What? Again?

"Young sir, I have just realized that we are both fools, But mine is the greater folly for I am an old fool." ~ Cyrano de Bergerac

It is approximately 7:05 AM. At this precise moment fifty-six years ago, I was making my mother scream for drugs.

Gad.

I hate getting old.

On the plus side, there's gifts.

And cake.

This happens this same time every year. It's no big deal. If it didn't happen, it would be a big deal. At least for me.

My Favorite Artist

"I've been a wizard since my childhood, and I've earned some respect for my art." ~ David Bromberg

I discovered David Bromberg way back in 1970 or 71 at a concert in Wichita, Kansas, at Henry Levitt arena on the WSU campus. He was one of the opening acts for a mega show starring the Earl Scruggs Review and The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. (Known as simply "The Dirt Band" now) The featured artists gave predictably great performances, but in my mind Bromberg stole the show.

Incidentally, the other opening act was an obscure, unknown comedian billed as "Banjo Funny Man Steve Martin". Yes, the same Steve Martin who is now a super star comedian, actor and director. And yes, he was hilarious then, too.

Bromberg is one of the best guitarists I've ever heard. He has a horrible voice, but somehow it lends itself well to ballads. At the time of the concert, he had one song that actually made it to the top forty charts, a rock and roll song of sorts called "Sharon".

His music can't be categorized as country or rock or blues or jazz or bluegrass, because frankly, he does them all and he does them well.

Anyway, after the show, I went right out and bought my first David Bromberg album. There was is an amazing solo acoustic guitar piece on it, a medley of Irish fiddle tunes.

" Demon in Disguise" The album

Bromberg rarely performs anymore. He lives is Wilmington Delaware where he owns a Violin store, but sometimes he travels to some music festival someplace where he often gets together with more famous musicians, such as Arlo Guthrie, Jerry Jeff Walker, and John B. Sebastian.

Somewhere within the last 30+ years, I lost the album, and was never able to find a copy of that medley since. Until last weekend, when I ordered a CD of the same album online. Apparently, the only way to hear the medley is to get the CD.

The Title of the CD is "Demon In Disguise" and the following Youtube video is the title cut, from a performance at Iowa State in 1985, which has a pretty darn good solo guitar piece in it as well:



In case you hadn't noticed, John Sebastian plays harmonica in this clip.

Monkey Business As Usual At MSNBC

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." ~ Abraham Lincoln (attributed)

If anyone has any doubt that MSNBC is Liberally biased, this video should erase any such doubts:



Someone should be fired, but I'm not saying who.

The End Is Not So Near

"If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." ~ Winston Churchill (attributed)

Yesterday's local newspaper featured a front page story entitled, "12 year old plans to be President".

According to the article:

"When Bobby Washington was 10, his mother found him asleep in his room with a 1,008-page autobiography of former President Bill Clinton on his chest.

Bobby, now 12, has policy positions on the environment and the war. He's pushing for battery-operated cars, and he wants the war in Iraq to end."

This story should send a signal to Conservatives that the hoped for end to liberalism by selective breeding, is not so near. By selective breeding, I mean abortion. See, most Liberals are pro-abortion, and most Conservatives are pro-life, so it stands to reason that eventually, Liberals will more or less breed themselves into a minority.


Or, more accurately, UN-breed.

Obviously, even if Liberals stopped procreating, there are still negative Liberal influences out there that will turn our children into mind numbed robots of Liberalism.

We still, unfortunately, have public schools.

And now, we see why Liberals hate the idea of school choice so much, don't we?

A Fortuitous Turn Of Events

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." ~ William Shakespeare

Black Friday. Oh yes. Let me tell you of my "Black Friday" adventure:

Best Buy's circular advertised an E-machine desktop computer for the unbelievable price of $199.97. Regular price was $619.97. It comes complete with a printer!

There were only 15 of them in stock in each Best Buy store, and no rain checks would be issued. The circular informed readers the way to procure this computer was to arrive at the store by 3:00 AM (that's AM!) and wait in line, (assuming there would be a line, of course) and the first 15 people who were there for the computer would be issued a ticket for the particular item they came to purchase.

First come, first served.

When the store opened at 5:00 customers would then be allowed to enter and purchase their item of interest.

My own desktop computer recently broke, and I have been wanting a replacement for quite some time, so I conceived a plan whereby I could procure this computer. There wasn't a lot of information on the specifications, but I reasoned beggars can't be choosers.

My last computer was an e-machines, too, and it was, at the time, the absolute cheapest I could find. Ideally, the next desktop would include the new Windows Vista, a CD/DVD player writer, more memory and power.

This is the Desktop advertised, below:

I figured even if the new one didn't meet my qualifications, I could always sell it on E-Bay and make enough profit (remember: regular price is $619.97) to get one more to my liking.

I considered arriving at the store around midnight, to insure a good place in line, but the night was the coldest of the year so far, and I had no one to go with me in case I needed someone to stand in my place if I needed to answer natures relentless call. So, instead, I drove to the store, timing my arrival for about 10 minutes before 3:00.

When I drove into the parking lot, I realized I made the wrong plans. There was a line beginning at the store entrance and snaking around the corner all the way to the back of the store, and more were arriving. Many people were in tents and sleeping bags. And I only had on a leather jacket and gloves. Even if only a small percentage of the 100+ people already there were planning on purchasing the computer, there were still many more computer buyers than 15 in line.

So, I continued through the parking lot and drove off to Walmart, to buy some Diet Mountain Dew. Then I went home and went to bed.

But the adventure doesn't stop here.

Later in the day, my fiancee informed me that she desperately needed $150.00 immediately, so I deposited that into her bank account.

Now, it was clear that if I had purchased that computer, and then deposited the money in her account, it would have put a serious strain on my already meager bank account.

And I have a habit of making bad economical decisions.

I considered that Someone was looking out for me.

But that still isn't the end of the story.

Later that afternoon, I received a call from my boss, who offered to give me a desktop. He had recently sold a successful business and had a couple of office computers left over, which he was going to donate, but then he had remembered I had mentioned a while back that my computer broke.

He will bring the computer to the office on Monday.

I haven't seen the computer, and I don't yet know if it has Vista, or a CD/DVD writer, etc, and I didn't ask. What kind of person would I be if I looked the proverbial gift horse in the mouth?

Thanksgiving Madness

"What hath God wrought?" ~ Samuel F. B. Morse

Well, Thanksgiving is over and today I am reminded why I'm thankful Thanksgiving comes only once a year. I never work so hard in one day (excepting maybe Christmas) as I do on Thanksgiving day. Between cooking and cleaning, eating, then cleaning up afterwards, I wonder why we continually put up with the headaches year after year.

All for one, albeit, sumptuous meal.

Why was yesterday a frenzy of activity, punctuated with arguments over who was doing the most work and whether whatever each of us did was helping the others?

Why do we put ourselves through so much suffering only to enjoy a 30 minute dinner, during which we stuff ourselves so full of a variety of foods that we feel bloated and uncomfortable for the rest of the day?

And why must we have two meat courses, four or five vegetable courses, and several choices for dessert? And why do we feel we must sample every one of those choices, especially since I am not supposed to be eating anything with sugar?

Why, on this one day, do we feel the necessity to try to commit suicide by gluttony?

Considering the work and frustration we put into it, I wonder why we bother.



Because it gives us a fleeting opportunity to spend quality time with family and friends, and reminds us that we have much to be thankful for, regardless of the tribulations of everyday existence.

Taking all these things under consideration, one realizes that the prize is worth the pain.

And now, we have--Black Friday.

Voices Of The Angels

"When griping grief the heart doth wound,
and doleful dumps the mind opresses,
then music, with her silver sound,
with speedy help doth lend redress."
William Shakespeare

When I was searching Youtube for examples of Scottish folk music for my last post, I stumbled across this video, and I was literally amazed. The group is called "Celtic Woman".

These women sing with the voices of angels.

It is a song often heard around Christmas time, but I just couldn't wait until Christmas to share this beautiful music:



Incidentally, when I was sharing this with a friend, I pronounced the name of the group, "Seltic woman", and was immediately corrected. The correct pronunciation, I was told, is "Keltic woman"

I said, "Not in Boston".

We'll Fight For What Is Right...

"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." ~ From the Scottish Declaration of Independence, signed at Arbroath Abbey, April 6, 1320

I've mentioned before I once traced my family tree to 17th century North Carolina. I know my early ancestor immigrated to America from Scotland, but that is where my search ended, not because there are no more records of my family history, but because being of Scottish ancestry, I have retained the traits of a true Scotsman--I am thrifty.(translation: Cheap)Any further research requires a fee, so I couldn't (or wouldn't) dig any more.

But what I discovered furnished me with enough information that I was able to ascertain my family origin. I am likely descended from a sept of the Clan Gunn, one of the Highland Clans of Northern Scotland. Specifically the Clan Gunn's roots spread out from the town of Caithness, in the Scottish Highlands, to SW Sutherland. The word, "sept" basically means "extended family". Hence, my surname is one of many cousins to the Gunn's.

Here is the Gunn Clan tartan plaid:


And here is the Gunn Crest:

The Latin phrase translates to "Either Peace or War".

I've mentioned all this and more before, but since I learned how to post videos on here, I can now share a couple of my favorite Scottish folk songs. Here is one that makes mention of the history, customs, industry, and even common plants (thistle)and animals (Badger and Fox), of Scotland, and also promotes the Scots stubborn independence.

It's called "Dawning of the Day", by the famous Scottish folk duo, The Corries:


This one is a song penned by the famous Scottish poet, Robert Burns,(known as "Rabbie" to Scots) and sung by Eddie Reader. The name is "Charlie is my Darling":


Most of Scotlands folk songs tell of a long history of fighting fierce battles for independence. Scots are a proud and stubborn people. They simply will not allow themselves to be enslaved, and will fight against overwhelming odds to that end. Their history is a beacon for freedom loving people everywhere.

I am proud to be a Scotsman.

Possible Hypocrisy--Maybe?

"Hypocrisy: Prejudice with a halo" ~ Ambrose Bierce

Yesterday, when I posted my blog entry, I got a little carried away and strayed from my original subject, and ended up making two posts in one. If you didn't see it, I am not going to explain.

Anyway, I am rectifying that today, by separating the two subjects into two separate posts, to wit:

I realize it may appear I am picking on ER specifically, but it just happened that I visited his blog shortly after he posted a humour piece, that could nevertheless be construed as unflattering about our Vice President, Dick Cheney.

Other than how he mispronounces his own last name, I know of nothing Cheney has done that warrants such denigration.

Be that as it may, ER posted two pictures, one of actor Lionel Barrymore (now deceased) in his famous role of the curmudgeonly wicked old man Potter, from the movie "What a Wonderful Life". The other picture was of Vice President Dick Cheney (he pronounces it Chaney). Then ER pointed out a physical similarity between the two, and implied the two shared a similar personality.

(Incidentally, my favorite Barrymore film is an obscure little picture in which Barrymore, who plays a curmudgeonly old man confined to a wheelchair, magically traps Death, played by Sir Cedric Hardwicke, in an apple tree. Oh! The name of the movie is "On Borrowed Time")

I have no doubt that ER intended the piece to be humorous, and indeed it is.

But it reminded me of a post I created back in April, 2006 in which I posted pictures of Democratic representative Cynthia McKinney and Rocket J. Squirrel in order to point out the similarities in their physical appearance.












I made no implications that the two are similar in any other way. In fact, The gist of that particular post was a defense of Ms. McKinney, a fact that was apparently lost on ER, as his first comment on the post was:

"You're just being mean. Who wants to comment on that? Quit being a jerk."

I'm still trying to figure out how I am a jerk when I post pictures that suggest a physical comparison between a fictional character and a real human being and ER is just being funny.

Once again, as I pointed out in yesterday's post:

It does make one wonder if Libs are somewhat hypocritical, does it not?

How The Left Honors Our Veterans

“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” ~ Ambrose Bierce

We are forever hearing our Liberal and Democrat and Liberal Democrat friends sanctimoniously insist that they support the troops. We are told we are being unpatriotic if we suggest that Libs are treasonous when they use language that undermines the United State's military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Liberals get offended when we Conservatives suggest they are not themselves patriotic because they constantly denigrate our troops and George W. Bush, the current Commander-in-Chief of those same armed forces they claim to support.

With the preceding statements in mind, I decided, on a whim, to visit a few Liberal blog sites just to see how they honor the veterans of our armed forces this past Veteran's Day, both the traditional holiday on November 11th, and the "official" day, this year celebrated on November 12th.

Since I have only one Liberal blog on my blogroll, ER's blog was the first I visited. And, because I don't have the url's of any other Liberal blogs, I clicked the links to other blogs on ER's blogroll to access a variety of Liberal blogs.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered, much to my chagrin, that none of the Liberal blogs I visited had any mention at all of any veterans. So, it goes without saying there were no tributes to our veterans nor even any acknowledgement that a Veterans day even exists in the Liberal world.

None.

As in zero, zilch, nada, diddley squat.

This is not to say they don't honor veterans, but it does tend to make one suspect a little bit of hypocrisy on the Libs part.

A lack of acknowledgement of Veterans Day nor even a cursory nod to veterans in general is not necessarily indicative of any disrespect to our veterans and members of our current armed forces. Some Conservative blogs made no mention of Veterans day, either. Does that mean they aren't supportive of our troops?

I think the general overall attitude of the whole of the various blogs, rather than one or two days posts is the litmus test of whether they truly support our troops or not. Of course, I see no indication of support from reading the rest of their posts, either.

But it does make one wonder, does it not?

Veterans Day 2007

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." – Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower




To all Veterans, who were prepared to face death for our freedom, Thank you for your service, and God bless you.

A Reduction Of Civility

"For every action there is an equal and opposite government program." ~ Bob Wells

I am going to need Tug's help on this one. Perhaps Tug will correct me if I'm wrong.

As someone who has to drive to make a living, I have become increasingly aware of a shift in the attitudes of professional truck drivers. They used to be courteous and polite. They were the drivers one could depend upon to help out in emergency situations on the highways. They were quick to back off and let aggressive drivers bully their way between vehicles in search of that added two or three car lengths for the sake of every other driver's safety.

Not anymore. Today, they are the aggressive drivers. They are the bullies. What has happened?

I am not a truck driver so I am unfamiliar with the ICC regulations, but I am fairly sure the growing problem of aggressive truck driving is directly linked to over regulation of the trucking industry.

In this morning's Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, a report of a singular aggressive driving incident has illuminated this problem.

Here is a snippet:

"Sgt. F.L. Tyler of the state police said the driver, Van Kimball Lewis, 35, was charged with driving under the influence of drugs, namely PCP, after he fought rescue workers and police officers who tried to get him out of the cab, where he was pinned in the overturned truck.

He was also charged with possession of a controlled substance, three counts of assault on a police officer and one count of aggressive driving."

I have been offered some encapsulated insights from some drivers as to what is causing this phenomena in America. I was told this trend is a direct result of the regulation of the truck driving industry. Truck drivers are now required to rest after a set period of time driving, whether they are tired or not. At the same time, trucking companies are becoming more and more insistent that drivers reach their destinations in time.

This forces truck drivers to exceed the speed limits in order to drop their loads on time. Trucking companies are having to impose strict time frames on their drivers in order to stay competitive in the marketplace. The aggressive driving is a direct consequence of the drivers doing whatever they have to do to complete their runs to the satisfaction of their bosses.

Just last night, I was driving interstate 95 myself. I was driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit, which is as fast as I dare to drive. After over 35 years driving, one thing I have realized. If I ever even unknowingly accidentally creep more than 5 miles per hour over the limit, I will be caught. Every time.

But I digress. As I was speeding along the interstate, a semi-trailer truck rolled up behind me probably going at least 15 miles an hour more than I was, and proceeded to almost park his cab on top of my back bumper. This was, of course, because other traffic prevented him from passing me at that time. Maybe I am just a scaredy-cat, but this kind of driving frightens me. What happens if my car suddenly blows a tire or drops it's drive shaft, or a deer darts out in front of me at this speed? Will the aggressive truck driver who is tailgating me be able to stop before he creams me?

Of course not. He knows that but yet, his fear of losing his job outweighs his fear of killing another motorist. And I fear my self preservation instincts will not help me one bit in that sort of situation.

This is yet another example of how Government over regulation and meddling into the rights of businesses for the sake of traffic safety has had the opposite effect. It hasn't created less traffic fatalities and less accidents. It has created more.

Maybe I'm all wrong about this, but I remember when truck drivers were the courteous and polite drivers.

All three entities are culpable for the reduction of civility on our nations highways. The Government, the Trucking companies, and the individual drivers.

Government regulations notwithstanding, I think it goes without saying that truck drivers are directly responsible for any actions that cause injury and death on our nations highways. I am not saying truck drivers are justified in abdicating their own culpability and responsibility in causing these accidents.

Whatever the law requires, they are nevertheless responsible for their own actions, but I believe there should be some sort of investigation into the responsibility of the trucking companies and the government.

Back To Outrage

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." ~ Ronald Reagan

OK. I am outraged again, but not about anything the Libs are doing or saying, although they continually do and say outrageous things. The fact is, Libs are so outrageous so often that they have ceased to outrage me--at least for the time being. Usually they are just comical. Actually, I think they do us all a service by keeping us laughing about the stupid things they say and do continually.

No, this time I am outraged (actually not really outraged so much as mildly chagrined) over "Reverend" Pat Robertson endorsing Rudolph Guiliani for President. I put "Reverend" in quotes because, frankly, I believe he is a phony.

This guy represents himself as a Conservative Christian leader and yet he endorses a man who openly supports gay marriages and abortion? Not only is that not Conservative it's not even representative of most Christian's viewpoints.

Actually, I'm OK with gay marriage. It's not gay marriage that concerns me as much as the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle that bugs me. And if you allow gays to marry you are basically saying the lifestyle is a legitimate, normal, and acceptable way to live.

It isn't.

But if gays want to marry each other they do the rest of us normal people a favor by keeping perversion within their own community. As long as they aren't allowed to adopt and raise children I am OK with gay marriage.

Allowing gay people to raise children is child abuse.

And then there's abortion.

What kind of Conservative Christian would ever, ever endorse a pro-abortion candidate for dog catcher, let alone President? What is Robertson thinking?

I'll tell you what I believe he is thinking. There is money in this for him somewhere. Pat Robertson is all about money. Watch his broadcast sometime, if you can get through it without gagging. 90% of what he talks about is money. He is obsessed with money.

I suspect Rudy bribed him to obtain his endorsement. And that is giving Robertson the benefit of the doubt. He may really be in favor of gay marriage and abortion himself but won't admit it, as it would most certainly destroy any credibility that remains after his money obsession becomes publicly known.

Oh yes, I am aware many Conservative leaders are throwing their support behind Rudy. Sean Hannity claims he likes all the Republican candidates for President, but if you spend any time listening to his radio broadcast, it is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that he is a "Rudy man".

So what about Sean's argument that Rudy has promised that if elected he will appoint strict constructionist Justices in the model of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts?

If you believe that, I know a fellow in Florida with some prime real estate to sell you cheap.

Why would a pro abortion President appoint pro-life Justices? That just doesn't make sense. If he appointed any pro-life Justices it would be because they agreed with him about other issues, and abortion would be simply a fortunate coincidence. In other words, just because he says he will appoint strict constructionist judges, it doesn't mean he will appoint pro-life justices.

Obviously, if a Justice is a true constructionist, he would not be able to find a right to abortion in the Constitution, but as we have seen, that doesn't necessarily mean he would judge accordingly. As Laura Ingraham points out in her book, "Power to the People", sometimes Justices change their judicial philosophy once they occupy the bench. They stop being constructionist Justices and become activist Justices.

Think Souter and Kennedy.

No, I don't trust Guiliani, and I certainly don't trust Robertson. And if Robertson endorses him, he might as well tell me personally, "Don't vote for Guiliani".


But let me be clear. If Guiliani is chosen by the Republican party to be our Presidential candidate in '08, I will vote for him. Why? Because even the very worst Republican is better than the very best Democrat.

And Sam Brownback endorses John McCain? Sheeeeeeeeesh! Say it aint so, Sam!

It's no wonder many Conservatives say the Republican Party has lost it's way.

May God and Duncan Hunter save us.

Tired Of Being Outraged

"I'm sick and tired of waking up sick and tired" ~ Waylon Jennings

As I expressed previously in comments, I am tired of being outraged, and yet, there is little to be positive about lately.

Yesterday, here in Virginia, local and state elections were held. I voted Republican for the most part. I had some information on a couple of independents that are actually more Conservative than the Republicans they ran against, so I voted for them. I believe most of the candidates won, although the one I was most hoping to win didn't. Chris Yakabouski, Republican, ran for State Senate on a platform that promised to prevent special benefits for illegal aliens. The number of illegal aliens in Virginia is a serious problem, costing us taxpayers millions of dollars that could be better spent protecting, rather than endangering America's security.

But "Yak" lost. Illegal immigration has won. For the time being. The only solace I have is the knowledge that fortunately, Democrats usually do little of significance that they promise. I believe we are still safe. I hope.

That is just part of the reason I am feeling so anxious today. Another part of the equation has to do with the fact that I haven't posted any meaningful posts as of late. The fact is, I am simply tired of being outraged.

I am losing my mental faculties. This morning alone, I misplaced my car keys and had difficulty locating my shoes. And there have been many other similar episodes in the last few weeks. It worries me because this is totally unlike me. I don't lose things. I am not absent minded. At least I didn't used to be.

I am also starting to make mistakes. Not mistakes that are particularly dangerous, just silly little mistakes in my concentration. For instance, this morning I went to the grocery store and attempted to write a check for my purchase. The purchase was a mere $2.82, but I began to write my check for the amount of "two hundred...".

Next, although this isn't really anything I mistakenly did, but the check printer approval machine/computer wouldn't work and I stood for at least 15 minutes waiting for the cash register computer to unfreeze so they could process my check.

My right knee and ankle are mysteriously and suddenly causing me no small amount of pain. I don't know or understand why, because I haven't twisted, bumped or otherwise done anything that would create the pain. So, standing at the check out counter waiting for approval of a two dollar eighty-two cent check didn't help. I may soon have to acquiesce to the possibility that I'm getting old.

Maybe all this is a kind of Karmic ying/yang response to the things I do. Just before I wrote my check I helped an elderly woman unload some heavy items out of her cart onto the conveyor belt at the checkstand.

I drove into the 7-11 to get gas right behind a middle aged black woman who was limping into the parking lot on a flat tire. I offered to change her tire for her but she refused.

But I need to write. Something. Anything. Writing on this blog is a catharsis for me. I was in the throes of a full blown anxiety attack when I began this post, but already I feel much better. Just from writing.

I knew it would help.

I think my next post will be something expressing my outrage about something outrageous the Democrats or Libs (is that redundant?) are doing or saying or have done or said.

Hello, I Must be Going

"Did Someone call me Snorer?" ~ Groucho Marx

Why Blame?

"Nothing's cold as ashes, after the fire is gone" ~ Conway Twitty

A boy playing with matches started a Southern California wildfire that scorched more than 38-thousand acres and destroyed 63 structures, according to the L.A. County Sheriff's Department. "After talking with the suspect, he admitted playing with matches and starting the fire," the report said. The boy was released to the custody of his parents, police said. The case will be presented to the Los Angeles County district attorney for possible charges.

How should he be punished? He says it was an accident, but does he deserve criminal charges? Do we have an obligation as a society to take action, or should this be left up to his parents? Does it matter how old he is? What would you do if this were your son?

This was the subject on the "Grandy and Andy Morning Show" this morning on WMAL radio.

My question is this:

Why must there be any punishment at all? Why do we have to have someone to blame for everything? Is it not possible that sometimes things are simply an accident, and nobody deserves punishment? Isn't the regret and remorse the boy undoubtedly feels adequate to assure this kid will be more careful with matches?

Why must we always have to have somebody to blame?

Yes, I know there have been tremendous losses as a result of this fire, and yes, the victims deserve some sort of recompense. But then, that's what insurance is for, isn't it?

Fred Grandy (remember "Gopher" from Love Boat?) suggested if the boy is not old enough to be responsible (the report did not specify the child's age), perhaps his parents should be held responsible. Why? Does anyone think the kids parents actually taught their child to be irresponsible or foolhardy?

We've all been kids. and now and then, it made no difference how many times we were instructed to be responsible and not to do something that might result in injury or other serious consequences, we often did it anyway.

That is the nature of children.

When I was a child, I remember my older brother and I were playing with matches on one occasion. It was an Indian Summer day in Wichita, Kansas, and it was dry and windy. (Those who have spent any time in Wichita know it's always windy) My brother dropped a lit match into some dry grass, with a predictable, but unintended result. The dry grass blazed, and soon we were stomping and beating the flames with our coats trying unsuccessfully to put the fire out.

After the fire department brought the fire under control, just in time to prevent a propane tank in the midst of it from exploding, a fireman questioned my brother about his role in the incident. I don't remember if he or my parents were punished, but I do remember the look of fear on my brothers face. I had never seen him so vulnerable, so frightened and so traumatized, and I have never seen him in that way since. As far as I'm concerned, the terror experienced by the thought of what might have been was punishment enough.

Were my parents responsible? They weren't even there. They were at work. They had no doubt warned us many times of the danger of playing with matches, but we were kids. Kids do stupid things.

As a parent I can attest that kids sometimes don't listen to their parents and do irresponsible, even stupid things. It isn't that I don't teach my children responsibility and integrity. But sometimes they don't do as they've been instructed. Should I be punished because my children chose to disobey me?

I know there are parents who are completely irresponsible themselves. Parents who don't instruct, discipline, or serve as good role models to their children. Some are criminals themselves. In that case, I believe holding them responsible would be appropriate.

But I'm referring to the majority of parents, who try their best to instill good values and judgement into their progeny. There is no value in punishing them for their children's irresponsibility.

I know I incessantly talk about personal responsibility, but in what way can the parents be held responsible for the disobedience of their children? And why should they?

I say don't punish the kid. Don't punish the parents. Just this once, can't we just accept the fact that accidents happen, and understand that sometimes irresponsibility has unfortunate consequences? Those consequences in themselves are punishment enough. Let him make a sincere apology and move on. This kid will no doubt remember the rest of his life that playing with matches isn't smart.

And after all, isn't the assurance that he won't do it again the whole point of punishment?

When The Ship Comes In

"Then they'll raise their hands
Sayin' we'll meet all your demands
But we'll shout from the bow your days are numbered!" ~ Bob Dylan

Today was a beautiful Indian Summer day. The sun was shining, and the air had that slightly cold crisp feeling that signals us that Autumn has come and Winter is not far away.

I was grocery shopping, exited the store, and as I walked to my car with my groceries, this song popped into my head. I don't know why. It has no special significance that I know of, and I don't remember seeing or hearing anything that reminded me of it, and yet, bits and pieces of the song came back to me as if I heard it for the first time yesterday. I hadn't heard it or even thought of it in years:



Bob Dylan is apolitical, meaning he doesn't make his political views public. He may be a Democrat, or he might not be. This song can be considered political by people who perceive special messages in music, but I prefer to just enjoy the music.

Here are the lyrics:


Oh the time will come up
When the winds will stop
And the breeze will cease to be breathin'
Like the stillness in the wind
'Fore the hurricane begins
The hours when the ship comes in.

And the seas will split
And the ship will hit
And the sands on the shoreline will be shaking
Then the tide will sound
And the wind will pound
And the morning will be breaking.

Oh the fishes will laugh
As they swim out of the path
And the seagulls they'll be smiling
And the rocks on the sand
Will proudly stand
The hour that the ship comes in.

And the words that are used
For to get the ship confused
Will not be understood as they're spoken
For the chains of the sea
Will have busted in the night
And will be buried at the bottom of the ocean.

A song will lift
As the mainsail shifts
And the boat drifts on to the shoreline
And the sun will respect
Every face on the deck
The hour that the ship comes in.

Then the sands will roll
Out a carpet of gold
For your weary toes to be a-touchin'
And the ship's wise men
Will remind you once again
That the whole wide world is watchin'.

Oh the foes will rise
With the sleep still in their eyes
And they'll jerk from their beds and think they're dreamin'
But they'll pinch themselves and squeal
And they'll know that it's for real
The hour that the ship comes in.

Then they'll raise their hands
Sayin' we'll meet all your demands
But we'll shout from the bow your days are numbered
And like Pharaoh's tribe
They'll be drownded in the tide
And like Goliath, they'll be conquered

The Begatting Of A Candidate

"God bless thee; and put meekness in thy mind, love, charity, obedience, and true duty!" ~ William Shakespeare

And it came to pass, that the time for the primaries hath come, and the bumper stickers are brought forth upon the bumpers and the bleating of the candidates is heard throughout the land.

And the Republicans hath counseled among themselves, saying, "Soon shalt cometh the elections. If we couldst but raise Reagan from the dead, we wouldst have a mighty champion and slayer of Democrats."

And they hath searched their hearts.

Some crieth out for Romney, King of Mass, but his detractors saith "He flippeth and floppeth upon the issues, wherefore, we trust him not."

Some suggesteth Rudy, the mighty King of New Jerusalem, but he is regarded as deficient, for he is not the husband of one wife, and he tolerateth the sacrifice of infants to the God of Convenience.

Some clamoreth for Paul, the apostle of Libertarianism, but he is considered by the rulers to be possessed of an evil spirit and unelectable.

Still others endorseth Huckabee, deposed ruler of the southern kingdom, who humbles himself before God, and escheweth Liberalism. But the Moderates regardeth him not, and saith, "Is he not overmuch righteous?"

A few hath called out for McCain, Chief of the Desert tribes, but the chiefs considereth him, and findeth a taint, for he hath drunk not from the cup of gold water.

Many calleth out for Thompson, the champion of Law and Order, for he hath sat in judgment of kings and acted wisely in divers places.

The wiseth of the seers calleth out for Hunter, Counselor of Cal, and the scribes hath praised him, saying, "Is he not the mightiest Conservative of them all?" But their words are as sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal, for the people regardeth him not as a viable candidate.

Thus are the Republicans lined up on the right side, ready to do battle against the enemy on the left. And in between is the valley of Credibility Gap.

Wherefore I saith unto ye, my brethern, let us pray.

Pete Stark

"Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." ` Mark Twain

We've all seen this clip, or at least, heard it by now.



OK. So Pete Stark has apologized. And, as a good Conservative should do, we will do the honorable thing and accept his apology.

Now he needs to resign. Why? Because he makes stupid statements like this all the time! He hasn't learned, and he isn't really sorry.

I wonder. Are the Democrats embarrassed yet?

Fun With YouTube

"Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped." ~ Groucho Marx

Having fun with my new-found techno-moron type knowledge of how to post videos in my blog, I came across this amusing little video, which brought up some interesting points I'd never thought of before, like:

Who said the 72 virgins have to be female?

What I Woke To

"Another Saturday Night and I aint got nobody" ~ Sam Cooke

I got this idea from Lone Ranger. Once in a while I wake up with a song running through my head.This is the song that was running through my head this morning.

I wonder if there is any psychological significance to this?



By the way, yesterday I woke up and my Computer hard drive was fried. As in Kaput. This is my first posting with a laptop. I hope someday I will get used to this."

A Christian Defends Atheism

" Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." ~ Karl Marx

The recent argument (found here, starting around the 54th comment or so)in favor of Janet Reno's storm trooper style "rescue" of Elian Gonzales from his oppressive family in Miami to be returned to his loving father in freedom loving Cuba seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous especially coming from a Christian.

Just after I woke up this morning, I turned the TV on and coincidentally, it was tuned to the channel that airs "The Coral Ridge Hour" , which this morning featured a report on atheism, particularly in oppressive Communist countries. It reminds all of us, once again, of the horrors of Communism.

Communist regimes kill Christians and Jews.

Kill.

As in murder.

Of all things, religion is the biggest threat to a Communist society.

In reminding readers that Communism is a bad thing previously, I neglected to mention perhaps the most egregious pillar in the Communist philosophy is the creation of an atheistic state.

In order for a Communist society to exist, it is necessary to abolish religion.

In a Communist country, religion is outlawed. All religion. The only God the people are allowed to worship is the state.

Our resident Liberal commentator, Dan, would have us believe the Christian thing to do in Elian Gonzalez's case, is to remove him from a freedom loving, Christian family, and return him to his father in atheistic Communist Cuba. A father, who may or not be a pawn (or at least,under the influence)of Fidel Castro, the dictator of Communist Cuba.

I find it incredible that any Christian would support forcing a child, or anyone else, to live in a society where Christianity is illegal and often punishable by death.

Hillary A Socialist?

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." ~ Joseph Goebbels

Surprisingly, my last post, in which I merely copied and pasted something I received in my e-mail received a lot of comments. It featured several quotes by Hillary Clinton that appear to be paraphrased quotes from Marx and Engles' "Communist Manifesto" , and would suggest by these quotations that Hillary is a Communist. I began to add another comment but chose instead to just create another post to explain what I believe to be Hillary's real agenda.



I don't know how any of us can really know what Hillary thinks for real. Everything she says, or does, is calculated specifically to get herself elected. She says what she believes the majority of people want to hear.

We (and she) can easily see how much class envy effects people emotionally. Hillary recognizes how many people have class envy, and she exploits it. So do most Democrats. She is just particularly good at manipulating the people most severely effected.

For those of you in Rio Linda, Class envy is a pejorative term sometimes used to describe resentment of the rich and powerful by the poor and less powerful. The basis of class envy is a perception that the wealthy don't deserve to have the money they have earned, and that they have oppressed the poor to expand their power and influence. This resentment is usually not deserved.

Sometimes there are indeed people who would step on their own grandmothers to achieve success, and some who were born into wealth, but the majority of the wealthy came by their wealth through honest hard work and perseverance through difficulties.

This is to be envied but not resented.

When Hillary says, "We must take from the [evil] rich to help the poor children", she likely doesn't mean that. She probably wouldn't give up a penny of her own money to help a poor person. She just understands how to get votes.

Target the people who have class envy. Make them think she will help each of them have as much wealth as those they envy, or that she will make the wealthy as poor as they are. That's her formula for success.

Another issue she exploits is the issue of affordable health care. Everyone wants good health and no one wants to have to pay ridiculously high prices for health care. It's no-brainer for Hillary. Tell the people that you will fix the health care system so everyone can get health care free, and you will get votes from the people who don't consider how she intends to pay for these changes.

And then there's "the children". This isn't only Hillary's idea. Democrats have been using that phrase effectively for decades. They know if they can convince the people that whatever program they are pushing will help our nation's children somehow, they will get votes from voters who don't thoroughly research the issues. Tell the people your social programs are "for the children", and you get votes.

She probably isn't a Socialist at all. I would say she most likely fits the description of an opportunist. She will not allow an opportunity to get herself elected president get by her.

Only after she becomes the leader of the free world will we know what she really thinks.

From My In Box

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ~ Mark Twain

I found this in my e-mail today:

A Quiz.


Note your answers, then check answers below:


1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005


The question is not "Are we ready for a woman President?",
the question is, "Are we ready for a Communist President?"

What's Wrong With Socialism?

"The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking." ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

I was listening to Sean Hannity's show and as usual, he was ranting about the dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency. He continually warns us that should Hillary become President, she will turn the United States of America into a Socialist country. And he is pretty close to correct in my opinion. Hillary Clinton certainly does appear to embrace a Communistic ideology.

The problem is, Hannity uses the term, "Socialist" as if it is a bad thing.

(What? Is Mark saying socialism isn't a bad thing? Has he lost his mind?)

No, I am not saying that. Communism is most definitely a bad thing. The problem is few average United States citizens across this country realize why it's an undesirable system.

The majority of Americans don't listen to Hannity, or any other talk radio show, and when the news comes on TV, they quickly change channels to catch the latest installment of "American Idol", or "Dancing with the Stars", or whatever. Anything but boring old news shows.

Plus, the Americans, ignorant of Communism, who do listen to newscasts and read newspapers are getting their news mostly from the decidely Liberally biased mainstream media.

The average American is blissfully ignorant of anything that has important far reaching and possibly devastating repercussions upon this country. Or for that matter, anything political.

They don't read newspapers unless they are reading to find out the latest gossip about Britney, Lindsay, and Paris, the latest sports scores, and/or the comics. They don't watch news programs or presidential debates or interviews with our country's most influential newsmakers.

What our culture has spawned in the last few decades since the 1960's are entire generations of people who don't know "Shiite" from shinola.

Watch Jay Leno's "jaywalk" feature sometime. Listen to the occasional man in the street interview from time to time. The average American is brain dead when it comes to things of national importance.

So, when Hannity and Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh warns us of the impending danger of a Hillary Clinton presidency, average rank-and-file Americans respond with a collective yawn.

Is it because they don't care? Or is it because they are under-educated about the horrors of a Communistic state?

We need to remember what kind of information has been spoon fed to Americans in the last several years.

The few average older Americans who remember the "Red scare" of the 50's, the Cuban missile crisis of the early 60's, the bloody invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union, etc, unless they were directly involved, don't remember the atrocities committed by Communist regimes worldwide. Either they don't remember or have buried the memories somewhere hoping against hope they won't resurface.

And don't look to the younger generation for redemption. The institutions of higher learning in this country are turning out graduates who have learned not the oppression of Communism, but instead have been indoctrinated in the lie that Socialism is the ultimate Utopian society. One which is to be admired, not reviled. Nearly every College and University in this country has become a cookie cutter that creates Communist adoring cookies.

Neither the older Americans or the younger generation know anything about the millions of murders and tortures inflicted on the people of Communist countries in the last century and today. Nor do they care.

Our children and our children's children have not been taught the truth of Communism.

The television and radio programs that the average American tunes into are overwhelmingly influenced by these same forces, even when they are just entertainment programs. Comedians, news anchors, talk show hosts and guests, sportscasters, your local disc jockeys, television and movie characters offer their opinions and the average American sits and listens, and digests whatever political and social ideology they hear, and they don't even realize they are being brainwashed.

For that matter, the majority of the aforementioned celebrities who regurgitate the Socialist pablum and distribute it to the average American don't realize to what extent their own minds have been manipulated.

The people they should be listening to, the ones who know and attempt to share the truth with Mr. and Mrs. Average American, are routinely demonized and marginalized by the overwhelmingly Liberal media and academia, to the point where they are no longer given any credibility.

It is an uphill battle for the hearts and minds of the average American. And common sense is the casualty.

Hannity, and Levin, and Rush, and the others need to not only tell the people what and who to fear, they need also to tell them why to fear.

Support The Troops

"They also serve, who only stand and wait" ~ John Milton

I have mentioned in the past that I do door-to-door fund raising for volunteer fire and rescue departments. Last night I spoke to man who informed me his son works for a fire department and he supports them. Feeling encouraged by that statement, I proceeded to explain to him the suggested donation amount, and to whom to write the check.

At that point, he interrupted me to say, "No, thanks", turned, and slammed the door in my face.

I walked away wondering about that abbreviated conversation. How can one say they support a volunteer fire department and then refuse to submit even a small donation? Is that really support? If he truly supports the fire department, in what other ways can they be supported? Does he, upon meeting a member of the fire department, pat him on the back and say, "Attaboy"? Is that what he means by using the word, "support"?

And then, I thought further. I say I support the troops. Republicans say they support the troops. Democrats say they support the troops. Most Americans say they support the troops. But what do we mean by that? Do we really support our troops? If so, how?

I don't really have an answer. I suppose for my part, I mean I don't call them baby killer or spit on them. I don't hate the troops, by any means. I have great respect for the troops. I passionately defend the troops upon hearing them being denigrated, but in what other ways can I be supportive?

How do you support the troops?

How can our Democrat controlled Congress honestly say they support the troops while denigrating them? Democrats have called them Nazi's, Soviets in their Gulags, and pawns of a Pol Pot type regime.

How is calling them Nazi's supportive?

They have called them cold blooded murderers in front of America.

How is calling them murderers supportive?

They have accused our soldiers of terrorizing innocent Iraqi women and children in the dead of night.

How is calling them terrorists supportive?

Hillary Clinton told General Petreaus his report to Congress "requires the willing suspension of disbelief".

How is calling General Petreaus a liar supporting the troops?

Now Harry Reid is accusing Rush Limbaugh of calling the troops "phony soldiers". He knows Rush was only referring to one soldier, who has been proven a phony, yet he stands on the floor of the Senate and lies to America.

Harry Reid is attempting to discredit Rush, who has been a strong supporter of the troops for decades, by accusing him of something he never said.

It is much more credible to suggest Harry Reid might call the troops phony than Rush Limbaugh.

Harry Reid doesn't support the troops. Harry Reid has said we have already lost the war.

How is that supporting the troops?

Several Senators and Congressmen, all Democrats, voted against additional funds and equipment for our troops. The same People who claim they support the troops. In what world is denying them the tools to do their jobs a move which signals support for the troops?

The Democrats do not support the troops.

Personal Responsibility

"Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie." ~ William Shakespeare

I snagged this story off ER's blog, and as usual, ER and I have opposite perspectives. That's a good thing, I think. It opens up dialogue and stimulates discussion.

However preposterous I often believe ER's opinions to be, he is not a phony. His opinions are real and so is he. I suppose that's why I like him personally.

In a nutshell, ER says, "Robert Behlen robbed a drug store in my own town, at gunpoint, to get oxycodone -- and he gulped a handful of them down ON THE SPOT! Then he ran off with $7,000 worth of the stuff, which probably isn't that much."

ER also says, "This is the kind of thing that raises my liberal, Jesusy hackles. The poor son of a buck obviously needs help, not put in fricking jail!"

I say, really. Why? Why should this man not be sent to jail? Yes, he needs help. I don't deny that. But does that excuse him for his actions? If you commit a crime, can you get out of paying for your crimes as long as you have a valid excuse? If so, where do you draw the line? When does a crime become a crime rather than a cry for help? When people's lives are threatened? When people are killed? How about when you commit the crime?

If we help drug addicts rather than punish them for their crime, what message does that send to other drug addicts who are considering breaking the law to feed their habits? Isn't rehabilitation one of the reasons we sentence criminals to jail in the first place? The potential for incarceration can be a pretty effective deterrent. The fact that we punish people who commit crimes no doubt causes potential criminals to think twice before committing them.

Most of the time drug addicts don't seek out help until they have hit rock bottom. Sometimes it takes a stretch behind bars to clarify for themselves the reality of their situation. Sometimes the punishment brings them the help they need. If they are strong and determined enough. If they really want help.

What sets this man apart from all the other drug addicts who commit crimes to get their next fix? The fact that he is a lawyer? Or is ER saying all drug addicts should be helped instead of sentenced to jail?

Did this man have other options or was robbery the only solution to his problem? Could he have maybe reached out for help from a myriad of professional people and organizations who are experts in helping drug addicts overcome their addictions? Did he ask for help and get turned down? Was robbery the last resort available to him? What do you think?

What about the man's victims? Do they not deserve some consideration? Who is going to help them? Or do we simply leave them to deal with their trauma the best way they know how? Maybe we just wait until their trauma moves them to commit a similar crime and then help them?

I seem to remember another wealthy man who slipped and allowed himself to become addicted to drugs similar to the ones in this story.



Did Rush Limbaugh resort to robbery or did he admit he had a problem and seek help? Did he face up to his own responsibility or did he complain that he was a victim and blame it all on others? If I remember correctly, all the bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters wanted Rush to fry for becoming addicted. What did ER have to say about that? I honestly don't remember.

Again I say, where do we draw the line? Should sex addicts get help rather than be punished for sex crimes? How about sadists who get off on murdering people? Surely they are disturbed and need help. What about child molesters? They're sick, too, aren't they? Maybe we should just put them into counseling and allow them to roam our neighborhoods between sessions. Television evangelists only preach to bilk people out of their hard earned money? Surely they are sick and need guidance.

It's called "personal responsibility".

How does he get help if he refuses to accept his own personal responsibility for his actions? Isn't the first step in any recovery program admitting that you have a problem? How does that square with a man who chooses to escape his problems by attempting suicide rather than face up to his own responsibility, take his life back into his own hands, and seek out help? How is that conducive to a workable solution?

Sometimes the punishment is in itself the pathway to recovery. Sometimes not. What makes the difference in whether punishment makes a man weaker or stronger?

Personal responsibility.

The decision to pull himself up by his own bootstraps and take control of his life rather than wallow in self pity. In the final analysis, he makes his own decision, regardless. Jail could be the catalyst he needs to create a sense of personal responsibility in himself.

Punish him first. Then get him help.

Personal Responsibility.

Proof Of BSD

"Don't let us make imaginary evils, when you know we have so many real ones to encounter." ~ Oliver Goldsmith

Laura Ingraham read this entry from the Daily Kos the other night, and then I found the text over at Wordsmith's place. It is pretty much proof of the reality of BDS:

"I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon...

Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s not all…

I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding".

"Horrors of the Bush administration"? Compared to Amadwhackjob? I would point out that the author doesn't mention how Iran sends bomb making materials across the border to the terrorists, used to murder American soldiers. She doesn't mention his attitude and treatment of all Americans, Christian, Jew, and Atheists alike.

Apparently, she has no problem with those things.

Her silence on these and other atrocities is indicative of the typical leftists overall attitude towards real Judeo-Christian values, and their delusional hatred of George W. Bush.

The terrorists and the American Leftists are more alike than they would have us believe.

The author hates Bush so much that she is willing to overlook the fact that Amadwhackjob is a ruthless murderous dictator and embrace him rather than give Bush any credit for opposing this sort of despotism.

But, she is right. She would be swiftly dispatched in his country. And her Bush Derangement Syndrome is so acute that she would prefer Islamo-fascism to Bush.

And one more observation that prompts a question:

She said Amadwhackjob is "cuddly enough to "turn me straight". Is it possible, in that statement, she inadvertently admitted that she chose the gay lifestyle and wasn't in fact, born gay, as they claim?

Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Liz?

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

Lately, I've re-discovered the fun of blogging. Here's an example:

Barry Cantaloupe won't appear on ABC's "The View" because he thinks Elizabeth Hasselbeck is dangerous.



Let me see if I understand this. Liz won her fame on TV as a "Survivor" contestant. She can't even hold her own against crazy Rosie. She was most likely chosen to be the Conservative co-host of the program because she is pretty much an intellectual lightweight in comparison to all the qualified applicants they could have chosen.



And Barry Cantaloupe is afraid of her?

Well, if he wasn't considered a big wimp before, he has certainly won over the sceptics now.

Kind of reminds you of the refusal of the Democrats to debate on FOX, doesn't it?

Oh, and one word about the use of substituting an insulting word in place of some one's real name, like "General Betray us" instead of "Petraus" or "Barry Cantaloupe" instead of "Barry Manilow", or "Schmuckie" Schumer instead of "Chuck" Schumer.

I refuse to condemn moveon.org's defamatory characterization of General Petraus when I do the same thing to denigrate their leaders. Moveon.org's tactics are childish but so are mine. If I do it, I can't very well complain when they do. That's hypocritical.

Besides, it's just being petty and over sensitive to take offense at this stuff. General Petraus didn't respond to the slur because it isn't worthy of a response, and that's the way I see it.

Are we having fun yet?

Schumer Explained

"Opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest of violence." ~ Francis Jeffrey

Schmuckie Schumer had this to say the other day:

"And let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down in spite of the Surge, not because of the Surge."

Conservatives have expressed a seething outrage over these anti-surge remarks, but it merely caused me to wonder...What the you-know-what is he talking about? How can a reduction in violence ever happen in spite of actions created to stop the violence? It makes no sense to me.

But then he went on to explain what he means:

"The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight Al Qaeda ourselves."

I have to admit there is a sort of convoluted logic to that statement. But it still makes little sense to me, so I decided to do a little research to see if I could make more sense out of Schmuckies reasoning. And I believe I've found the answer in the form of an e-mail, the text in it's entirety copied and pasted below:

-----Original message------
From: UsamabinLaden@alqaeda.org

To: gsoros@moveon.org
cc: Dailykos.com, DemocraticUnderground.com

Subject FWD FW:message from gsoros@moveon.org,dailyKos.com, DemocraticUnderground.com

To: cschumer@ussenate.gov

Dear Georgie and friends:

OK. Bush is really making me mad now, increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Who does he think he is, anyway? Does he really think he can defeat us with this irrational move? Well, I have a couple of tricks left up my sleeve, too. Just for spite, we're taking our IED's and going home. That'll show him. Let's see him try to continue this war without us. HA!

Sincerely,

your friend, Ussie

There you have it. The violence really is lessening in Iraq in spite of the surge!

We Were All Patriots

"We fight not for glory nor for wealth nor honours; but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life."--from the Scottish Declaration of Independence signed in 1320 at Arbroath Abbey on the east coast of Scotland

September 11. Six years to the day that the world changed forever. I would be remiss if I didn't write something in commemoration and memorial of this most infamous day.



Last night, while I was listening to the Mark Levin show, he made the comment that his listening audience are patriots.

That started me thinking. As usual.

Am I a patriot? Are you? What makes a patriot? What defines a patriot? Is it an ambiguous term? Is it a relative term?

Webster defines a patriot as:

"One who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests."

That brings up more questions. Do I really love my country? Do you? Maybe the most important question that begs an answer is "Why?" Why does anyone love their country? I suppose there are as many answers to that question as there are patriots.

I think about the infighting that goes on incessantly between the political parties in my country. And, because of that, I am ashamed for my country.

I think of the hatred that many Americans demonstrate towards the leaders of this country and I wonder what kind of future we are bequeathing to our children.

I think of the disdain and disrespect so many people have for my country and I doubt their patriotism.

I think of the destruction of the very morals and the principles that this country was founded upon and I weep for my country.

I think of the hordes of illegals streaming across our borders and I begin to believe the country, as we now know it, will soon cease to exist.

But do I love this country? Do I really love this country? Just what is it about this country that deserves my love or respect? Is the fact that I was born here warrant an undying, everlasting love for and largely undeserved devotion to this country?

And then I remember. This country has more advantages, more promise, more opportunity than any nation on earth. This country has more freedom. More Liberty. We have more rights than any country on earth.

We in this country have the privilege to hire our own boss. We can also fire him without fear of repercussion. How sweet is that?

We have the strongest military, the highest median income, the lowest rate of poverty on earth. We live in the wealthiest nation on earth, and we have the drive and ambition and perseverance of the American workingman to thank for that.

People come to America from all over the world in search of a better life for themselves and their families. They brave armed soldiers and all sorts of obstacles to escape their native lands to enjoy freedom.

How little we Americans appreciate what we have!

Yes. By Webster's definition, I am a patriot. I do love my country. I support her authority and her interests.

And then there was September 11, 2001.

The day that changed all of us in a profound way.

Think back, if you will, to that fateful day. Do you remember what you were doing when the world came crashing down at our feet? Do you remember what you thought when you saw the towers fall? Do you remember how you wept for the thousands of lives lost and ruined by the murderous act of 19 cowardly deluded religious zealots?

Do you remember that day?

There were no dissenters on that day. There were few Americans that openly admitted hatred for America on that day. On that day, a nation stood together, united in grief and disbelief. We supported one another. We were one people on that day. Liberal and Conservative. Republican and Democrat. On that day, we were all Americans.

Do you remember?

Yes, it was just for that one day, but soon the dissenters emerged, and placed the blame on our own leaders, and called for surrender and appeasement. And called the terrorists "freedom fighters" and their victims, "Little Eichmanns".

And the patriots called loudly and forcefully for vengeance.

But, for that one day, we were all patriots.

Google Me This

"The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity." ~ Dorothy Parker

Have you ever tried typing your own name into the Google search engine? I did it, and found some interesting people across the world who have the same first and last name as myself.

The first entry under my name is a man who was part owner of a motorcycle shop and a moto cross racer who was struck and killed by a hit and run driver while riding a mountain bike in a bike lane on a street in Houston. Another owner of the same shop was killed in the same incident, but unlike Mark, he wasn't killed instantly. He died later in a hospital. I didn't see anywhere that the hit and run driver was ever caught.

Apparently, Mark was well respected and quite successful as a moto-cross rider and shop owner.

Second entry: A director of low budget motion pictures who has been recognized for his achievements in motion picture directing. He is apparently better than Ed Wood, but not as well known.

The third entry is a manager of a Texas motorcycle/ATV store and racing team. He might be the same as the victim of the aforementioned hit and run victim but I can't confirm that.

Fourth is a golf instructor, once again, from Texas. According to the web site, "Mark is a PGA Member and 2004 Northern Texas PGA Teacher of the Year." The website has a picture of him.

I'm much better looking.

Next, the search turns somber. A scanned death certificate from Tennessee. this may actually be an ancestor of myself. One of my great great etc. grandfathers migrated east from North Carolina in the early 1800's, stopping for a few years in Tennessee to marry and have some children, before moving on to Missouri or California.

OK. That requires an explanation:

There were two brothers who set out to migrate to California. One settled in southwest Missouri, and the other continued his journey to California, never to be heard from again, at least to anyone in my family. No one yet knows if he ever arrived in the Golden state. Needless to say, I am descended from the one who settled in Missouri.

I guess that's why they were called "settlers."

The next few entries have to do with the golf pro and the film director, and then two consecutive entries of a corporate officer affiliated with the Anhauser Busch Corporation in St Louis, MO, and an inventor in Michigan!

I went on through repeated entries about the golf pro and the moto-cross rider/hit and run victim, and further down the list I actually found some references to myself, my blog, and comments about my blog or about my comments on other blogs, which referred to comments or blog posts I had made when I used to use my last name along with my first. (OK, that last sentence was a grammatical nightmare, but I'm in a hurry and ...what the heck! I don't care!)To my delight, most were highly complimentary. One even said my blog post should be read and read again. Others called my posts brilliant and insightful.

One said I must go through life with blinders on and even accused me of being light in the loafers, although I could see nothing in my comments that would lead someone to that conclusion.

Some commenter's don't agree with me, and said so.

Whatever floats your boat, I always say.

There were many references to people with my name as part of various genealogy searches. This could be a way to find out, once and for all, what happened to my great great, and so on Uncle.

There were also references to people with my name who live in Scotland. I am of Scottish heritage, you know.

The most shocking thing I came across in my search was someone (and I think I know who) used my name to insult a commenter on a other blog, a profoundly profane, obscene, and absolutely un-called for insult. I had never seen that blog before, so it couldn't have actually been me who made that comment. When I clicked on my own name in that comment, I was taken to a political parody web site which mocks Conservatives and the Bush administration.

I also found a couple of web sites which reported two people with my name had committed murders. Two separate murderers. Of children. In both cases. I believe one was in California, and the other in Utah.

I also searched for my sons name on Google and the first entry of his name was on a sex offenders list.

There was a Youtube video of a teenager with my son's name, about my son's age, in Grapevine, Texas playing on a set of drums. He was very good. I showed it to my son. He said he wasn't impressed.

Coincidentally, a man with my name is listed in Grapevine Texas, as a Sunday School teacher and father of a high school student there. Do you think they could be father and son? What are the odds?

Have you ever googled your own name? What do you find?