing, he returned, dejected, to the United States.

Finally, after applying and being rejected in every major city across America, a miracle happened. The City of San Francisco hired Harvey as a street car conductor to be a strike breaker during the great mass transit strike of 1922. The city was literally crippled by the strike and the San Francisco street car company was grasping at straws in their efforts to keep the street cars running. They were so desperate, that they hired Harvey in spite of the reputation that preceded him.

Alas, Harvey's good fortune was short lived, when, on his first day of employment, while conducting the street car down Market Street, he ran over two nuns and a dog.

While Harvey had been abroad, a new law had been passed, called, "Harvey's Law", which had been passed especially because of Harvey's travails in street car conducting. The new law made death by incompetent street car conducting a homicide, and Harvey was arrested for murder.

The trial was the showcase trial of the new century, and hundreds of victim's and their families testified to Harvey's incompetence from all over the United States and Europe. After a six week trial (because it took that long to hear from the hundreds of witnesses for the prosecution), Harvey was convicted and sentenced to die in the Electric chair.

Once all the obligatory appeals were presented and dispensed with, the day of Harvey's execution had at last arrived. He had his last meal, and was counseled by the prison chaplain, and was asked if he had any final requests. Next to street car conducting, Harvey had a love for big black cigars, so a big black cigar was his final request. The cigar was brought to him, and he smoked it down to about halfway and announced that he was ready to meet his maker.

They strapped him in, attached the wires, and at the stroke of midnight, the warden nodded, and the switch was pulled. Nothing happened. After thousands of volts of electricity shot through him, he was as alive and unscathed as the moment he sat down in the chair. Harvey was sent back to his cell on death row to await a second attempt.

One week later, after making absolutely sure that all the wiring was fastidiously attached properly and tightened down correctly, Harvey was once again led into the death chamber, where "Old Sparky" waited in stony silence for it's next hapless victim. As an extra precaution, the warden had stipulated that the voltage be doubled to prevent the last failure being repeated.

Again, Harvey requested a big black cigar as his last request, which he smoked until it was half gone, threw the butt aside, and bravely sat, once again, in the chair. Again, the switch was pulled, and after the smoke had cleared away, there sat Harvey, just as alive as you and me. Perplexed, the warden ordered Harvey to be ushered back to his cell to await another attempt.

This time, The state of California ordered that an entire power plant be built just to generate the power to finally execute poor Harvey. And yet, when Harvey was escorted to the execution chamber, he once again made his request for a big black cigar, which he smoked halfway, and discarded the butt.

Once again, the switch was pulled.

A tremendous sound erupted, like the buzzing of a million bees on adrenaline. The very ground shook with the force of millions of volts of electricity coursing through Harvey's body. The lights all over California went out. There was a massive power failure that plunged almost all of the west coast into darkness.

But when the smoke had cleared away, Harvey was still very much alive, and none the worse for wear!

Now, in California, after three attempts to execute someone are unsuccessful, Divine intervention is assumed, so according to state law, Harvey had to be released and his sentence overturned.

As he left the prison, news reporters from all over the world swarmed him, asking questions about his good fortune and his opinion of it all. One reporter asked him the one question that the world had waited with bated breath to hear:

"Harvey, why do you think your life was so miraculously spared? Did it have anything at all to do with those big black cigars?"

Harvey reflected for a moment, and at last, shrugged his shoulders, and replied, humbly,

"I don't think so. I guess I'm just a poor conductor."

Teaching or Brainwashing?

"To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains." ~ Mary Pettibone Poole

Thursday's story about Colorado Geography teacher Jay Bennish's anti-America, anti-Bush political rant in a classroom has grown wings. For those of you who have been held captive in a cave somewhere without electricity, or for those of you in Rio Linda, one of his students, Sean Allen, 16, secretly captured the entire rant on tape.

Here is my perspective on it from my uncomfortable seat in the bleachers, 4 rows back in left field:

First, lets try to keep this in the proper perspective. Bennish is a high school teacher, not a professional politician. He has no more knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes of politics than I do. Therefore, his opinion is no better than those of the rest of us. Furthermore, he isn't even a political science teacher. He is a Geography teacher. He is not an expert by any definition.

Which is exactly why I find it amusing that all these Conservative talk show hosts are spending so much time refuting the man's charges. Why bother? This isn't a question of whether the teacher is right or wrong. It makes no difference.

At this point I wonder if the teacher was a Conservative, would those same Conservative talk show hosts be so outraged? Well, even if they aren't, I'm sure the Liberal media people would have a field day. I wonder also, if he was a Conservative, how much louder and longer would the Liberal media elites scream?

The point is the teacher is not teaching. He is indoctrinating. Some might even go so far as saying he's brainwashing his students. According to Sean Allen, the student that taped the rant, Mr. Bennish has been doing this all semester. One wonders if he has been indoctrinating students since he's been teaching. That would be, I think, 6 years of brainwashing.

The exodus of students from the school in protest of the teachers suspension would seem to be an indication that some damage has already been done.

Does the teacher have a right to his opinion? Yes, he does. Does he have a right to voice it to his students? Yes, he does.

He does?

Yes. As long as it is balanced with someone who will articulate an opposing view, and then let the students form their own opinions.

The scary thing about this whole thing is that this is not an isolated incident. Teachers are doing this in universities and high schools all over the country. The only difference is they usually don't get reported. Sean Hannity has been recommending that students tape the Liberally biased rants of teachers for years.

As long as they are taping, they should tape the Conservatively biased rants as well. There is a proper time and place for expressing one's personal political opinions. A high school or college classroom is not that place.

After all, the Liberal media in this country is doing a fine job of brainwashing students and everybody else with impressionable minds already.

Teachers don't need to be helping.

Apologia

"A great marriage is not when the 'perfect couple' comes together. It is when an imperfect couple learns to enjoy their differences." ~ Dave Meurer

A few days ago, I wrote about gambling, and the devastating impact of a gambling addiction on families and individual lives.

I used a little of my marketing experience to create an impression that helped me make my point. I did it on purpose. Call it poetic license. Or selling the sizzle instead of the steak.

Within that particular post, I mentioned my ex-wife had become addicted to gambling. I then added this line:

Today (Feb. 28) would have been our 16th wedding anniversary.

Both of those statements are true, but they are unrelated. I gave the impression that her gambling was the cause of our break up. It wasn't. My marriage didn't break up because of my wife's gambling addiction, although gambling may have been indicative of the bigger problem, which was that I had become boring to her. I had become humdrum.

Humdrum.

She longed for excitement in her life and I didn't fulfill that need in her. I worked hard, and I came home and crashed most nights. We rarely went out and did anything together. So, she gambled.

She also suffered from Depression, or at least, that's how the psychiatrist diagnosed her problem. I am not a psychiatrist, but I disagreed with his diagnosis. I realize it is presumptuous of me to contradict a professional, but I knew her better than he did. He diagnosed her based on what she told him. And what she told him was merely an appeal for attention.

I believe my wife suffered from Munchausens Syndrome. Munchausens Syndrome is defined by Wikipedia this way:

In Munchausen syndrome, the sufferer feigns, exaggerates, or creates symptoms of illnesses in himself or herself in order to gain attention, sympathy, and comfort from medical personnel. The role of "patient" is a familiar and comforting one, and it fills a psychological need in people with Munchausen's.

That describes her symptoms perfectly. The symptom she created was Depression.

The very reason she went to a psychiatrist in the first place was because she had experienced what is referred to as a "Hysterical Pregnancy". She had begun to experience symptoms of pregnancy, including morning sickness, mood changes, failure to menstruate, even a swelling of the belly. Actual physical symptoms. She went through an entire 9 month pregnancy in about one and a half months, accumulating with her insisting she was having labor pains and demanding I take her to the hospital, which I did.

We were enjoying a rare family event at the time. A traveling Shark exhibition at Crown Center.

At the emergency room, she became angry and agitated with me and would not allow me in the room with her as she was being examined. She was angry because I stubbornly insisted she wasn't pregnant, a fact that the doctors confirmed a short time later. The doctor would not release her unless she consulted a psychiatrist first.

By the way, the psychiatrist she visited at the VA hospital (she was a veteran) spoke at length with me and declared that I was very unusual as I didn't seem to have any psychosis of any kind. In other words, I was absolutely normal, as far as he could tell.

That was the turning point in our relationship. She began to hate me. That is probably my fault, too. I was simply tired of feeling sorry for her, and that is the only thing she wanted from me. She was miserable. And I had ceased caring.

The Christmas before our break up, I had put a great deal of time and thought into finding her a Christmas gift that she would love. She needed a new coat and I found a very nice, attractive, warm one, made of some new synthetic waterproof material, and in her favorite color, purple. I also placed in the pocket of the coat, a new watch, very feminine and expensive looking. The idea was for her to try the coat on, and insert her hand in the pocket and find another surprise. I thought I had found a great gift for her.

Christmas morning, she unwrapped her gift, and the first words from her mouth were, "I hate it!" After some pleading, I managed to get her to try it on, and it fit perfectly, and it looked very good on her. Then I got her to reach into the pocket where she found the watch. "Oh, great." She said, with disdain, "A cheap watch."

Shortly after that, while driving her to work one morning, she looked over at me from the passenger seat, and said, "I hate you. I want you out of my life."

So I left. I granted her wish.

Since Tuesday (our anniversary date), I have been thinking more and more about what I could have done differently. Perhaps I should have tried to get her to agree to marriage counseling. But I didn't even try. In retrospect, I think I may have already given up on the idea that our marriage would last.

I wonder if our problems were really so serious that we couldn't have fixed things. I wish I could have another chance to make things better. But I can't. She moved in with a control freak, the kind of man that she really wanted, in spite of previous bad experiences with that sort of person.

And now, she has disappeared. No one in the family knows where she is. We don't know if she's living or dead. She has ended all contact with me and her sons.

I loved her. And I miss her.

I am sorry that I used this post to air my dirty laundry. I won't blame anyone if they don't read it or comment. Sometimes my blog is the only place where I can share my feelings with at least some degree of anonymity. Sometimes I just need to vent. It is a catharsis.

I hope you all understand.

My Final Opinion on Portgate

"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved." ~ Confucius

There has been so much written in the past two weeks about Portgate, that I have chosen not to address it. Go to any political blog and you will find opinions on the subject, and there is almost as many differing opinions about it as there are blogs talking about it.

One blogger, in particular, has just completed an 8 part series that explains, in great detail, what exactly this whole brouhaha is about. My good friend, Poison Pero, has explained things clearly and thoroughly, complete with links to all pertaining facts. I couldn't do a better job. I can't even comment as there is nothing left to add.

In addition, he has offered his opinion on whether he sees Portgate as a problem or not. Fortunately, he has presented both sides of the issue with clarity so we all can make up our own minds.

I strongly suggest, that if you want to be well informed on this issue, go read what he has posted.

While I won't go so far as to say I disagree with him on this issue, I will state my personal opinion that we may be blowing this thing way out of proportion. I don't believe there is much chance of this becoming a national security issue.

Not that the UAE couldn't use their management of these terminals to aid our enemies, because they certainly could. But if I was a terrorist organization I would infiltrate the U.S. the easy way. Why risk possible detection by bringing in weapons and supplies and man power through sea ports that are now being diligently watched as a result of all the attention that's been brought to bear on them?

Especially when you consider that they can simply stroll across both our northern and southern borders with hardly a glance from the National Immigration Service. If we want to prevent terrorists from mounting devastating attacks on our country, there are two very important things we can do:

1. Close the borders.

2. Allow the NSA to do their job the way they need to, without tieing their hands.

So the Congress will have their hearings and the matter will be thoroughly looked at and examined under a microscope to determine if having Arabs with a history of supporting terrorist organizations and failing to recognize the state of Israel will constitute enough of a security risk to disallow them from owning any terminals within American ports. Let them do what they will, and in the end, the transaction will likely be approved. Then, if there is any danger to America resulting from this sale, it will be discovered, hopefully before the attack happens.

After all is said and done, I believe this is simply a sale of property between two companies, and will have no ill effects on America or our people. Is there cause for concern? Yes, certainly. During this current time, anything that may even remotely effect our national security is cause for concern.

But I am confident that nothing of that sort will happen. At least I pray it won't.

That said, I also have to say that I believe the President has made a grave mistake. Because this is such a volatile issue, his singularly defiant stand concerning the sale when, by his own staff's admission that he was unaware of the transaction until it was all but finalized, was a politically dangerous act. He is on his final term, so politically it won't necessarily hurt him specifically, but it may end up hurting the Republican party. Already we are seeing a divide widening between Republican members of Congress, as a result of his announcement that he will veto legislation that seeks to nullify the transaction.

With the congressional elections coming up this year, this defiance may cost the Republicans some seats in the House and the Senate.

And since I believe that should the Democrats win a majority, they may implement their "cut and run" strategy on the war, and increase taxes and dependency on an ever increasing big government.

I don't believe we can risk that.

Mardi Gras

"All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God." ~ Voltaire

Well, Fat Tuesday is over, and now more cleanup in New Orleans is needed. Before they even finished cleaning up from Hurricane Katrina.

I admit I have a problem with the Mardi Gras celebration. According to Wikipedia, Mardi Gras (French for "Fat Tuesday") is the day before Ash Wednesday, and is also called "Shrove Tuesday" or "Pancake Day". It is the final day of Carnival.

This is how I understand the reason for the festival:

Fat Tuesday, also known as Shrove Tuesday, is the day before the Catholic season of Lent, when devoted Catholics voluntarily give up at least one vice for 40 days, the 40 days immediately preceding Easter Sunday.

The number 40 is significant because that is the number of days that Jesus fasted at the beginning of his 3 year ministry. So, the idea is to fast for 40 days, as a way of cleansing the Spirit, and getting close to God. I have been told that long periods of fasting, coupled with intense prayer and meditation, brings one to a better understanding of God. I don't know. I've never tried it.

I am not a Catholic, but I have many friends that are. Laura Ingraham converted to Catholicism, after being raised a Protestant. I have no problem with Catholics.

Fat Tuesday is so named because typically, Catholics, through the centuries, knowing that they were going to go hungry for the next 40 days, cut loose and feasted on the day before the beginning of Lent.

This is what Mardi Gras is all about. One last day of feasting before fasting.

I explained what Fat Tuesday and Lent and Mardi Gras was to my son this morning. He thought it was a weird idea that a Church could be that strict to insist their members practice so many rituals. How do you explain that the whole thing is strictly a voluntary obeying of what Catholics consider to be God's command? I just told him they don't have to practice those rituals, that it is something between them and God. It has been my experience that most Catholics are not that devout, but I would never tell him that.

So why do I have a problem with Mardi Gras?

I wonder if all of these drunk people are Catholics, or even religious.

Well first, it has become anything but a religious celebration. Second, it is not practiced as it was intended, nor is it practiced by only Catholics. Not that only Catholics should be allowed to participate. But if non-Catholics are going to participate, they should do it the way the Catholics intended. It is now a hedonistic display of debauchery and perversion. It was originally intended as a feast of food, not a feast of nudity and drunkenness.

And so, less than a year after the devastating Hurricane came and destroyed most of New Orleans, the city leaders knew where their priorities lay. Clean up enough of the city so they can still have their festival of debauchery.

I am pretty confident that the Catholic Church did not have this kind of celebration in mind when they came up with the idea of Shrove Tuesday.

Oh, I understand why they worked so hard to make sure Mardi Gras would not be cancelled. There's gold in that thar celebration. There's no denying that. If I was a business man in New Orleans, I might very likely take advantage of the influx of pleasure seekers to pad my wallet, too.

Even so, it doesn't make it right.