A Fungus Amung Us

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." ~ Sun-tzu

Well, a Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat again is making news today.

According to the AP, a news organization that seems to take a great deal of delight in any story, (or even non-story) that makes the Republicans and George W. Bush specifically, look bad, Michael Dowd, a "top Democratic strategist", is disappointed in Bush's leadership.

Dowd, (no relation to Maureen or even Elwood P?) labeled by the fawning AP as "a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal" has come out with the statement that his faith in President Bush was "misplaced".

So, he never really switched parties in the first place. He just thought Bush was more Democrat than Republican. Or did he?

According to the Liberally biased AP, "He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides."

Who is he kidding?

Let's take these allegations one at a time.

President Bush failed to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war?

Bush has never ceased to call for a shared sense of sacrifice. From the very beginning of this conflict in Iraq, he has constantly referred to the struggle as a long road that we must travel to assure freedom throughout the world, and that it would take tremendous sacrifices for all Americans.

I guess the the Defeatocrats and the RINO appeasers in Congress who have constantly opposed and undermined his efforts don't consider themselves part of that America.

He failed to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq?

If President Bush has failed to build consensus, it hasn't been his fault. One need only to look at the Democrats in both Houses of Congress to see who has failed in that particular endeavor.

If anything, Bush has tried too hard to reach consensus with the Democrats, with his concessionary attitude toward those who would seek surrender in the war on Terror. You know, like Murtha and Kerry et al.

He ignores the will of the people? What people? Democrats? "Jihad" Jane Fonda? "Peace through surrender" Cindy Sheehan?

Most Americans want us to win in Iraq. It's true many Americans have changed their minds about how this war should be fought, but winning the war is still the ultimate goal of most of us. And that is precisely what he is trying to do, in spite of whining bleeding heart liberal sob sisters like Joe Biden and Chucky Shumer.

He didn't hold those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib accountable?

On what planet? Was Lindy not convicted? Was her boyfriend's sentence commuted? If so, I didn't hear about it. Hasn't everyone involved in that scandal been punished?

What more does Mr. Dowd want?

Mr. Bush approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides"?

Well, most people would consider that "my way or the highway" mentality a desirable quality of strong leadership.

That said, really the only reason his circle of aides could be shrinking is the number of baseless allegations of scandal ensuing from the left side of the aisle, aimed at discrediting the integrity of Bush's aides. Rather than distract America from the truly important issues, they simply resign. It isn't because they no longer believe in Bush or his mission.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that Mr. Dowd is a Democrat plant, placed in Bush's inner circle to discredit him, thereby destroying the administration from within. But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I don't think that way.

I do think, however, that Mr. Dowd is a fair weather opportunist who jumps from one side to the other depending on which party appears to have the political advantage over the other.

They call those kind of people "mugwumps". They are the ones who sit with their mugs on one side of the fence, and their wumps on the other.

If Bush has made any mistake it was in the hiring of this guy. Obviously, he failed to properly screen those who work on his campaigns.

Polyticks

"The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'." ~ Larry Hardiman

I don't normally sleep all through the night. I usually wake up at least once during the night to attend to "business". I'll spare you the nasty details. It's not just personal needs that drive my nocturnal habits, though. We have dogs. Five of them, to be exact.

At least one of the dogs, Chelsea, a fourteen year old Golden Retriever, has roughly the same middle of the night needs as I do, and a rather loud, persistent bark. I usually have to get up at least once to let her outside.

Give me some time. I will get to the point.

We live in a wooded area, on five acres, about a mile or more to the nearest cluster of businesses and, in this case, government buildings. I have only lived here since October, and I have always lived in metropolitan areas, so I was unprepared for my encounter with some of the less pleasant denizens of rural Virginia:

All four stages of Ixodes scapularis, the black-legged or deer tick with dime for size comparison.

Ticks. Deer Ticks, specifically.

Here's the point:

The other night, I awoke, as usual, about one o'clock in the morning, and stumbled through the dark towards the bathroom. As I walked, I scratched my belly, when I noticed what felt like a small growth on the right side, front, of my abdomen.

When I turned on the light, I was surprised to see what appeared to be a blood blister on my stomach. I prodded it, squeezed it, and finally succeeded in popping it...off. It wasn't a blood blister at all. It was a tick.

All the horror stories about ticks and the diseases they cause came rushing back to me like a good snort of scotch. Did I leave the head inside my skin? If I did, will it become infected? If it becomes infected, will it turn into Lyme's disease? Will I get really sick and will I eventually die a painful and torturous death?

So, at approximately 1:15 in the morning, I searched the internet to find information on Ticks and Lyme's disease.

Turns out I have little to worry about. According to what I read through bleary eyes, the deer tick only feeds three times in it's lifetime, which is two years. It cannot infect anything with any disease the first time it feeds. Only if it picks up the bacteria that causes disease on it's first feeding can it spread disease. If it happens to contract a bacteria that causes a disease during the first or second feeding, it may infect it's host on the second and third feedings. And then, usually, only the female tick infects anything. The male tick feeds for only a short time before dropping off. The female tick stays there until it engorges itself. The female is most likely to do the infecting.

One could say something derogative about females of every species here, but I will not stoop to that level.

"OK", said I, to myself as I perused the fountain of information before my eyes, "that's not as bad as I thought." But then came the really good news. It said even if it carries the bacteria, Ticks don't infect their host until it has been feeding for at least about 36 hours.

I know my little guest hadn't been on me for more than a few hours. I was safe.

I went back to bed and blissful, carefree, welcome, sleep.

About two hours later, when Chelsea (see? I told you I'd make things clear) began her obnoxious barking, wanting to go outside, I again got up and stumbled through the dark once more to let the canine octogenarian outside.

Again, scratching myself, I noticed another growth, this time on the other side of my belly on the side. Turning on the light, I found, to my chagrin, another tick there.

This time, however, armed with more knowledge about these parasites than I had before, I simply picked it off, disposed of it, and went back to bed.

In the morning, while scratching Beast's (our pug) belly, I found a tick on him.

We have, at our house, poly ticks.

By the way, in case you are wondering, many of the techniques for ridding ourselves of ticks don't work, according to the various web sites I studied. Petroleum jelly doesn't really suffocate them. They can still breathe. Burning them off is not advised. It can lead to more problems unrelated to infection.

They say the best way to get them off you is to pick them off with tweezers.

So now, my morning routine has a new wrinkle. Now, in addition to scratching myself and showering and making myself smell not so bad, and making a breakfast sandwich, I also check myself thoroughly for parasites.

So far so good. I haven't been invaded since that horrible night. But I still wake up at least once a night.

Abdul And Achmed Part 3

"We can't accommodate terrorism. When someone uses the slaughter of innocent people to advance a so-called political cause, at that point the political cause becomes immoral and unjust and they should be eliminated from any serious discussion, any serious debate." ~ RUDOLPH GIULIANI

The scene is a small room somewhere in the Middle East, probably Iraq or Afghanistan. There is a bank of television screens almost covering one wall, with news programs from all over the world showing on every screen. Achmed Hassan is monitoring the world news broadcasts as Abdul Mohammed enters.

Abdul: Praise Allah and Mohammed his prophet! Why do you look so happy, my friend?

Achmed: Allah has indeed been good to His faithful, my comrade, Our American ally, the New York Times, has reported the infidels will surrender at the end of August, 2008! We have won!

Abdul: Ah yes, my friend, I have heard this wonderful news already. Our ally, the Times, printed the news on Friday. Praise be it ever to Allah! But alas, the bill also calls for an increase in funding the murderers of Allah's faithful, the infidel soldiers.

Achmed: That is true, but that is only an excuse to call for the eventual withdrawal of Allah's enemies in Iraq. Trust Allah, my friend, the end is in sight. Allah has secured victory in this war against the Great Satan.

Abdul: Praise Allah if that is true, my friend, but the accursed infidel leader Bush has threatened to veto that bill. I fear the hope of victory is merely an illusion.

Achmed: Have you lost faith in Allah, my friend? Has He not promised we would be victorious against the Great Satan that and our people will rule the infidels?

Abdul: Forgive me, my comrade. You are right. I had forgotten Allah's promise of deliverance. the recent surge against us had raised doubts in me. I temporarily lost faith. May I be forgiven for my lack of faith in Allah. Allah is great! Bush will not prevail.

Achmed: Have faith, my friend, our allies in the American media and the Democratic party will find a way to pressure Bush into signing the bill. Do not underestimate the power of Allah and the American Democrats.

Abdul: Ah yes, my friend, and let me not forget again that Allah has the American press in his all powerful hand. They will not fail our cause. They will change Bush's evil plans, by the will of almighty Allah!

Achmed: Yes, my comrade, Allah is great! Now all we have to do is wait. That is indeed a blessing from Allah. I need a vacation.

Abdul: A Vacation? Oh no, my friend, We must never rest until Allah is victorius! We must continue to fight.

Achmed: Allah be praised! Yes the fight continues, but if we stop our attacks against the infidels until August 2008, we will lure the cowardly Democrats into thinking they are safe to go ahead and pull out of Iraq. And then our victory will be complete and final!

Abdul: Yes, and then we can wipe our enemies off the face of the map, as Allah has commanded.

Achmed: Allah be praised!

Abdul: Yes, Allah be praised!

What About Legal Immigrants?

"Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country." ~ Theodore Roosevelt

On my job, I often have to market to residents of Northern Virginia, an area that I refer to as "Immigrantville". That is because it seems there are more immigrants living there than natural born Americans.

Wow.

I don't even know how to phrase that statement without appearing biased against immigrants.

I have nothing against immigrants, and by that I mean legal immigrants.

I am descended from immigrants. And unless you are 100% Native American, so are you.

My ancestors emigrated to America from Scotland in the late 1600's and settled, to begin with, in what is now North Carolina. Later, in the 1800's, my Great Great Grandfather, together with his brother, migrated west, at last settling in Missouri, while his brother continued on his way to California. That was the last my ancestor ever heard of his brother.

My boss brought up the fact that most immigrants are very hard working people, willing to take the lowest paying menial jobs to support their families. Jobs that most Americans won't do, like picking grapes and lettuce, etc. for three or four dollars an hour. They don't get benefits and they sometimes work over 12 hours a day, seven days a week.

I won't disagree with that assessment.

He obviously has no problem with immigrants, either legal or illegal. The one thing he expresses frustration with is that so many immigrants are allowed to procure customer service positions in banks and restaurants and retail stores, etc.

How are we supposed to get proper customer service from people with whom we can't communicate? We can't explain what we want from them, and they can't communicate what they need from us.

Why would companies even hire people for positions in which they have to interact with people who don't speak or understand their language? It's insane!

It is unfair of us to paint, with a broad brush, a picture of lazy immigrants that suck up our tax money by sponging off welfare and getting free health care without pointing out the enormous contributions other immigrants have made, and are continuing to make to our economy. There is no doubt that they have enriched our country in many ways.

My current problem with immigrants, both legal and illegal, is their tacit refusal to even try to learn our language. Call me ignorant and boorish if you want, but I find it frustrating and annoying that I can't communicate with half or more of northern Virginia.

And our own government is compounding the problem. Instead of insisting that immigrants learn English, they instead are spending millions of our tax dollars attempting to communicate with them in their language.

What's wrong with this picture?

I try to look at it as if I am the immigrant and they are the nationals. If I move to another country, I would like to know at least enough of their language to be able to communicate with them. For me, that's not only common sense, it's the best way I know to prevent me from being victimized in some way. How many times have we stood by while immigrants talked to each other in their own language and wondered if they were talking about or making fun of us?

OK. Maybe I'm just paranoid. But paranoia has kept me from being swindled for many years.

If President Bush, or the Democrats, or anyone else want to offer any form of amnesty to illegal immigrants, I suppose we can't stop them, but is it too much to ask them if they would at least include a provision that they learn English in order to stay in this country?

Is that unreasonable?

There are more than enough reasons to protect our borders against illegal immigration. But when are we going to deal with the problem of legal immigrants? This is our country. We shouldn't have to change our customs and learn new languages to accommodate them. They are our guests, here because we have given them the right to choose to live here. But doesn't that right come with some accountability?

Release The Hounds!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Surge To Get Bush

"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." ~ A. J. Liebling

The Democrats are once again calling for the resignation of a Bush administration Cabinet member. This time it's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that has somehow fueled the Democrats feigned outrage. I say feigned because if the Democrats were truly interested in doing what's right, they would all resign out of remorse for their failure to serve the American people.

William Jefferson would be gone. So would Alcee Hastings. So would Harry Reid. So would Hillary. So would...well, you get the idea. In fact, if all the Democrats were fired for unethical and/or illegal conduct, there would likely be few Democrats left in the halls of Congress. If any.

But I digress.

One thing that keeps leaping out at me is that this seems to be another attempt to oust a member of Bush's administration. One by one, the Democrats are attacking Bush's Cabinet and calling for their firing, resignation, or impeachment. Obviously, their aim is the eventual impeachment of the President. But since they have nothing on him (such as perjury before a Grand jury) they are content in trying to undermine his appointed office holders.

They went after Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, they got John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfield, they are continuing to go after Dick Cheney, and of course, President Bush himself. It is painfully obvious what their agenda is.

Of course, it has been pretty much common knowledge among Conservatives that the Democrats have been angling to get rid of Gonzales even before he was appointed AG.

Which influential Democratic leader said Gonzales was a poor choice for AG because he is Hispanic? I confess I don't remember who it was, but that's only because the Democrats say so many racist and outrageous things I can't keep track of them.

I came across an interesting article about this latest brouhaha. It references the LA Slimes article that ostensibly blows the whistle on poor old Alberto.

The problem is, apparently the LA Slimes left out some very important information that was also found in the e-mails from whence they got their incriminating circumstantial evidence of malfeasance on Gonzales's part.

The following paragraphs are a teaser intended to draw your attention to the aforementioned article:

The L.A. Times has a big story about internal White House e-mails regarding the Bush Administration’s decision to oust eight U.S. Attorneys. But as far as the actual firings themselves go, the real story appears to be that the White House had legitimate reasons for firing many of these folks.

The e-mails certainly don’t appear to corroborate the allegation Democrats keep repeating: that U.S. Attorneys were fired for going after Republicans, or for failing to go after Democrats. Instead, judging from the e-mails, it appears that the White House was genuinely concerned with performance issues, such as a failure to go after drug smugglers, and — hold onto your hat — an insufficient focus on illegal immigration cases. Yes: the White House fired a U.S. Attorney for going too easy on those illegal aliens!


The article referenced here simply points out more typical misinformation from the Liberal LA Slimes.

Now, this morning, the AP has picked up the ball and begun running with it. When I signed on to AOL this morning, this story hit me in the face. following is an excerpt from that article that exemplifies what the Democrats and again, their willing accomplices in the media are continually trying to do, which is to "get Bush". That is the real agenda here. They care nothing for these eight prosecutors.

It's customary for new presidents to bring in their own team of prosecutors when they take office. Democrats say the Bush administration singled out some of its own nominees because they chafed at the president's priorities and Republican efforts to influence political corruption investigations.

"Eight U.S. attorneys who did not play ball with the political agenda of this administration were dropped from the team," said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois. "We have a right to ask what that political agenda was and whether or not it was a reasonable firing and dismissal."

This, I agree with, except if Durbin and his Democratic cohorts really wanted to know, all they would have to do is read the e-mails in their entirety, instead of reading only the parts the media chose to publish. Then they would see, and probably already have, that the prosecutors were fired for not doing their jobs. The same reason most people get fired in this country.

But see? That would only serve to prove there is nothing behind the latest charges of corruption in the Bush administration. They can't have that.

That wouldn't provide them with the ammunition necessary to impeach Bush, which, as I said, is their true agenda.

Personally, I think if the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media like The New york Slimes, The Washington Compost, and the LA Slimes, spent half as much energy supporting our troops and the war on terror as they do in trying to "get Bush", this war might well be won and over, and the international terror syndicate would be destroyed.

Making The Irresponsible Responsible

"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires and fears is more than a king." ~ John Milton

Perhaps nothing makes us more aware of the growing problem of the irresponsibility and lack of discipline of our kids than when the kid in question is your own child.

While discussing my own son's behavior with my fiancee, she made the point that I am not as forceful in holding him accountable for his behavior as I should, and she is right. I'm not.

It is an ongoing battle for me to impose and enforce discipline on him when he needs to be disciplined. I blame myself for letting him get away with so much. I am, as she said, not firm enough.

But I am not the only one.

His mother, my ex-wife, was permissive to the point of absurdity. Her natural son, my stepson, was completely out of control when I met her. He was three years old at the time. I reluctantly accepted the role of his father even though I knew that it would eventually cause division in the marriage. I had no choice. I legally adopted him, and as his adoptive father, if I wanted the child to ever amount to anything at all, I knew he would have to be disciplined, whether she wanted him to be or not.

By the time his brother was born two years later, it had already become apparent that she was going to contradict me whenever I tried to discipline him. In spite of all the experts advice to take disagreements about the methods of discipline behind closed doors, away from the children, she disagreed with me right in front of the children, always taking the children's side against me.

It is no wonder they both grew up with so little respect for me.

Some of my regular readers know some of what has happened since then. Here is a refresher, and here.

He called me the other night from Florida. He is well, and still trying to gain a foothold in society without a support system of criminals.

His brother is a pretty good kid, overall, in spite of the fact that he is way to irresponsible for a kid his age. By this time, he should be graduating from school and be at least part time gainfully employed, but he's not. He seems to have little interest in procuring employment, getting an education, or even getting his driver's license. He is only interested in skateboarding, at which, I must say, he is very good.

At least he does have some aspirations.

He hopes to one day become a videographer or photographer specializing in skateboarding videos and photographs. He does have the talent and I support him in his pursuit of his dream. But I am concerned with his irresponsibility.

His mother no doubt had a tremendous influence during his formative years.

Lastly, I can't help but believe the public schools have contributed to this overall lack of discipline and irresponsibility. After all, my son is not the only kid around who has this problem. Many children of responsible, disciplinarian parents are also afflicted with this malady.

I don't know how it is happening, but I am convinced the schools are failing to teach children the importance of responsibility.

The schools say the parents have the responsibility to instill values in their children, and parents, to some extent, say part of that responsibility belongs to the schools.

Some leave it to the schools entirely.

I believe it should be a concerted effort between the two. The schools have our kids for much of the productive hours of the day, and during those hours, the parents have no control over what the teachers are teaching, or not teaching them.

What are the schools teaching our kids?

I work in an office with several young people, many of whom have graduated from high school within the last three years. Since I've been employed there, not one day have all employees been present and on time. Some one is always absent and/or late. I have never seen such irresponsibility in my life. Several have been fired for excessive absences and tardiness.

I don't know the family history of these young people but I am convinced the prevalence of irresponsibility in young people today cannot possibly be only the fault of inadequate parenting skills.

If it's true that the schools are failing the children, there remains the question of why?

One google search will help answer that question. Google the phrase "Parents sue school" (parentheses included), and your search will return 749 hits. Admittedly, some of the lawsuits include suits I deem necessary to keep Liberal ideology from being indoctrinated into our children's heads. But many of them are about parents who object to the schools disciplining their children.

Schools had to stop using corporal punishment long ago, due to pressure from feel good Liberal activists. Now, there are complaints about the use of suspensions and time outs.

Where will this insanity end?

It isn't entirely the schools fault that they don't instill personal responsibility and self discipline into our children. It is also a repercussion of the litigious society we live in these days.

The sad fact is the schools are simply afraid to discipline students anymore.

In the end, personal responsibility is always up to the individual, regardless of the factors that shape our personalities.

But we have to acknowledge that not holding children to accountability is certainly not helping the transition to adulthood.

Catching Up

"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." ~ Elbert Hubbard

I have been busy, and haven't had time to create new posts on here. I still don't have much time, but I do want to make a comment on a couple of things I've been thinking about.

The trouble is, I don't know what's been going on.

I habitually listen to talk radio whenever I drive somewhere, but never listen to it at home. But lately, since my car trouble, I have been driving a small pick-up truck that has no radio. (I sing my favorite songs as I drive.) At home, I watch TV, mostly movies, and reruns of old comedies, and not usually news. I am not a news hound. I do hear tidbits of news now and again while channel surfing, and most times what news I hear is from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX news.

I don't often hear news that isn't Liberally slanted, anyway.

Nevertheless. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the surge is working. I say that because I haven't been hearing as much of the casualty count in Iraq as I used to. Knowing how much the Liberally biased news media loves to trumpet the bad news of the war and ignore the good news, it seems to me that they have had precious little to say on the subject lately.

But, as I say, I may be wrong. I am sure my Liberal readers will be quick to correct me if I am.

Also, I have something to say about the latest Ann Coulter controversy.

I like Ann Coulter. I think she is a brilliant analyst and commentator. She has a unique way of pointing out absurdity. Especially Liberal absurdity. And she does it with humor, which, as many have pointed out, is a characteristic sadly lacking in most Conservative commentaries. I have also seen her point out absurdity in Conservatives at times.

This latest unfortunate choice of words was, in my opinion, a mistake on her part. Liberals love to catch a Conservative making a remark that they can blow up out of proportion and this time, they didn't have to use much powder.

Nevertheless it was just a joke. I don't care who you are, it was funny. As Coulter said, “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

That's funny, too.

However....

That is the kind of joke a small group of Conservatives make when standing around the water cooler at work or in the back room of a Conservative caucus or something. Out of the earshot of any media. For that reason, I agree. It was not an intelligent remark. No, I take that back. It was an intelligent remark, but not made at the right time and place.

And that brings up another point. Why is it that Conservatives are forever being crucified by the media for every little poor choice of words they use, when Liberals can literally run their mouths non-stop, making all kinds of intentional offensive comments, not only about Conservatives, but about the very people who support them, and very little fuss is made over them?

Look at the shameful way Hillary sucked up to black people at the church in Selma, Alabama. Did they think her affected accent was genuine? Or were they insulted, as they should have been?

I'm not even black but I was offended.

Ann Coulter tells a funny joke about John Edwards and the media goes ballistic and holds every Conservative in America personally responsible for the offense.

John Kerry insults the American soldiers in Iraq with a so-called joke that isn't even funny and he gets a pass.

Conservatives must choose every word very carefully if they are to avoid offending someone. Remember George Allen's use of a word no body knew the meaning of, until some enterprising Liberal decided to look up the definition? It may have cost him the election. If it didn't, it certainly contributed to it.

It has been said that Liberals often ignore the elephant in the room. Meaning they can't seem to see the obvious. This metaphor is used in reference to things like the war, or the abortion issue, et al.

I think the Elephant, in this case, refers to Republican and Conservative rhetoric so often ignored by the Libs and the news media until they say something thoughtless. Then, all of a sudden, the elephant is the biggest thing in the room.

So, I guess the question that begs to be answered is this:

Why is it that no one knows the elephant is in the room until the elephant farts?

Life Is Good

"For we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, for those that are the called, according to His purpose" --Rom. 8:28

Abouna, who is the newest addition to my blogroll, has an interesting post today entitled, "Why isn’t God treating me fair?"

In it, he says this:

"There are so many of us, going through life today, who cannot seem to understand why we are not getting the type of life that we keep wishing for."

Read the rest here.

I started to make a comment on it, but as usual, My comment went too long, so again, I am publishing my comment as a blog entry. Here it is:

I too, am one of those who never seem to get the breaks. I have a brother who is exactly the opposite. As I often say, he could fall through the hole in a privy and come up smelling like a rose. I, on the other hand, would climb, stinking to high heaven out of the privy, simply to slip and fall back in.

I have also often said, my life is an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel without the adventure.

He and I discussed this once. He said he never knew anyone who had so much bad luck and I said I never knew anyone with such good luck. But, I said, If he was ever faced with some catastrophe, he would fall apart. On the other hand, catastrophe's happen to me every day. They are like water off a ducks back to me.

God knows what each of us can handle. He will never give us more adversity than we can take.

On my new job, I had to man a booth at a local Home and garden show, for the purpose of procuring sales leads. My day in the booth was on a Sunday.

Friday at the show was a good day. the weather was beautiful. So was Saturday. My co-workers got lots of leads those two days. Sunday came with snow, ice and freezing rain. The home show was almost empty of potential customers that day. I got one lead.

My boss was complaining about the weather causing such a bad turnout. I jokingly informed him that the bad weather was my fault, because God doesn't want me to succeed.

He took it as a joke and laughed but the truth be known, I wasn't joking.

I believe and have believed for some time that since God knows me, and knows that I would not be a good steward of any thing He might bless me with, He has decided in His wisdom, that I should remain as I am, until I finally learn to be responsible with what He gives me.

Sometimes lessons take a lifetime to learn.

I am comfortable with that, knowing that I have treasures laid up for me in Heaven. Given that this life time is only a twinkling of an eye in comparison to an eternity with God, This life is only a minor inconvenience.

Of course, it could be argued that I do these things to myself, and there would be ample evidence to suggest this theory is true.

In just the last couple of years, I have made the same mistakes in not exercising good judgement in stewardship, to wit:

I had a great job as a Lawn service Technician. I was making the most money I made in my life. The boss liked me, and I was doing a very good job. My customers were pleased with my performance. I had very few complaints with my work, either from customers or management, and those I had were taken care of promptly. I was flying high and feeling secure with my future.

Then, I bought a new car. Brand new, right off the lot, with 5 miles on the odometer.

In short, I got cocky and began to feel as if I had control of my life.

That was a mistake.

Within a week I had wrecked the company van. That wasn't enough to knock me down a notch or two. So, the very next day on the job, I did it again.

(This is the actual picture of the actual first accident. That's me, talking to the police officer there on the right)

Two weeks after I had made a 5 year commitment to pay enormous monthly payments on a new car, I was laid off, with a promise that in a couple of months, I could possibly come back to work again. That didn't happen, needless to say. Now, before I even made my first car payment, I had no money to pay it with.

Now, this is the way God works with me:

Two months later, I finally got a job that paid me enough to pay the car payments, although I had to work a couple of weeks before I got my first paycheck. Mere hours before the finance company repossessed my car (which I had to use on my new job), I caught my car payment up.

God had both blessed me and taught me a valuable lesson.

God may not always be on time, but He's never late.

The new job was better than the old one. I made more money than the former, and the hours were better. The work was thousands of times easier. I had a two hour lunch period, and was completely on my own, with no boss hovering over me. On top of all that, my expenses were deductible and I ended up not having to pay a cent in taxes, and got a huge tax refund!

I caught up on all my other bills, and was even able to start saving money.

Then, I began feeling cocky again, and against my better judgement, went out one weekend night and blew about $300.00 on a night of pure base debauchery. I won't go into details.

And, within a week after this one night of self gratification and self worship (for this is indeed what it was), I suddenly and without warning, lost my job. I went from wealthy to nearly penniless in mere days.

These examples are indicative of my whole life.

I have yet to learn, apparently.

But it's OK, really. I have learned one thing, although it may not be the only thing I need to learn, and that is, I am terribly irresponsible with God's gifts. Will I ever learn to be a good steward? Yes, I think so. I believe it is God's purpose for me to learn this lesson. And I believe God always fulfills His purpose.

If nothing else, as long as I fail to learn God's lessons, I am assured of a long life. He won't let me die without fulfilling God's purpose for my life.

Or maybe He will. Maybe that will be the final lesson. I don't know.

I am content with the knowledge that God will keep me safe, though bruised and battered, until I have fulfilled His purpose for my life.

Life is good.

How To Reform Welfare

"Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays out twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages." ~ H. L. Mencken

I received the following letter to the editor of an Oregon Newspaper (I don't know which one)in a recent e-mail, and I thought it was a pretty unique idea. It came to me in the form of a newspaper clipping that was scanned and then sent to me in e-mail:

In case the text is too small for you to read, I have re-typed it out in it's entirety:

Don't help people sit on their rears

I have a question, not only for Douglas County, but for the entire state of Oregon. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to go earn it for them?

Please understand, I have nothing against helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt.

Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Now, this is the kind of unique thinking I like! What if all of us like minded people copied and sent the same letter to our editors?

Don't Ask

"The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." ~ Frank Zappa

Heard on the radio this morning while I was taking my son to school because the bus was late again:

Some county school system in Virginia (I forgot which one) has reported they have no way to track which students are "illegal immigrants". This is because...are you ready for this one?...it is illegal to ask an immigrant whether he is illegal or not.

Excuse me?

What part of the word "illegal" don't they understand?

Is it also illegal to ask a child molestor if he is a pedophile? Is it illegal to ask a murder suspect if he is a murderer? Is it illegal to ask an Islamic Jihadist if he is a terrorist?

WHOOSH!

That sound of rushing wind you just heard is millions of naturalized American citizens throwing up their hands.

On Technology and Ms. Smith

"For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three." ~ Alice Kahn

I have been MIA the last couple of days due to a internet cable connection problem. For some unknown reason, the cable company decided to tweak something which resulted in a reduction in output power, or something like that. I am a techno-moron, so I don't understand what the problem was. Is. Whatever.

(The long driveway)

All I know is now we have a cable wire lying on the ground from the entrance to our driveway, stretching all the way to the back of the house, draped over the chain link fence, and through a hole in the backside of the house. They are supposed to come out and bury it eventually, but they haven't said when. (sigh)

I could have still logged on using dial up, but my AOL account charges me an un-Godly amount of money for dial up usage over 5 hours a month, and between my son and I, we quickly reached the limit. So that's why I haven't been blogging.

I have a lot of catching up to do. Bear with me.

Also, I have been driving to work in a borrowed 1986 Toyota pickup truck that has no radio or tape or CD player. And, I've been working. 13 days in a row to date. Not much time to keep up with events in the news without much access to media of all sorts.

About the only thing I've been hearing much about is the news that Anna Nicole Smith is finally going to get a funeral.


(Some of my original artwork)

Finally something that I believe really does qualify to be a quagmire!

The thing that bothers me the most about this is the fact that several men are fighting over who is her baby's father while no one stepped forward to claim her body for several days.

In my humble opinion, I find it shameful the way people are behaving over this thing. Howard K Stern, Anna Nicole's boyfriend/husband/attorney is nothing more than an ambulance chasing, slip and fall lawyer who has nothing but his own wallet on his mind. He cares nothing for the disposition of Anna's body, or of her infant daughter, who may even be his own child! All he wants is the lion's share of the 400 million dollar baby"s trust fund.

The same goes for those other men who are claiming paternity.

Shame on every one of them. Not one of them is a real man. I feel very sorry for that poor child, who has lost her mother and now has no one who will take care of her and raise her right.

She is almost doomed from the start. The only chance she has, if things continue to go the way they are, is if she can somehow manage to overcome the difficulties of the coming years surrounded by people who only want to spend her money.

This whole unfortunate situation is a sad commentary on the greed and selfishness of today's modern society.

God help us all!

I Love This

"A crime which is the crime of many none avenge." ~ Lucan

A 70 year old "retired member of the U.S. military " proved crime doesn't pay recently in Costa Rica, according to this article from AOL news.

He killed a mugger with his bare hands and guess what? The Costa Rica Police let him back on the ship to continue his trip!

If this had happened in America, he would have been arrested, charged with murder, convicted, and then sued by the dead man's family. And he would have lost, especially if he was sued in one of our many Liberal courts.

America is still the greatest country in the world, political correctness notwithstanding, but this is one time that the crybaby sob sister Liberal whacko's in America would do well to sit up and take notice.

"Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap" Gal. 6:7.

The mugger had a criminal record as long as your arm, so he got what he deserved, in my opinion. Had he lived long enough, he might have even discovered something that Americans have long known:

Don't mess with a United States Military man!

We need guys like this on regular patrol on the streets of our cities.

I love this!

Anti-War, Pro-Victory

"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

We had a snow and icestorm here in Virginia on Tuesday of last week and ever since, my son has been out of school and bored, so he has been spending a lot more time than usual surfing the internet.

On Thursday, I did something horrible to my car while trying to propel it up our driveway on the ice, which is on a slight incline up to the road. It makes a tremendous racket and the oil smokes. That is, if I can get it started. The engine died as I was limping it back home and I could only manage to let it coast into it's place in the driveway. Since then, it sits, silent, cold and still. It seems to be laughing at me. I don't know how much it will cost, because I don't know whether it is just a fouled plug or two, or if it has something much more serious wrong with it. I can't afford to find out just yet. Wish me luck.

Also, I finally got a job. Apparently my 13 years experience in marketing management outweighed the fact that I am over 40, white and male. Between the ice storm and actually having a job to go to, my time to post entries on this blog and comment on others has been severely reduced.

So for those of you who eagerly await digesting my pearls of wisdom everyday, I apologize.

In a recent comment thread, I made the statement that I am not so much pro-war as I am anti-defeat. More accurately, I would have to say I am mostly anti-war, but more pro-victory. I will be the first to say I hate war. I don't understand those who would opt to go to war before all other options are exhausted.

It bothers me when I hear people make comparisons between the number of casualties in this war versus casualties in Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, and WWI. Yes, there are significantly less deaths in this war than in the previous wars, but one death is nevertheless a tragedy. I think keeping score is abhorrent.

I will not indulge in that.

One of my Liberal commenter's insists there is a way to settle this conflict between Islamic terrorists and Judeo/Christians without resorting to war. And I agree that negotiation will almost always work under certain circumstances.

But those circumstances involve a pretty big "IF .

If the terrorists had the same Judeo/Christian values that we do. If they followed the teachings of Christ rather than the teachings of the false prophet Mohammad. If they didn't consider serving God as murdering innocents. If their idea of negotiation wasn't deciding among themselves whether to use bombs, rocket launchers, or airplanes to kill as many innocent Americans and Jews as they possibly can.

The leaders of the Islamic Jihadists have repeatedly said they will not negotiate. They are continually saying they will never stop waging Jihad until the "infidels" are wiped off the face of the earth.

They have one purpose and one purpose only. The complete eradication of anyone who does not agree completely with them. Buddhist temples have been targeted. Even other Muslims have been killed because their particular sect was not in complete agreement with the Jihadists. Peaceful Muslims are at as much risk of being attacked as we Americans and Jews. No one is safe while the Jihadists exist.

These are not reasonable people. They are vicious, cold blooded animals with a one track mind.

Genocide.

This war on terror is not the preferred method of dealing with enemies. It is the only method. It is a necessary evil. There is only one option:

Kill or be killed.

Any other option is a fantastic exercise in futility.

In Defense Of Mudkitty

"History is a voice forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity." ~ James A. Forude

In my previous entry, where I posted my thoughts regarding the field of Republican Presidential candidates, I had a commenter posting under the name Mudkitty. Mudkitty is apparently Democrat, or at least anti-Republican. And that's fine. Mudkitty is entitled to her/his opinion.

Mudkitty said, "Interesting that you like Newtie - a tree time divorce who prosecuted Clinton while having an adulterous affair with a staffer, whom he eventually dumped his second wife for. Clinton gets a bj, but stays with his wife, and you support impeachment. Newt has a full-blown affair, and is divorced twice, and he's presidential material to you guys. Well, logic and consistency has never been a republican virtue."

Mudkitty also said, "Makes you wonder, that when he speaks of protecting traditional marriage and family and which marriage of his, he wants to protect."

In addition, in reference to Rudy Guiliani, Mudkitty said, "So now the rightwingers are going to swallow their pride, and vote for someone who is pro-abortion, someone who is pro-gay, someone who placed the emergency command center in the World Trade Center, someone who sent 217 firemen up into the towers with non-working walkie talkies, so that they couldn't be recalled, someone who carried on a blatant affair with his mistress while in office. Someone who married his cousin. This is what you guys say you're going to do. Pardon me, if this confirms the lack of credibility in rightwing thinking, and the crass hypocrisy of rightwingers."

Then, Mudkitty said, "Rudy is the guy who carried on a flagrant affair with his mistress, whom he left his wife for. Rudy is the guy who supports gay rights and abortion. Rudy is the guy in business with Bernie Kerrik...Rudy is the guy who's first marriage was to his first cousin."

I don't know who Bernie Kerrik is, so I won't comment on that charge.

For the record, I never said I support either Newt or Rudy. My support is behind Duncan Hunter of California.

Be that as it may, Mudkitty, while attacking Republicans, has accidentally made a very good point.

I am unaware of any marital infidelities of Newt Gingrich, but if those allegations are true, I agree. He wouldn't necessarily be an authoritative voice for morality and Christian values. I know Rudy had an affair which ultimately led to his divorce, which would also go against Christian Conservative values. Because of that, he loses some support from that segment of the Republican base.

I also have a problem with a candidate that supports abortion and special rights for gays.

If we, as Conservative Republicans, settle for a candidate who demonstrates, through his actions, a lack of respect for Conservative Christian values, we cannot condemn former President Clinton for his indiscretions.

As I have said on numerous occasions, it is not the infidelity of Clinton that concerned me, so much as the fact that I would hope the leader of a country would have better self control over his wanton sexual desires. My conviction is if he can't even control that, how can we expect him to exercise good judgement when faced with an international crisis?

My point here is Mudkitty is right to be concerned about candidates with questionable family values.

I don't agree that the unfortunate decision (if it was indeed solely Rudy's) to set up a command center inside the twin towers on 9/11 and malfunctioning communications equipment necessarily disqualifies Rudy to be President.

Nor do I agree that because of some candidates indiscretions, it is an indictment of the whole Republican party. That is, of course, preposterous. By that logic, Republicans could say the same about Democrats. Do we really need to discuss Clinton and his dishonesty, affairs, sexual harassment, attempted rapes, and rapes?

I agree with Mudkitty that a Presidential candidate should be morally unblemished. How could we trust a President to properly lead this country if we can't trust him to control his own base emotions?

Introducing Duncan Hunter

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

So far, I am unimpressed with the Republican candidates that have entered the Presidential race for 2008. I have looked at the popular candidates and I have found taints in all of them.



McCain is likable, and possiby electable (by virtue of the fact that so many Democrats like him), but he's just not Republican enough. He has gone against the party a few too many times. Maybe this means he thinks for himself, and not necessarily what the Republicans want him to think. That could be a good thing, except too often what he thinks is the way the Democrats think. That's scary.



Rudy is strong on crime and the war on Terrorism, and was a rock after the planes hit the towers, but he is soft on illegal immigration and too pro-choice. Many say he stands on his principles, which is a major knock against McCain, but I'm sorry. Standing for a mother's right to kill her baby is not a principle I want my Presidential candidate to stand on.



I like Newt Gingrich, but, like many others has suggested, I feel he carries with him too much baggage. The Democrats slime campaign against him when he was Speaker of the House, charges that were never proven, and probably completely false, has painted Gingrich as corrupt, and that is something that I feel he cannot overcome.



Mitt Romney seems like an excellent candidate, but let's be honest. He's a Mormon. Many people feel Mormonism is a cult, and that alone will prevent many Christian Conservatives from voting for him. I don't know of anything in the Mormon doctrine that would necessarily make him a bad President, but it's the "cult" thing that scares people off.



Some are attempting a "draft Condi" campaign but that, as I see it, is doomed from the start, mainly because she has insisted she has no intentions of running for President. I like her a lot, and I think if she ran, she might get a lot of crossover Democrat votes especially from women and minority voters. But she is pro-choice, and that is a main issue for me, personally.



Then there is my initial pick to run, Sam Brownback of Kansas. He is strong in his opposition to abortion, something I've already mentioned is important to me. But then he went and ruined it all by opposing President Bush's war strategy. I no longer support him.

For another look at the front runners and more information regarding them, check this post by Mark Levin out.

OK. So now you are all probably thinking that I don't like any of the GOP candidates for President in 2008. You would be wrong.

I like Duncan Hunter, Republican Congressman from California. Take a look at him and his qualifications here.


I agree with him on virtually every issue. I don't see a thing wrong with him. So far, there are apparently no skeletons in his closets, and his record reflects strong American Conservative Republican values. Of course, it's early yet. The only problem he has currently is lack of name recognition, but the election is still over a year and a half away, and in that time, I believe we can make him a household name with the right amount of grassroots support.

I don't know if my humble blog gets enough readers to make a difference, but if my readers research Hunter, and if they agree that he is an excellent choice for President, perhaps other blogs will join with me to create a groundswell of support to elect Duncan Hunter President of the United States in 2008.

Hillary's Agenda

"I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'." ~ William Shakespeare

I was going to post a comment on Eric's blogpost about Hillary's speech in which she talks about taking oil company profits, but for some reason, blogger would not allow me to post a comment, so I'm commenting here. For background, Here is what Hillary said:

"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working to try to push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence!"

Now, I'm not certain she really meant that she intends to just take the oil company's profits, or if she means she merely wants to tax them, (as if they aren't already being taxed) but, what happens when a company of any type somehow loses all their profits?

That's right. They go out of business.

If, as President, she did take oil company profits, the oil companies would go broke and have to close, throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work. Not just the oil company employees, but all the companies that deal in petroleum by products and accessories to oil products.

In effect, America would go out of business. Our whole country! In addition, all the countries that depend on America for economic aid would go bankrupt, also.

Now, we're talking about creating millions more poor people world wide than we already have.

That's just the start. Think of alternative fuels. The current leader in the alternative fuels field is ethanol, which is made from corn and other grains. Of course, it is far from being ready to step in and take over at providing fuel for most of the world, but that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Not only is ethanol not ready to be our primary source of fuel, it will drive the costs of corn and grain so high that only the rich will be able to afford any product made with corn and other grains.

I've also heard it said that it costs more to make ethanol than it does to refine oil for gasoline. Once again, more higher costs to "save" the planet from evil oil.

So let's break it down and make it simple enough for even Liberals to understand.

Hillary wants to be President. As President, Hillary wants to put oil companies and all other companies that use or manufacture anything remotely related to oil production completely out of business, thereby creating massive unemployment worse than anything we've ever had previously, including during the Great Depression.

In addition to massive unemployment, she wants to create inflation higher than anyone has ever imagined, so high in fact, that even her multi-millionaire friends like George Soros etc, will not even be able to afford bread.

So, in her efforts to steal "Big Oil" profits for the common good of common man, she will completely destroy America's economy.

And the common man will cease to be. But I guess that's what the Liberals say they want.

I guess in the end, the very very wealthy will be the only ones left.

Rush Is Right...Again

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~ George Bernard Shaw

After almost two years of blogging, I am beginning to figure out what issues tend to draw the most attention and generate the most comments from readers. My opinions (or, as Lone Ranger says, my convictions) on homosexuality, abortion, and environmentalism are generally the hottest topics here at my place.

And curiously, a mere mention of Rush Limbaugh appears to make the Liberals blood boil. I once wrote a post where I only mentioned Rush's name once and I received a veritable fountain of angry comments concerning him, and the post wasn't even about him.

Yesterday, I mentioned a recent study that determined Rush is right 97.4% of the time when he made predictions of what the left or the Democrats (not necessarily synonymous) would say or do.

In light of the recent claims by some "scientists" that human activity is definitely the cause of Global Warming, Rush has had quite a bit to say on the subject lately, and naturally, he doesn't agree.

Well, he's no scientist, so how would he know?

For the record, he doesn't say that there is no such thing as global warming. His position is that there is just no scientific evidence to support the theory.
Well today's post is concerning two of the above topics. Rush Limbaugh and Global Warming.

Rush has made the point that in order for there to be a determination of fact on any scientific discovery, first a theory has to be advanced based on observation, then it has to be tested and proven before it can be stated as scientific fact.

And Global warming has yet to be proven. In other words, there is no factual evidence that global warming exists, let alone caused by human activity.

Now, one commenter has suggested Rush doesn't know this is true, he just pulls these tidbits out of his nether regions and presents them as fact to his listeners. I believe the exact words used were, "Rush is a clown who simply blabs descriptions of what he is pulling out of his ass."

It would seem that some of my commenters deny that Rush has the capability to do research, even though he, as well as his staff, have the entire world wide web at their disposal.

Well, I've stumbled, accidentally, across a couple of articles that appear to prove that Rush is right again. And again, I will state, for the record, that neither Rush nor I deny that global warming exists, but rather, we doubt the evidence provided for it by the Liberals favorite global warming scientists, like...uh...you know...Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore.

Anyway, here are the articles. Read them:

"Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag"

Here is an excerpt:

"Not Bob Giegengack. He has described Al Gore’s documentary as “a political statement timed to present him as a presidential candidate in 2008.” And he added, “The glossy production is replete with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and appeals to public fear as shamelessly as any other political statement that hopes to unite the public behind a particular ideology.” This from a guy who voted for Gore in 2000 and says he’d probably vote for him again."

And, from the Canada Free Press.

Here is an excerpt from this one:

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets."

The one thing both reports have in common is they agree with Rush Limbaugh's conclusion that global warming is not a scientific fact, but rather an untested theory. And a poor theory at that, based on their own scientific analysis.

Again, I say, Read them!

I know it is a pain for the Liberals to admit, (so, of course, they won't) but again, Rush is right!

Limbaugh Nominated For Peace Prize

"A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." ~ Baltasar Gracian

Rush Limbaugh has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated by The Landmark Legal Foundation, headed by Conservative lawyer and author ("Men In Black")Mark Levin.

Not surprisingly, The New York Slimes has skewered this nomination by publishing their readers reaction to the announcement. Could it be that there is no such thing as a Conservative Slimes reader or does the Slimes simply refuse to print comments from Conservatives? I don't know, but after reading all I could stomach of readers comments on the nomination, one (or both) of those explanations certainly seems to be the case.

There are the obligatory comparisons to Nazi's and the predictable slurs claiming Rush is a crack addict and infidel. Also, a racist, woman hater, and gay basher.

Oh, and let's not leave out the comments that he is apparently not worthy of a Peace prize because he doesn't believe women or doctors have a right to kill babies. Does anyone else see a disconnect here?

Here are some of the comments here:

"Hilarious, a drug addict and former welfare recipient (i.e., Rush “Blowhard” Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize. This could be the basis of a new reality show."

Former welfare recipient? Just exactly how does that preclude him from being a Nobel Prize recipient? Or drug addict, for that matter? Any other time that would almost win the prize on it's own. I don't believe he was ever on welfare anyway. His Father was a Lawyer, fer Chrissake!

Here's another:

"Mr. Rush Limbaugh, a crack-addicted neo-nazi bigot who rants at every opportunity against Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, Muslims and non-European visitors to the United States. Mr. Limbuagh has openly and repeatedly advocated violence against both doctors that provide legal abortion to adult women in the U.S. and against Court Judges who fail to support the minimalist interpretation of rights provided under the U.S. Constitution. The sohistry and bigotry of the thrice divorced [due to his extra-marital affairs] Limbaugh would put a necrosmile on the face of the nazi Goebbels. Mr. Limbaugh has every right to be nominated for a Nobel Peace price as long as the Committee takes into consideration the fact that Mr. Limbaugh’s remains the unapologetic mouthpiece of the Hate-4-Faith wing of the U.S. official jingoists."

— Posted by Dr. Henry McDillan

This one is singular, because this commenter managed to include every negative thing he's ever heard about Limbaugh, apparently not pausing to check his facts, while taking a further swipe at Christians and patriots.

Also, take notice that the commenter signs his name with the the prefix Dr. Perhaps he is one of the nation's abortion providers who feel their livelihood is endangered by the possible, if not probable overturning of Roe vs Wade?

One more, and then I'll bring this rant to a close. You can read the rest if you have the inclination:

"He hates blacks, he hates Mexicans, he hates liberals, he loves our involvement in Iraq, doesn’t think 3000 dead soldiers is any problem. All this in the name of world peace."

Now, I listen to Rush often. Not everyday, but often enough that if he ever expressed hatred of any of these groups (including Liberals) I would certainly have heard it. It's interesting to me that those who seem to object to him the most are the ones that obviously don't listen to him.

I am not a big fan of Rush simply because I find him a little too arrogant and egotistic. That said, he is rarely wrong. I suppose that is the reason the Libs hate him with such vigor.

It is generally seen as something of a badge of honor to be hated by your opponents, particularly in the field of politics. He has earned that badge.

He won't win, of course. The Nobel Prize committee is overwhelmingly a Liberally biased organization.

It is, however, a significant slap in the face of Rush haters everywhere. And that is worth something, at least.

Just For Fun

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. I can't make any sense of it" ~ Groucho Marx

Recent commenters on my blog posts have caused me to start thinking about the difference in writing styles. I consider myself an adequate writer, but there are many that are much better. ER, ELAshley, Jason Bowden, and Wordsmith come to mind.

Coincidently, ELAshley has posted a great example of his writing over at his place this morning.

Some bloggers use words that I literally have to look up in a dictionary, and still others write simply. I would place myself somewhere in the middle concerning verbosity. Sometimes wording an essay simply works better to get the point across.

So, just for fun, I took a little children's song, and rewrote it with what some people call "4 dollar words". Uneducated blogger points to those who can figure out what children's song I changed. Additional points awarded to those of you who can re write it better. Here it is:

Repeatedly propel, through means of external manual propulsion mechanisms, your transport, designed and manufactured specifically to convey humanoid bipeds with maximum buoyancy and expediency, effortlessly along the current of the naturally occurring flowing transparent solution. Ecstatically multiplied fourfold, Human Existence is merely a surrealistic hallucination.

Have fun!

What Integrity Means To Me

"No man can purchase his virtue too dear, for it is the only thing whose value must ever increase with the price it has cost us. Our integrity is never worth so much as when we have parted with our all to keep it." ~ Charles Caleb Colton

Last night I received a call from a man who was returning a call I made to his company in answer to classified ad for a position as a loan officer at his company. He asked me to send him an e-mail with my resume attached and a "letter of integrity" .

Now, never have I been asked for a letter of integrity and I confessed to him that I wasn't exactly sure what he meant by that term. He said all he wanted was a few short paragraphs explaining what the word, "Integrity" means to me.

I slept on it, not because I am desperate to be a loan officer, but because integrity is not as simple a concept as one may think. So, I slept on it and pondered what I would write. After some time, I at last sat down to write out my thoughts on integrity. The following is the entire content of my letter minus the sign off:

Sir:

You asked me to write a few short paragraphs explaining what integrity means to me.

To begin with, Webster's Dictionary defines integrity as adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

While these definitions are indeed true, I think it is more than that. It is not a personal preference. It is instead a way of life, a world view. After all, what are morals? What is considered moral by one man may not be considered the same by another.

I do not believe that morals are transient. I believe they are set in stone. And I believe they were set in stone by the Creator of the Universe. Who are we to modify those rules to fit our own selfish world view?

I may be old fashioned in many ways, but my father taught me that our first moral obligation is to God, others, and yourself, in that order. I believe that. We are to behave in a way that is approved by God first and others second. After all, God is the ultimate moral authority, is He not? If we comport ourselves in that way, we must certainly be approved by ourselves.

Integrity in it's simplest form is embodied in what we call "The Golden Rule" . I paraphrase it thusly:

Treat other people the way that you would want to be treated yourself.

Attached is my resume per your request. If I decide to accept your offer of employment, you will be delighted with my performance.

Common Sense Economics

"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists." ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

OK. I am an economics moron, I admit. But I believe common sense is all that's necessary to determine whether raising the minimum raise in this country is a bad idea.

I know there have been many books published explaining the pro's and con's of minimum wage increases, and they have been written by economists with all kinds of college degrees and experiences in business and money management.

For me, trying to read and comprehend all those books and articles gives me a headache.

Interestingly enough, there seem to be as many economists against the minimum wage increases as there are for them.

It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose.

I am not an economist, and my math may be flawed, but here is some raw figures I have been working with to try to explain why I believe minimum wage causes inflation, and consequently, unemployment:

Working with round figures, let's say a small businessman makes and sells widgets at a cost of $1.00 a piece. At a 2.5% markup, the widgets sell for $1.02.5 a piece.

Consider that his 10 employees make a minimum wage of $5.00 an hour.

The manufacturer has to sell 10,000 widgets to make a measly $500.00 a week to meet his overhead expenses and feed his family, etc.

Now, suppose the government comes along and forces him to raise his employees salaries by $1.00 an hour. That's $400.00 a week more than he has been paying them. That leaves him with $100.00 a week to pay his overhead and feed his family.

That is if he doesn't raise the price on his widgets, of course. So, what will our fictitious manufacturer have to do to keep his family from starving?

Well, he has some choices:

1. He can sell about double the number of widgets than he did previously, but that is unlikely. If he could sell that many more he would have already been doing so.

2. He can raise the prices on his widgets, which could possibly cause some of his previous widget customers, (if not all) to look elsewhere for their widgets, or possibly just make them unaffordable to his lower wage customers, you know, the ones that have just had their wages raised so they can afford more.

If he loses customers, he will then have to raise the prices again to compensate for the loss in income, therefore making his widgets even more unaffordable than before.

3. He can lay off 1 worker and drop another employee to part time to lower his labor costs. That way he can avoid raising his prices but he will suffer a loss of production.

80% of his employees now make $40.00 a week more than they did, but one of them is now making nothing, and one of them is only making $120.00 a week.

Now more than 10% of his workforce has lost income!

Well, it looks like raising the minimum wage causes our widget manufacturer to raise prices and/or lay off employees!

That's inflation and higher unemployment.

Now multiply that scenario as many times as the number of small businesses there are in America and presto! We have inflation and unemployment problems!

I may not be an economist but I have common sense, and apparently the Democrats in the legislature don't. Or maybe they do but just don't care that minimum wage increases will hurt small business, and, consequently, the very people they claim they are helping.

The poor and middle class.

Who Says This Is Progress?

"For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three." ~ Alice Kahn

Would someone who knows how to work this new blogger please explain to me how to restore the things I've lost? And, In the words of Denzel Washington in "Philadelphia", Explain it to me like I'm a two year old.

OK. Where did my stat counter go and how do I get it back? I don't care about the adsense. I wasn't making anything off that, anyway.

UPDATE: OK. It looks like I am starting to understand it. But I'm not holding my breath.

P.S: How does it look so far?

P.S.S: I still don't know how to get my stat counter back. Why doesn't blogger provide an e-mail address so I can contact them and have them explain this stuff to me?

When Will The Democrats Learn?

"Never give a sucker an even break" ~ W. C. Fields

I just read an excerpt from Jim Webb's official Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Marie's blog.

This paragraph jumped out at me:

"Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos, but an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."

Well, at least he admits that it isn't a good idea to just cut and run.

But a "strong regionally based diplomacy"?

Is he mad? Are the Democrats mad? (by mad, I mean crazy) Have the Democrats lost all semblance of common sense?

How many times must the terrorists Muslim jihadists demonstrate that they cannot be negotiated with before that point is made? Does L.A. or New York or Washington DC have to disappear under a mushroom cloud for them to get the message?

You cannot talk these animals into stopping the killing.

In my little twisted brain, the following scenario is played out:

A group of Democratic lawmakers enter into a negotiation session with the leaders of al Queda, and after some intense discussion where both sides agree to give up some sanctions and tactics against each other, the Democrats rise from the table, shake hands with the terrorists, and turn their backs to leave, smiling in their satisfaction over a successful negotiation that will at last end the aggression in Iraq.

Before they can get out the door, however, the al Queda representatives suddenly fall on their guests and cut their heads off, videotaping the entire murder. Then, they turn and smile at the camera, and say, "Praise be it ever to Allah, the jihad is just beginning, and Allah has delivered the enemy into our hands. Furthermore, everything we have agreed to was a lie."

I challenge the Democrats to prove this scenario is not accurate. I suggest you send Teddy and San Fran Nan to begin with. And throw in Al Gore and Jimmy Carter just because they are the most annoying.

Diplomacy? Please. Give me a break.

UPDATE: Google has forced me to switch to the "new Blogger". I see little difference between this and the old blogger, except that I have had to remove comment moderation. Previously, comments have been re-directed to my e-mail address for me to make the decision to publish or reject before they get posted and, now when I hit "publish" I get an error message telling me the website I am trying to access does not exist. Therefore, I can no longer moderate comments until I can figure out how to contact Blogger to resolve this situation. In my opinion, Blogger has not become simpler, but more complicated. This is progress?

America Is Becoming Pelosi-Whipped

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." ~ Mark Twain

An excerpt from an AP story on San Fran Nan's first 100(25) hours as Speaker of the House:

"Pelosi, who is in her 10th House term, moved quickly to defuse the first potential controversy to beset her speakership: questions over whether the minimum wage bill gave preferential treatment to a company in her district. She instructed the bill's authors to make sure it did not."

She instructed the bill's authors to make sure it did not.

Oh. Then everything's alright now, isn't it?

God help us.