In the comments on my previous post, My Democrat friend, ER, had this to say:
"I think you take the backbiting and squabbling, which we have ALWAYS endured in our history, much too seriously The differences between some of us and others of us are genuine and cannot be glossed over.... The only few places this country is "desperate" is in these little computer things, and on cable TV. The rest of the land is going merrily on its way."
ER, I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I don't think I am taking this situation too seriously at all. I think the people of this country aren't taking it seriously enough.
And I don't mean to sound as if I'm glossing over our differences. Some of our differences are critical to the freedom of life liberty and property that we so enjoy, but nevertheless, are in jeopardy if certain lawmakers were to have their way.
But the present danger means some of these issues will have to take a back seat while we focus on the eminent threat to America. I know I am just your humble friend and uneducated blogger, but this is the way i see it.
There was an author on a radio program the other day that said there are already members of Al-Qaida in America and they are in possession of nuclear devices, as much as 70 of them, and they are poised to detonate them.
I don't necessarily believe that this assertion is true but it is an assertion that must be given some consideration. The existence of America is at stake.
We bring the entire beef producing industry to a virtual standstill because we find that one dead cow had mad cow disease, but we can't place any importance on the possibility that we are under eminent danger of a nuclear assault?
There are substantial differences in the war on terrorism and the war between the states besides the fact that this time nuclear and biological WMD's may be involved.
For one thing, our enemy is not uniformed men standing in ranks directly in front of us armed with single shot muzzle loaders.
They are small groups of insanely misguided religious zealots that are determined to completely remove western civilization from the face of the Earth. They are not fighting to preserve the union according to their own principles.
And, as I have stated, they may already have the technology to do that. Maybe not nuclear, but certainly technology more dangerous than musket balls. At any case is bears closer examination.
This is a threat that will not go away if we keep our heads buried in the sand long enough.
This is what I mean when I say we must unite in our efforts to neutralize this threat expediently.
I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting that some people have forgotten what happened on September 11th, 2001. That horror will be forever imprinted on our memories. I only mean to point out that there is a very real threat to our security here. And when I say security, I mean people, not just our Nation.
Yes, ER, we are going merrily on our way, under the watchful eyes of our ever vigilant government. NOT! More likely under the watchful eyes of the enemy who sits patiently waiting for the opportunity to unleash Holy Jihad directly in our living rooms.
I say again, we must unite. Lets stop complaining about having to wait a few minutes while we are being scrutinized at airports, train and bus stations, and in the entrance to government buildings. Lets insist that the right people get searched and the hell with accusations of profiling. Profiling is exactly what we need to do, except we need to take it further. Don't just profile 18-24 year old middle eastern males, but profile anyone that looks like they could be some kind of threat.
Oh yes, I know there are many that will scream discrimination or that we are violating their right to privacy or their civil rights.
But we need to remember. There are other rights that need to be protected as well.
We should voluntarily give up some rights to protect the more important rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Temporarily. And before anyone overreacts to this statement, let me state, for the record, that I am as much in favor of our rights to privacy as anyone. But we need to get real. The only way we can prevent a holocaust is to quit fighting amongst each other.
ER, you said, "Divided we fall? No.
Divided we fight. And sometimes we NEED to fight among ourselves. Maybe this is one of those times"
Not this time. This time we are not fighting against division. We are fighting against destruction. There is a big difference.
United we stand.
Lie Of The Day
"[The Republicans] turned our bridge to the 21st century into a tunnel back to the 19th century," claimed Hillary Clinton, in Ohio.
THE TRUTH:
That's funny. Republicans keep winning elections! Note to Dems: when in a hole (or tunnel), stop digging!
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Monday, July 25, 2005
Divided We Fall
Upon signing the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin said, "Gentlemen, We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately".
When he spoke of hanging, he meant the signers of the Declaration were in very real danger of being literally hanged for the crime of Treason against the crown of England. Hanged by the neck until dead. And unless they united for the cause of freedom, they would die. Nowadays the reference to hanging is not literal, but the sentiment is still appropriate.
I am struck by the obvious parallel between the members of the Continental Congress and the members of today's legislature. Yes, even then there was division among the representatives of congress, not all that different from today.
Of course, in that day the differences were about real issues, not just senseless, baseless partisan politics.
But the issue most important then is the same as it is now, really. The unification of America was and is, crucial to the survival of the United States as we know it. Or at least, how it was originally envisioned.
We again find ourselves at a pivotal point in history.
I was thinking of all the political infighting that's going on currently in the houses of Congress and between the 3 branches of Government and it occurred to me that Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts must surely be smirking and patting each other on the back as they watch the destruction of America, not from terrorists strikes, but from within.
Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand...." That is as true as ever. We are watching our Nation literally self destruct before our eyes. Who cares if Karl Rove revealed the identity of someone who works for the CIA? Does it really matter that Judge Roberts' son was dancing around while his father was being announced as the Presidents nominee for The Supreme Court? Is it really important that Dick Durbin accuses the military of being Nazis? We all know he was just trying to get himself publicity. In fact, I tend to believe that most the accusations being thrown around now are just publicity stunts, as the various contenders position themselves for the next election. Does anyone really put any importance on the inane ravings of Howard Dean?
Abraham Lincoln also said, "If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."
My point is this: LET IT GO! We have much more important things to worry about in this country than someone's feelings getting hurt. As we debate whether the Supreme Court nominee supports the Republican or the Democrats agenda if confirmed, sinister forces around the world (and some in the United states as well) are plotting the violent overthrow of the United States.
Let's all try to stand together for our freedoms. Let us stop this insane useless bickering and back biting. It is detrimental to our status as the greatest nation in the world.
I look at my young son as I write this and I wonder if there will even be a United States of America when he is my age. If he survives.
Lincoln also said, "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." That means we, the people are crucial to the survival of our country. If we cannot hang together, as Franklin said, we will be destroyed.
Lincoln also made this prophetic statement that applies to our current predicament: "At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
How prophetic! And how frightening!
One last quote from Lincoln regarding this subject: "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
In conclusion, I would respectfully ask of all Americans, Democrats and Republicans, Liberal and Conservative, put aside these petty squabbles and let's focus on defeating the enemies of freedom now threatening our country.
America must remain "the Land of the free, and the home of the brave."
LIE OF THE DAY:
(note) I promised I would start including Laura Ingraham's "lie of the day" on this blog everyday. It seems inappropriate to todays posting but a promise is a promise.
Lie Of The Day
It's a total red herring to say, 'Oh, we can't show this,' claimed Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy on ABC's This Week, referring to documents that Judge John Roberts drafted when working in the solicitor general's office years ago.
THE TRUTH:
No, it's not a red herring. It's called executive privilege--whereby the deliberative documents of the executive branch are generally considered protected material in order maintain an the free flow of information within the Executive Branch (which includes the SG's office).
When he spoke of hanging, he meant the signers of the Declaration were in very real danger of being literally hanged for the crime of Treason against the crown of England. Hanged by the neck until dead. And unless they united for the cause of freedom, they would die. Nowadays the reference to hanging is not literal, but the sentiment is still appropriate.
I am struck by the obvious parallel between the members of the Continental Congress and the members of today's legislature. Yes, even then there was division among the representatives of congress, not all that different from today.
Of course, in that day the differences were about real issues, not just senseless, baseless partisan politics.
But the issue most important then is the same as it is now, really. The unification of America was and is, crucial to the survival of the United States as we know it. Or at least, how it was originally envisioned.
We again find ourselves at a pivotal point in history.
I was thinking of all the political infighting that's going on currently in the houses of Congress and between the 3 branches of Government and it occurred to me that Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts must surely be smirking and patting each other on the back as they watch the destruction of America, not from terrorists strikes, but from within.
Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand...." That is as true as ever. We are watching our Nation literally self destruct before our eyes. Who cares if Karl Rove revealed the identity of someone who works for the CIA? Does it really matter that Judge Roberts' son was dancing around while his father was being announced as the Presidents nominee for The Supreme Court? Is it really important that Dick Durbin accuses the military of being Nazis? We all know he was just trying to get himself publicity. In fact, I tend to believe that most the accusations being thrown around now are just publicity stunts, as the various contenders position themselves for the next election. Does anyone really put any importance on the inane ravings of Howard Dean?
Abraham Lincoln also said, "If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."
My point is this: LET IT GO! We have much more important things to worry about in this country than someone's feelings getting hurt. As we debate whether the Supreme Court nominee supports the Republican or the Democrats agenda if confirmed, sinister forces around the world (and some in the United states as well) are plotting the violent overthrow of the United States.
Let's all try to stand together for our freedoms. Let us stop this insane useless bickering and back biting. It is detrimental to our status as the greatest nation in the world.
I look at my young son as I write this and I wonder if there will even be a United States of America when he is my age. If he survives.
Lincoln also said, "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." That means we, the people are crucial to the survival of our country. If we cannot hang together, as Franklin said, we will be destroyed.
Lincoln also made this prophetic statement that applies to our current predicament: "At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
How prophetic! And how frightening!
One last quote from Lincoln regarding this subject: "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
In conclusion, I would respectfully ask of all Americans, Democrats and Republicans, Liberal and Conservative, put aside these petty squabbles and let's focus on defeating the enemies of freedom now threatening our country.
America must remain "the Land of the free, and the home of the brave."
LIE OF THE DAY:
(note) I promised I would start including Laura Ingraham's "lie of the day" on this blog everyday. It seems inappropriate to todays posting but a promise is a promise.
Lie Of The Day
It's a total red herring to say, 'Oh, we can't show this,' claimed Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy on ABC's This Week, referring to documents that Judge John Roberts drafted when working in the solicitor general's office years ago.
THE TRUTH:
No, it's not a red herring. It's called executive privilege--whereby the deliberative documents of the executive branch are generally considered protected material in order maintain an the free flow of information within the Executive Branch (which includes the SG's office).
Sunday, July 24, 2005
101 Things About Me
) I was born in Kansas City, Missouri
2) I am the youngest of my parents 6 kids
3) I was raised in Wichita, KS
4) I love chocolate
5) I have type 2 Diabetes
6) I cheat on my diet
7) I don't like stupid people
8) I don't like rude people
9) I've been married twice
10) Both my ex-wives are crazy. Really
11) My oldest kid is mildly retarded
12) I have 3 grandchildren. 2 boys and 1 girl
13) One grandson died a day after birth
14) I have 4 natural kids and one adopted. 4 boys and 1 girl
15) My adopted boy was in jail the last I heard
16) I came within one round of being on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"
17) I have a need for everyone to like me
18) I like suspense thrillers
19) I have read everything Kurt Vonnegut ever wrote
20) I don't think I have ever experienced true love
21) I listen to NPR on Saturdays
22) When I was a kid I shoplifted a pocketful of bubblegum and got caught
23) I drive a 2005 Dodge Neon
24) I'm the dumbest of my siblings
25) I used to be a telemarketing manager
26) I moved to Maryland for a woman
27) I am a Christian, but I'm not religious
28) I am overweight
29) I think poetry has to rhyme
30) I spend way too much time on the computer
31) I make many stupid mistakes
32) I can't keep a good job
33) I look younger than I am
34) I live in a one room apartment
35) I have a pug named Beast
36) I am a very bad liar
37) I drink nothing but Diet Mountain Dew
38) I used to like mustard. I don't anymore
39) I am frugal
40) I wear boxers
41) I have visited 26 different states
42) I have been on a cruise in the Caribbean
43) I lost $26.00 to a carnival con man once
44) I caught an 8½ foot sailfish off the coast of Mexico
45) I smoked crack once
46) I spent 4 hours in jail once
47) I once drove from South Padre Island in Texas to Kansas city without stopping for rest
48) I marched in a peace march in college
49) I saved the life of a woman who was overcome by carbon monoxide
50) I have hair on my back
51) I hated taking care of my sick grandmother
52) My eyesight is so bad it kept me put of the armed forces
53) I hate onions
54) I am a mommas boy
55) I think tattoos are gross
56) I drive too fast
57) I didn't cry when my father died
58) I cried at his memorial service
59) I suspect I am getting senile
60) I am a failure
61) I am intelligent
62) homosexuals disgust me. Both sexes
63) I can be insensitive
64) I like bad puns
65) I like Greenday
66) I am of Scottish heritage
67) I have ugly feet
68) I have a large vocabulary
69) I am a horrible housekeeper
70) I have a concrete sequential personality
71) My 8th grade English teacher told me I had the 2nd highest IQ in the school
72) I consider myself a bad father
73) It annoys me when I see people park in handicapped parking spaces and they aren't handicapped
74) I have never been beaten at Trivial Pursuit
75) I didn't cry when my grandson died
76) I rarely see or talk to anyone in my family
77) I am my own worst critic
78) I have a great sense of humor
79) I live with bad luck
80) I have had over 40 jobs in my life
81) I choked my wife in my sleep once
82) I usually don't remember my dreams
83) I never give money to beggars
84) I am proud of my integrity
85) My favorite movie is Cyrano De Bergerac
86) I am an expert at barbeque
87) My credit sucks
88) I have an irrational fear of suffocation
89) I was pretty good football player
90) I have too much pride
91) I am a techno-moron
92) I try to find something to respect about everyone
93) I have the spiritual gift of discernment
94) I have one secret I'll never tell anyone
95) I always had a crush on Marilyn Monroe
96) I turned down the lead role in my elementary schools production of "Little Black Sambo"
98) I dropped out of college
99) I once caught a burglar in my house
100) I caught the guy that stole my wife's car
101) I know I left some better things off this list
2) I am the youngest of my parents 6 kids
3) I was raised in Wichita, KS
4) I love chocolate
5) I have type 2 Diabetes
6) I cheat on my diet
7) I don't like stupid people
8) I don't like rude people
9) I've been married twice
10) Both my ex-wives are crazy. Really
11) My oldest kid is mildly retarded
12) I have 3 grandchildren. 2 boys and 1 girl
13) One grandson died a day after birth
14) I have 4 natural kids and one adopted. 4 boys and 1 girl
15) My adopted boy was in jail the last I heard
16) I came within one round of being on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"
17) I have a need for everyone to like me
18) I like suspense thrillers
19) I have read everything Kurt Vonnegut ever wrote
20) I don't think I have ever experienced true love
21) I listen to NPR on Saturdays
22) When I was a kid I shoplifted a pocketful of bubblegum and got caught
23) I drive a 2005 Dodge Neon
24) I'm the dumbest of my siblings
25) I used to be a telemarketing manager
26) I moved to Maryland for a woman
27) I am a Christian, but I'm not religious
28) I am overweight
29) I think poetry has to rhyme
30) I spend way too much time on the computer
31) I make many stupid mistakes
32) I can't keep a good job
33) I look younger than I am
34) I live in a one room apartment
35) I have a pug named Beast
36) I am a very bad liar
37) I drink nothing but Diet Mountain Dew
38) I used to like mustard. I don't anymore
39) I am frugal
40) I wear boxers
41) I have visited 26 different states
42) I have been on a cruise in the Caribbean
43) I lost $26.00 to a carnival con man once
44) I caught an 8½ foot sailfish off the coast of Mexico
45) I smoked crack once
46) I spent 4 hours in jail once
47) I once drove from South Padre Island in Texas to Kansas city without stopping for rest
48) I marched in a peace march in college
49) I saved the life of a woman who was overcome by carbon monoxide
50) I have hair on my back
51) I hated taking care of my sick grandmother
52) My eyesight is so bad it kept me put of the armed forces
53) I hate onions
54) I am a mommas boy
55) I think tattoos are gross
56) I drive too fast
57) I didn't cry when my father died
58) I cried at his memorial service
59) I suspect I am getting senile
60) I am a failure
61) I am intelligent
62) homosexuals disgust me. Both sexes
63) I can be insensitive
64) I like bad puns
65) I like Greenday
66) I am of Scottish heritage
67) I have ugly feet
68) I have a large vocabulary
69) I am a horrible housekeeper
70) I have a concrete sequential personality
71) My 8th grade English teacher told me I had the 2nd highest IQ in the school
72) I consider myself a bad father
73) It annoys me when I see people park in handicapped parking spaces and they aren't handicapped
74) I have never been beaten at Trivial Pursuit
75) I didn't cry when my grandson died
76) I rarely see or talk to anyone in my family
77) I am my own worst critic
78) I have a great sense of humor
79) I live with bad luck
80) I have had over 40 jobs in my life
81) I choked my wife in my sleep once
82) I usually don't remember my dreams
83) I never give money to beggars
84) I am proud of my integrity
85) My favorite movie is Cyrano De Bergerac
86) I am an expert at barbeque
87) My credit sucks
88) I have an irrational fear of suffocation
89) I was pretty good football player
90) I have too much pride
91) I am a techno-moron
92) I try to find something to respect about everyone
93) I have the spiritual gift of discernment
94) I have one secret I'll never tell anyone
95) I always had a crush on Marilyn Monroe
96) I turned down the lead role in my elementary schools production of "Little Black Sambo"
98) I dropped out of college
99) I once caught a burglar in my house
100) I caught the guy that stole my wife's car
101) I know I left some better things off this list
Saturday, July 23, 2005
What I Believe
I believe in God.
I believe that there is a God.
I believe I'm not Him.
I believe a woman doesn't have the right to kill her unborn child.
I believe a woman has the right to choose-to keep her pants on and her legs closed.
I believe Liberals are not evil, just misguided.
I believe not all Conservatives are right.
I believe war is immoral.
I believe that war is sometimes necessary.
I believe that sometimes war is justified.
I believe the current war on terror is right.
I believe we are living in the last days.
I believe that government overkill is destroying America.
I believe partisan politics will destroy us.
I believe the American people must unite. Soon.
I believe Terrorists are murderers, not freedom fighters.
I believe we must seal the borders of our country.
I believe that is the most important thing we can do to stop terrorists attacks in America.
I believe Paris Hilton is hot.
I believe I'm going to be sorry for including that last one.
I believe I am not a smart man.
I believe I am finished.
For now.
I believe that there is a God.
I believe I'm not Him.
I believe a woman doesn't have the right to kill her unborn child.
I believe a woman has the right to choose-to keep her pants on and her legs closed.
I believe Liberals are not evil, just misguided.
I believe not all Conservatives are right.
I believe war is immoral.
I believe that war is sometimes necessary.
I believe that sometimes war is justified.
I believe the current war on terror is right.
I believe we are living in the last days.
I believe that government overkill is destroying America.
I believe partisan politics will destroy us.
I believe the American people must unite. Soon.
I believe Terrorists are murderers, not freedom fighters.
I believe we must seal the borders of our country.
I believe that is the most important thing we can do to stop terrorists attacks in America.
I believe Paris Hilton is hot.
I believe I'm going to be sorry for including that last one.
I believe I am not a smart man.
I believe I am finished.
For now.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Amendments Need to be Clarified
Over the last few days, I have been going back and forth from my blog to another guy's blog arguing with him and his disciples (he really does appear to have something of a cult following) over the possible overturning of Roe vs. Wade. That's the landmark court case in which abortion was legalized. Many Liberals are expressing an irrational fear that the new Supreme Court appointee, John G. Roberts will somehow change the previous rulings of the court in this matter.
Personally, I wish he would. I believe abortion is never an option. I believe it is essentially the murder of innocent unborn babies. There are still those among us that believe unborn babies are not actually human beings until they pop out of momma. That premise is, of course, ludicrous and shows a glorious lack of understanding.
But the sad fact is, Roe vs. Wade is in little or no danger of being overturned. I just don't think the Supreme court wants to tackle that volatile an issue just yet.
I also think the constitution and it's amendments needs to be re-examined with respect to the wording before a court can overturn certain rulings. What I am referring to is the 14th amendment specifically. I am just your humble friend and uneducated blogger so until recently I assumed that when Liberals trumpeted the so-called "Right to Privacy", that those words were actually contained somewhere in the constitution. They aren't. Throughout the previously mentioned argument, the 14th amendment was brought up often to support my friends contention that the Constitution does indeed apply to a right of privacy, and that right, in turn, brings with it the right of a woman to abort her unborn baby.
This is the amendment that the left is referring to:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now, as anyone can plainly see, there is no mention of a right to privacy specifically mentioned here. Nor is there mention of a right to kill unborn babies. Be that as it may, I am willing to concede that the right to privacy could be addressed here, in an abstract sort of way. But even if it was spelled out in plain language, I still don't see how that right could possibly be ascertained to mean it's ok to kill babies.
I've said all that so I can say this:
The reference in the 14th amendment that is perceived by some to guarantee a right to privacy is ambiguous at best. It does plainly state that we have a right to life, which flies in the face of the argument that the amendment allows abortion. So does "equal protection".
Which leads me to the original reason that I decided to address this issue today. The wording of the Constitution needs to be clarified. Much of the constitution is too ambiguous and invites inevitable arguments as to the "meaning" of the language. And that is what two of the three branches of government is for. To make the laws and to make them clear.
If we want to declare a right to privacy and/or a right to abortion, the legislature will have to create a specific law addressing those rights, and see to it that it is included in the Constitution so there can be no doubt. Than the Court needs to ensure that the law is interpreted properly. That is their job.
Let me state, for the record, that I happen to agree there should be a clearly defined right to privacy in the constitution. I think we do have a right to privacy, with appropriate restrictions. For example: Let's suppose the wording of the right to privacy specifically says that we have the right to do whatever we damn well please in the privacy of our own home. That shouldn't give Carte Blanche to say, a child molestor or murderer who commits his crimes at home. I do not think abortion should be included in the right to privacy. No, I know it shouldn't. It shouldn't be included at all. Not anywhere in the Constitution.
In short, and in conclusion, It is the legislative branch of the government that makes laws. It is the Judicial branch that interprets them.
Or should.
But I'm just your humble friend and uneducated blogger. I could be wrong.
ADDENDUM: I don't have an addendum today, but I have decided to include Laura Ingraham's featured "lie of the day" in my Blog every day, if I remember. Today's installment follows below:
Lie Of The Day
"I don't have a litmus test. The only standard I have is "will a judge interpret law, not make it," claimed Chuck Schumer.
THE TRUTH:
What nonsense! It's all about Roe V. Wade.
Personally, I wish he would. I believe abortion is never an option. I believe it is essentially the murder of innocent unborn babies. There are still those among us that believe unborn babies are not actually human beings until they pop out of momma. That premise is, of course, ludicrous and shows a glorious lack of understanding.
But the sad fact is, Roe vs. Wade is in little or no danger of being overturned. I just don't think the Supreme court wants to tackle that volatile an issue just yet.
I also think the constitution and it's amendments needs to be re-examined with respect to the wording before a court can overturn certain rulings. What I am referring to is the 14th amendment specifically. I am just your humble friend and uneducated blogger so until recently I assumed that when Liberals trumpeted the so-called "Right to Privacy", that those words were actually contained somewhere in the constitution. They aren't. Throughout the previously mentioned argument, the 14th amendment was brought up often to support my friends contention that the Constitution does indeed apply to a right of privacy, and that right, in turn, brings with it the right of a woman to abort her unborn baby.
This is the amendment that the left is referring to:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now, as anyone can plainly see, there is no mention of a right to privacy specifically mentioned here. Nor is there mention of a right to kill unborn babies. Be that as it may, I am willing to concede that the right to privacy could be addressed here, in an abstract sort of way. But even if it was spelled out in plain language, I still don't see how that right could possibly be ascertained to mean it's ok to kill babies.
I've said all that so I can say this:
The reference in the 14th amendment that is perceived by some to guarantee a right to privacy is ambiguous at best. It does plainly state that we have a right to life, which flies in the face of the argument that the amendment allows abortion. So does "equal protection".
Which leads me to the original reason that I decided to address this issue today. The wording of the Constitution needs to be clarified. Much of the constitution is too ambiguous and invites inevitable arguments as to the "meaning" of the language. And that is what two of the three branches of government is for. To make the laws and to make them clear.
If we want to declare a right to privacy and/or a right to abortion, the legislature will have to create a specific law addressing those rights, and see to it that it is included in the Constitution so there can be no doubt. Than the Court needs to ensure that the law is interpreted properly. That is their job.
Let me state, for the record, that I happen to agree there should be a clearly defined right to privacy in the constitution. I think we do have a right to privacy, with appropriate restrictions. For example: Let's suppose the wording of the right to privacy specifically says that we have the right to do whatever we damn well please in the privacy of our own home. That shouldn't give Carte Blanche to say, a child molestor or murderer who commits his crimes at home. I do not think abortion should be included in the right to privacy. No, I know it shouldn't. It shouldn't be included at all. Not anywhere in the Constitution.
In short, and in conclusion, It is the legislative branch of the government that makes laws. It is the Judicial branch that interprets them.
Or should.
But I'm just your humble friend and uneducated blogger. I could be wrong.
ADDENDUM: I don't have an addendum today, but I have decided to include Laura Ingraham's featured "lie of the day" in my Blog every day, if I remember. Today's installment follows below:
Lie Of The Day
"I don't have a litmus test. The only standard I have is "will a judge interpret law, not make it," claimed Chuck Schumer.
THE TRUTH:
What nonsense! It's all about Roe V. Wade.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
I Won I Think
In a Posted commentary on Crawford's Blog dated 7/20/2005 at 11:50 am, Crawford states:
"For the sake of liberty, please read and contemplate the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Founders were speaking to us. They were saying they hadn't thought of everything, that they were, indeed, fallible. They were asking us to expand our rights when we see fit. Paying attention to what they said here is true strict construction. It is our salvation against imperious government. And yet, it has never been cited as the basis for a majority ruling in a Supreme Court decision. It is time to ground the right to privacy in the Ninth Amendment, as Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote in Griswold v. Connecticut."
This is in apparent response to my question, "Where in the 14th amendment does it say we have the right to kill unborn babies?" There was little response to my comments on his blog over there, it appears they just threw up their hands out of sheer frustration at not being able to come up with a reasonable answer.
Crawford himself tried to divert his readers attention from the abortion topic by copying and pasting his next posting in the comments section, to no avail. Then, this morning I returned to his blog to see what kind of responses I received to my query. There were none save for an apology from Sheila for losing her temper at me.
I have also noticed that none of the commentators over there crossed over here to leave comments on my blog. I really don't know what to make of this without thinking I must have won.
One can only surmise why the Crawford followers have now chosen to be silent on this issue, but, if I may venture an opinion, I would like to think I won the argument. I would like to think. But knowing the dogged stubbornness that some people have, even when they are proven wrong, I highly doubt it. Most likely they realize that they aren't getting anywhere by arguing.
In any case, Crawford did apparently change the direction of his argument to now include the 9th amendment along with the 14th to support his belief that "right to privacy" includes the right to kill babies. That argument is even more ambiguous than the previous allusion to the 14th amendment.
But maybe it's just coincidental timing that he decided to post that thought at this particular time.
I don't know, though. I'm just your humble friend and uneducated blogger, so I may just be patting myself on the back, thinking I've won an argument, when all they are trying to do is ignore me in hopes that I'll just go away.
Let me bask in the glory of believing I made a difference just this once. OK?
ADDENDUM: I was astounded to learn that one of my favorite commentators, Ann Coulter is less than happy about the appointment of Judge Roberts to the SCOTUS. So, I read her column. Basically, what she is saying is we don't know what kind of judge he's going to be. I agree. This is too important an appointment to nominate someone whose ideology is unknown. I would rather have him appoint a judge who is known to be a liberal than one we know nothing about. Unlike Ms. Coulter, however, I am disposed to giving the President the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he satisfied himself as to Judge Robert's viewpoints before appointing him. In Ann Coulter's words: "Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of 'stealth nominees' and be the Scalia or Thomas that Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won't. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette." And on that last statement, I agree.
"For the sake of liberty, please read and contemplate the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Founders were speaking to us. They were saying they hadn't thought of everything, that they were, indeed, fallible. They were asking us to expand our rights when we see fit. Paying attention to what they said here is true strict construction. It is our salvation against imperious government. And yet, it has never been cited as the basis for a majority ruling in a Supreme Court decision. It is time to ground the right to privacy in the Ninth Amendment, as Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote in Griswold v. Connecticut."
This is in apparent response to my question, "Where in the 14th amendment does it say we have the right to kill unborn babies?" There was little response to my comments on his blog over there, it appears they just threw up their hands out of sheer frustration at not being able to come up with a reasonable answer.
Crawford himself tried to divert his readers attention from the abortion topic by copying and pasting his next posting in the comments section, to no avail. Then, this morning I returned to his blog to see what kind of responses I received to my query. There were none save for an apology from Sheila for losing her temper at me.
I have also noticed that none of the commentators over there crossed over here to leave comments on my blog. I really don't know what to make of this without thinking I must have won.
One can only surmise why the Crawford followers have now chosen to be silent on this issue, but, if I may venture an opinion, I would like to think I won the argument. I would like to think. But knowing the dogged stubbornness that some people have, even when they are proven wrong, I highly doubt it. Most likely they realize that they aren't getting anywhere by arguing.
In any case, Crawford did apparently change the direction of his argument to now include the 9th amendment along with the 14th to support his belief that "right to privacy" includes the right to kill babies. That argument is even more ambiguous than the previous allusion to the 14th amendment.
But maybe it's just coincidental timing that he decided to post that thought at this particular time.
I don't know, though. I'm just your humble friend and uneducated blogger, so I may just be patting myself on the back, thinking I've won an argument, when all they are trying to do is ignore me in hopes that I'll just go away.
Let me bask in the glory of believing I made a difference just this once. OK?
ADDENDUM: I was astounded to learn that one of my favorite commentators, Ann Coulter is less than happy about the appointment of Judge Roberts to the SCOTUS. So, I read her column. Basically, what she is saying is we don't know what kind of judge he's going to be. I agree. This is too important an appointment to nominate someone whose ideology is unknown. I would rather have him appoint a judge who is known to be a liberal than one we know nothing about. Unlike Ms. Coulter, however, I am disposed to giving the President the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he satisfied himself as to Judge Robert's viewpoints before appointing him. In Ann Coulter's words: "Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of 'stealth nominees' and be the Scalia or Thomas that Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won't. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette." And on that last statement, I agree.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Right to Privacy
When I ran across Craig Crawford's blog the first time, I read a post he wrote about whether a reporter should be compelled to reveal his sources. He seemed to me to be reporting it in a objective, neither right nor left manner, which I found refreshing.
So, it's my fault that I jumped to the conclusion that he couldn't possibly be a liberal, as they are not known to be objective about anything. I was wrong. His blog is a hotbed of left wing philosophies and ideologies.
One particular frequent commentator on his posts, Sheila, I found particuarly respectful in juxtaposition to the normal mean spirited name calling and personal attacks that characterizes most liberals. However, she took me to task once for labeling her a "Liberal" in a negative connotation. I responded that I would call her what she would like to be called if she would please tell me what she would like to be called instead. I received no answer from her on that. Since then, I learned that Ann Coulter says that Liberals hate to be called Liberals, so that, in addition to the fact that all her comments left on Crawford's blog tells me that she is best described as Liberal so I will continue to call her that. Actually, I suspect that Sheila is either Crawford's wife or girlfriend, because she is always the first to comment on his posts, and invariably gushes over his absolute correctness on his opinions. If Sheila were to tell it, he is never wrong about anything.
I happen to respectfully disagree with her on that. I believe he is wrong quite often.
I have returned on occasion to offer my comments on some of his posts. He goes along with the rest of the liberal media in supposing that Karl Rove is guilty without a trial, or indeed, even proof.
This morning, I visited the blog again to find the expected objections to the nomination of Judge Rogers to the SCOTUS. In it the point was made that abortion falls under the "Right to Privacy" provision in the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment. One commentator said this: "Kiss Roe goodbye. Looks like it will be a return to the back alleys. Unbelievable" Sheila added this comment to the comments section of Crawford's blog: "If RoeVWade was over turned, there would still be States rights to consider and I know at least 10 states that would up hold it. Yes, it would be horrible"
She said overturning Roe vs Wade would be horrible! To which I responded, "You think NOT killing babies would be horrible?" Then she said, "Nothing is horrible about staying out of someone's private decisions or out of their bedrooms.
I would never throw my personal beliefs down your gullet. I am the type of person who doesn't condon abortion, but I would NEVER EVER shove my beliefs down anyones throat according to so called ideological authority.
It's just plain wrong."
Sheila and others argued that it isn't the possible repeal of abortion per se that they object to, but rather the invasion of privacy that they say is guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the constitution.
I assume they are referring to this:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Could someone please explain to me where, in this amendment, we are allowed to kill unborn babies? Because the way I see it, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." means we don't have the right to kill anyone without due process of law. And I think this exception would probably apply to executions of convicted felons. I don't see how this in any way supports the conclusion that abortion is either legal or ethical. Also, refer to this statement: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I thought babies were "persons" and had the same right to equal protection also. But I am just your humble friend and uneducated blogger, so I probably don't understand. So someone explain this to me.
After all this discourse someone else in this site said to me: "Mark-- take this somewhere else please. And for the record, there is no legal consensus on whether abortion is the killing of a baby, so let's move on. We all understand that the issue over abortion is that some people believe it's murder and others don't. Move on." This was posted under the name "Anonymous", of course.
I, in turn, responded, ""no legal consensus on whether abortion is the killing of a baby"?
What do you call it? I would love to know how taking the life of an unborn baby is not considered killing."
As an aside,I find it interesting that Liberals are so fond of using the phrase, "move on" whenever they know they have no argument. This started with Clinton when he was trying to avoid the ramifications of the discovery that he was participating in extra curricular activities with a White house intern. In fact, Liberals created an organization with that name.(moveon.org)
The debate goes on.
And just for the record, I sincerely hope, if Roberts gets confirmed, that he does attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade, if for no other reason than to piss off the liberals.
So, it's my fault that I jumped to the conclusion that he couldn't possibly be a liberal, as they are not known to be objective about anything. I was wrong. His blog is a hotbed of left wing philosophies and ideologies.
One particular frequent commentator on his posts, Sheila, I found particuarly respectful in juxtaposition to the normal mean spirited name calling and personal attacks that characterizes most liberals. However, she took me to task once for labeling her a "Liberal" in a negative connotation. I responded that I would call her what she would like to be called if she would please tell me what she would like to be called instead. I received no answer from her on that. Since then, I learned that Ann Coulter says that Liberals hate to be called Liberals, so that, in addition to the fact that all her comments left on Crawford's blog tells me that she is best described as Liberal so I will continue to call her that. Actually, I suspect that Sheila is either Crawford's wife or girlfriend, because she is always the first to comment on his posts, and invariably gushes over his absolute correctness on his opinions. If Sheila were to tell it, he is never wrong about anything.
I happen to respectfully disagree with her on that. I believe he is wrong quite often.
I have returned on occasion to offer my comments on some of his posts. He goes along with the rest of the liberal media in supposing that Karl Rove is guilty without a trial, or indeed, even proof.
This morning, I visited the blog again to find the expected objections to the nomination of Judge Rogers to the SCOTUS. In it the point was made that abortion falls under the "Right to Privacy" provision in the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment. One commentator said this: "Kiss Roe goodbye. Looks like it will be a return to the back alleys. Unbelievable" Sheila added this comment to the comments section of Crawford's blog: "If RoeVWade was over turned, there would still be States rights to consider and I know at least 10 states that would up hold it. Yes, it would be horrible"
She said overturning Roe vs Wade would be horrible! To which I responded, "You think NOT killing babies would be horrible?" Then she said, "Nothing is horrible about staying out of someone's private decisions or out of their bedrooms.
I would never throw my personal beliefs down your gullet. I am the type of person who doesn't condon abortion, but I would NEVER EVER shove my beliefs down anyones throat according to so called ideological authority.
It's just plain wrong."
Sheila and others argued that it isn't the possible repeal of abortion per se that they object to, but rather the invasion of privacy that they say is guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the constitution.
I assume they are referring to this:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Could someone please explain to me where, in this amendment, we are allowed to kill unborn babies? Because the way I see it, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." means we don't have the right to kill anyone without due process of law. And I think this exception would probably apply to executions of convicted felons. I don't see how this in any way supports the conclusion that abortion is either legal or ethical. Also, refer to this statement: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I thought babies were "persons" and had the same right to equal protection also. But I am just your humble friend and uneducated blogger, so I probably don't understand. So someone explain this to me.
After all this discourse someone else in this site said to me: "Mark-- take this somewhere else please. And for the record, there is no legal consensus on whether abortion is the killing of a baby, so let's move on. We all understand that the issue over abortion is that some people believe it's murder and others don't. Move on." This was posted under the name "Anonymous", of course.
I, in turn, responded, ""no legal consensus on whether abortion is the killing of a baby"?
What do you call it? I would love to know how taking the life of an unborn baby is not considered killing."
As an aside,I find it interesting that Liberals are so fond of using the phrase, "move on" whenever they know they have no argument. This started with Clinton when he was trying to avoid the ramifications of the discovery that he was participating in extra curricular activities with a White house intern. In fact, Liberals created an organization with that name.(moveon.org)
The debate goes on.
And just for the record, I sincerely hope, if Roberts gets confirmed, that he does attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade, if for no other reason than to piss off the liberals.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
The Choice is John Roberts
President Bush has just announced his nominee for the Supreme Court. The choice is Federal Appeals Court Judge, John Roberts.
Chucky Shumer has already raised objections to the Presidents choice. I expect to hear from Teddy momentarily.
The fight has begun.
DING DING. Round one.
(By the way. I got my news from Fox News. I don't trust the others. They might try to tell us that Bush's nominee is Earl Warren.)
Chucky Shumer has already raised objections to the Presidents choice. I expect to hear from Teddy momentarily.
The fight has begun.
DING DING. Round one.
(By the way. I got my news from Fox News. I don't trust the others. They might try to tell us that Bush's nominee is Earl Warren.)
Disenchantment
Early this morning, I posted a comment here that linked you to Mary's blog, FREEDOM EDEN, which in turn should have linked you (if you clicked it)to a copy of the legal brief filed in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This brief was filed by 36 different news organizations in behalf of Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller, the 2 reporters that are in trouble over their refusal to reveal their sources in the matter of the alledged leak of "classified Information" about Valerie Plame,the wife of Joe Wilson and CIA employee.
I was feeling vindicated over what appears to be proof that I was right all along, that Karl Rove is indeed not guilty of committing a crime. Indeed, I was gleeful. The brief indicates that the media has been knowingly lying to us, the American people, about this matter.
Now, however, I am not feeling so gleeful. This revelation has far reaching and ominous implications for every American, and in turn, every person on the Earth. I am now troubled. Very troubled.
It is the press, the media, that we depend on every day, every hour, to keep us informed about what is happening in our world. Undoubtedly, we must reason that they have lied to us before, but now we seemingly have proof of a vast network of misinformation and partisan propaganda. This goes beyond mere political back biting and subterfuge. This is frightening in it's relation to what it means to us. All of us. How often have they lied to us before? And what have they lied to us about? What major catastrophes have been perpetrated upon us in the effort to assassinate some politicians characters? WHAT HAVE WE DONE?
Most importantly, How can we ever trust the media again?
We have always known that some reporters have used suppositions, innuendo, inferences, half truths, exaggerations, and yes, even blatant lies to further their own personal agendas. But this was a concerted effort.
It no longer matters if Karl Rove leaked information or if he didn't. The scandal over the news media, in general has overshadowed any perceived scandal in the Bush administration. It also overshadows Any perceived scandal in the Clinton administration. For you see? If the media can lie to us about this, they can lie about anything. And we don't have a clue what is true and what is not.
Did the President lead is to war with false information? We don't know. Did Ted Kennedy murder his secretary? We don't know. Did the US put astronauts on the moon? We don't know. Did the Holocaust in Germany really happen? We don't know. Did President Clinton really lie under oath before a grand jury? We don't know.
Is there anything we can know for sure anymore? The only source we have to determine if any of the news we get is true is the media. If we can't trust them, who can we trust?
The press was an honorable profession. Now it's words are of sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. They mean nothing. I am disenchanted. The last bastion of freedom has been compromised. Can we ever regain confidence in them?
We can only hope.
Addendum: Since the revelation that the American news media lies whenever it wants to undermine people and establishments and administrations according to it's own ideologies, don't even try to use media resources to back up your points when responding to my posts, because I will no longer believe them. Unless it is from Fox News, one of the few not on the list of news organizations that made their startling admission in court.
I was feeling vindicated over what appears to be proof that I was right all along, that Karl Rove is indeed not guilty of committing a crime. Indeed, I was gleeful. The brief indicates that the media has been knowingly lying to us, the American people, about this matter.
Now, however, I am not feeling so gleeful. This revelation has far reaching and ominous implications for every American, and in turn, every person on the Earth. I am now troubled. Very troubled.
It is the press, the media, that we depend on every day, every hour, to keep us informed about what is happening in our world. Undoubtedly, we must reason that they have lied to us before, but now we seemingly have proof of a vast network of misinformation and partisan propaganda. This goes beyond mere political back biting and subterfuge. This is frightening in it's relation to what it means to us. All of us. How often have they lied to us before? And what have they lied to us about? What major catastrophes have been perpetrated upon us in the effort to assassinate some politicians characters? WHAT HAVE WE DONE?
Most importantly, How can we ever trust the media again?
We have always known that some reporters have used suppositions, innuendo, inferences, half truths, exaggerations, and yes, even blatant lies to further their own personal agendas. But this was a concerted effort.
It no longer matters if Karl Rove leaked information or if he didn't. The scandal over the news media, in general has overshadowed any perceived scandal in the Bush administration. It also overshadows Any perceived scandal in the Clinton administration. For you see? If the media can lie to us about this, they can lie about anything. And we don't have a clue what is true and what is not.
Did the President lead is to war with false information? We don't know. Did Ted Kennedy murder his secretary? We don't know. Did the US put astronauts on the moon? We don't know. Did the Holocaust in Germany really happen? We don't know. Did President Clinton really lie under oath before a grand jury? We don't know.
Is there anything we can know for sure anymore? The only source we have to determine if any of the news we get is true is the media. If we can't trust them, who can we trust?
The press was an honorable profession. Now it's words are of sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. They mean nothing. I am disenchanted. The last bastion of freedom has been compromised. Can we ever regain confidence in them?
We can only hope.
Addendum: Since the revelation that the American news media lies whenever it wants to undermine people and establishments and administrations according to it's own ideologies, don't even try to use media resources to back up your points when responding to my posts, because I will no longer believe them. Unless it is from Fox News, one of the few not on the list of news organizations that made their startling admission in court.
Proof the Media Lied
Mary, over at Freedom Eden has written a definitive post about the truth of the Karl Rove "non issue". Apparently, she has discovered proof that this was a sheer fabrication perpertrated by the press to villify Karl Rove and President Bush. Not only did they make up the charges, they did it intentionally in spite of the fact they knew already what the facts in the case were. She has found the actual brief that the news organizations filed in court in behalf of Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller wherein they admit to knowing when and by whom Valerie Plame was "outed".
But don't take my word for it, go to her site and see for yourself. If you don't understand the legalese in the brief, read her post. She will explain it to you.
I don't expect the die hard extreme left wing liberals to believe any if this, of course. They have long since made up their minds. But those of you who have a sense of fairness will appreciate knowing the truth.
But don't take my word for it, go to her site and see for yourself. If you don't understand the legalese in the brief, read her post. She will explain it to you.
I don't expect the die hard extreme left wing liberals to believe any if this, of course. They have long since made up their minds. But those of you who have a sense of fairness will appreciate knowing the truth.
Monday, July 18, 2005
An Accident Waiting to Happen
The space shuttle Discovery still sits upon it's launching pad, this time held up by a fuel gauge problem. The first indication that there were problems that might hinder the successful launch occurred the day before the originally scheduled launching. A plastic windshield cover just came loose, fell off and damaged some tiles near the base of one of the engines.
A piece of plastic.
Just came loose.
Damaged some tiles.
What the.......?
Who builds those things anyway? American Motors? They'd be better off having the folks at Lego build them.
If you remember, the explosion of the last shuttle was caused by a similar problem. While it was ascending a piece of fuel tank foam insulation dislodged and pierced the wing, causing the shuttle to explode on re-entry.
This latest SNAFU makes me more than a little concerned about the competency of NASA engineers, or at least, their contractors. Possibly NASA is one government agency that shouldn't award contracts to the lowest bidder. Perhaps NASA should take other factors into consideration. Like quality, for instance.
And what is the deal with these ceramic tiles they use anyway? Apparently,it takes no more than a light piece of plastic or some foam insulation to dislodge those tiles. Maybe NASA can figure out a way to affix them a little more securely? I am not an engineer, so I admit I don't know what I am talking about, but it surely seems to me that there has to be a better way.
Here's another thought to consider as well. When the plastic windshield cover fell off the shuttle countdown had already begun. That means the engineers at NASA had already determined that the Shuttle was ready to launch. Think about that. If that piece of plastic hadn't fallen off, the engineers would have allowed the launch to go off without ever knowing there were additional problems.
I am thinking if NASA doesn't want another disaster on their hands, they'd better do more than just figure out the present fuel gauge problem. I would respectfully suggest they do an inch by inch re-check of the entire shuttle and booster engine system. I mean microscopic inspections of every square inch. If a tile has a tiny imperfection marring one edge they should remove it and replace it. And fasten them down with something stronger than Elmer's glue.
This is a scary thought. According to reports, NASA is up against the clock. If extensive repairs are needed and the shuttle has to be moved off the launch pad and into the hangar, the flight could end up being bumped into September to ensure a daylight liftoff.
The space agency wants a clear view of the ascending shuttle in order to spot any launch damage. When combined with the constantly changing location of the international space station, Discovery's destination, this means that the shuttle must fly by the end of July or remain grounded until Sept. 9.
It's scary because it would seem to indicate the good folks at NASA are in a hurry, and in light of past problems, that would not inspire confidence that they are making absolutely sure there are no possible impending problems.
Well, as I am fond of repeating, I'm just your humble friend and uneducated blogger, but this surely looks to me like an accident waiting to happen. I don't think I'm going to be volunteering for the astronaut program anytime soon.
ADDENDUM: I discovered a very good blog over the weekend. Mary, over at FREEDOM EDEN cover's the issues of the day with insightful, and sometimes inciteful, commentary. Check her out.
A piece of plastic.
Just came loose.
Damaged some tiles.
What the.......?
Who builds those things anyway? American Motors? They'd be better off having the folks at Lego build them.
If you remember, the explosion of the last shuttle was caused by a similar problem. While it was ascending a piece of fuel tank foam insulation dislodged and pierced the wing, causing the shuttle to explode on re-entry.
This latest SNAFU makes me more than a little concerned about the competency of NASA engineers, or at least, their contractors. Possibly NASA is one government agency that shouldn't award contracts to the lowest bidder. Perhaps NASA should take other factors into consideration. Like quality, for instance.
And what is the deal with these ceramic tiles they use anyway? Apparently,it takes no more than a light piece of plastic or some foam insulation to dislodge those tiles. Maybe NASA can figure out a way to affix them a little more securely? I am not an engineer, so I admit I don't know what I am talking about, but it surely seems to me that there has to be a better way.
Here's another thought to consider as well. When the plastic windshield cover fell off the shuttle countdown had already begun. That means the engineers at NASA had already determined that the Shuttle was ready to launch. Think about that. If that piece of plastic hadn't fallen off, the engineers would have allowed the launch to go off without ever knowing there were additional problems.
I am thinking if NASA doesn't want another disaster on their hands, they'd better do more than just figure out the present fuel gauge problem. I would respectfully suggest they do an inch by inch re-check of the entire shuttle and booster engine system. I mean microscopic inspections of every square inch. If a tile has a tiny imperfection marring one edge they should remove it and replace it. And fasten them down with something stronger than Elmer's glue.
This is a scary thought. According to reports, NASA is up against the clock. If extensive repairs are needed and the shuttle has to be moved off the launch pad and into the hangar, the flight could end up being bumped into September to ensure a daylight liftoff.
The space agency wants a clear view of the ascending shuttle in order to spot any launch damage. When combined with the constantly changing location of the international space station, Discovery's destination, this means that the shuttle must fly by the end of July or remain grounded until Sept. 9.
It's scary because it would seem to indicate the good folks at NASA are in a hurry, and in light of past problems, that would not inspire confidence that they are making absolutely sure there are no possible impending problems.
Well, as I am fond of repeating, I'm just your humble friend and uneducated blogger, but this surely looks to me like an accident waiting to happen. I don't think I'm going to be volunteering for the astronaut program anytime soon.
ADDENDUM: I discovered a very good blog over the weekend. Mary, over at FREEDOM EDEN cover's the issues of the day with insightful, and sometimes inciteful, commentary. Check her out.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
I Clarify My Thoughts on Liberals
There has been some discussion, recently, on my post, about the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Or maybe we should say right leaning Americans and left leaning Americans. I never did get an answer of what the preferred "label" should be. But I want to clear up a misconception that some have of me. It have been suggested that I use the word, "Liberal", with a negative connotation. I want to clear that up now. The following is a reprint of a post I made in early May:
I am a conservative. I have stated that for the record in previous posts. But I have an issue with conservative radio talk show hosts and their opinions of liberals.
Rush, and Hanniity, and Laura Ingraham, and others seem to think that liberals are malevolently trying to bring about revolution in this country because they are simply evil people. I don't share this opinion. Having once identified myself with liberalism, I believe they really do have the best interest of the country and it's people at heart. They do care about the United States and the environment and animals and human (civil) rights. They really do want to make improvements to our system of government and to our lives. They really do care. I believe they are, on the whole, basically good decent people, but they are misguided.
the problem is not what they believe are the issues affecting the quality of life in the world, but rather in the solutions to the issues. More taxation and additional redundant legislation is not always the best solution to the issues facing us but it seems to me most liberals have no other answers. In short, in my opinion, the major difference between liberals and conservatives is the liberals tend to want the government to solve all our problems and the conservatives want us to stand on our own two feet and solve the problems ourselves and face the rewards or consequences of our own decision. This makes more sense to me than depending on the government to do the work for me. I guess that is the reason I am not a liberal.
I will add that after observing liberals for sometime I have noticed one glaring fact. Many Liberals are very mean spirited. Preferring to launch personal attacks against their opponents rather than attack their viewpoints in a respectful manner alone should be enough of a reason to not be a liberal, but I know that some people are small minded enough to think that personal attacks are the best way to resolve differences.
I fail to follow this logic, but that's just me.
UPDATE: I listened to A Prairie Home Companion last night, and they played a repeat broadcast of my favorite PHC show, the joke show. Here are a couple of jokes from that show:
George W. Bush is at a press conference and Moses walks in. Bush says "Hello, Moses." Moses doesn't speak. Bush says again, "Hello Moses." He still doesn't respond. So Bush asks, "Well why aren't ya talkin'?" And Moses finally says, "Last time I talked to a bush I got stuck in the desert for forty years."
And then there's the all-time favorite: First penguin says to the second penguin, "You look like you're wearing a tuxedo!" second penguin says, "How do you know I'm not?"
And a joke I claim they stole from me:
Descarte walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Try a root beer schnapps?" Descarte says, "I think not." Upon saying that, he vanished.
Have a good day.
I am a conservative. I have stated that for the record in previous posts. But I have an issue with conservative radio talk show hosts and their opinions of liberals.
Rush, and Hanniity, and Laura Ingraham, and others seem to think that liberals are malevolently trying to bring about revolution in this country because they are simply evil people. I don't share this opinion. Having once identified myself with liberalism, I believe they really do have the best interest of the country and it's people at heart. They do care about the United States and the environment and animals and human (civil) rights. They really do want to make improvements to our system of government and to our lives. They really do care. I believe they are, on the whole, basically good decent people, but they are misguided.
the problem is not what they believe are the issues affecting the quality of life in the world, but rather in the solutions to the issues. More taxation and additional redundant legislation is not always the best solution to the issues facing us but it seems to me most liberals have no other answers. In short, in my opinion, the major difference between liberals and conservatives is the liberals tend to want the government to solve all our problems and the conservatives want us to stand on our own two feet and solve the problems ourselves and face the rewards or consequences of our own decision. This makes more sense to me than depending on the government to do the work for me. I guess that is the reason I am not a liberal.
I will add that after observing liberals for sometime I have noticed one glaring fact. Many Liberals are very mean spirited. Preferring to launch personal attacks against their opponents rather than attack their viewpoints in a respectful manner alone should be enough of a reason to not be a liberal, but I know that some people are small minded enough to think that personal attacks are the best way to resolve differences.
I fail to follow this logic, but that's just me.
UPDATE: I listened to A Prairie Home Companion last night, and they played a repeat broadcast of my favorite PHC show, the joke show. Here are a couple of jokes from that show:
George W. Bush is at a press conference and Moses walks in. Bush says "Hello, Moses." Moses doesn't speak. Bush says again, "Hello Moses." He still doesn't respond. So Bush asks, "Well why aren't ya talkin'?" And Moses finally says, "Last time I talked to a bush I got stuck in the desert for forty years."
And then there's the all-time favorite: First penguin says to the second penguin, "You look like you're wearing a tuxedo!" second penguin says, "How do you know I'm not?"
And a joke I claim they stole from me:
Descarte walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Try a root beer schnapps?" Descarte says, "I think not." Upon saying that, he vanished.
Have a good day.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
I Told You I Wasn't 100% Conservative!
Your Political Profile |
Overall: 85% Conservative, 15% Liberal |
Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal |
Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
Actually, I originally took this test back in May or June and only copied and pasted the results I got then to this post today, so, just for fun, I re-took it today and it says I am now only 80% conservative.
Maybe the Libs are winning me over.
NOT!
Friday, July 15, 2005
My Issue with Laura Ingraham
Well, folks, Here it is. The post I promised when I deviated from my plans to respond to charges of anti-liberalism. (Is that a real word?)
Laura Ingraham has a 3 hour syndicated conservative radio talk show. Usually, she devotes at least an hour of the 3 to commenting on what Hollywood has to say about Bush and his administration and policies.
I love Laura's radio program. She is a lucid, funny, intelligent apologist for the conservatives in America. She makes very good points with humor, sarcasm, and often righteous indignation. But I have this issue about her:
She seems to care about what Hollywood thinks. No, I take that back. She definitely cares about what Hollywood thinks, and that bothers me. Why, you say? Because the majority of the Hollywood types have no more clue about what is really happening in the real America than the Aboriginal Pygmies of New Guinea.
As I have mentioned before in this blog, one glaring example of this truth was the shameful display of ignorance exhibited by one Rosie O'Donnell on a recent airing of the chick TV program "The View", Which was hosted on that day by the aforementioned O'Donnell.
Those of you loyal readers of your humble uneducated blogger, may remember the post I refer to. The guest that day was Sean Hannity, an unapologetic conservative radio and television talk show host. As the interview with Hannity continued, Rosie became more and more visibly upset and eventually became red faced, screeching, "Abble Grabble, Abble Grabble!" over and over. For those of you who don't understand "Abble Grabble", She meant Abu Ghraib, the infamous prison in Iraq where Pvt Lindsey Graham helped fellow prison guards force some prisoners into some rather embarrassing positions.
But I digress. The point is this: As Laura herself has stated, and, in fact, wrote a book about it, Hollywood should stay out of the political arena if they don't know what they're talking about. I happen to disagree with that myself. I maintain it is a free country, and we are all guaranteed the right of freedom of speech, therefore the Hollywood types can scream "Abble Grabble" to their hearts content, and I will defend with my life their right to do it.
The issue I referred to is this: Laura continues to give these people credibility by constantly referring to their statements. I don't care what Hollywood has to say about anything but what they know, which is making movies, TV shows, singing, or whatever. To broadcast what they say, even if it is only to ridicule them gives them that much more of a forum. My opinion is this: If we ignore them, they will eventually do what Laura suggest they do. Shut up and sing.
So, my uninvited suggestion to Laura Ingraham is this: Shut up and comment on politics! And I mean that in a good respectful Christian way.
Just a suggestion from your humble friend and uneducated blogger.
Laura Ingraham has a 3 hour syndicated conservative radio talk show. Usually, she devotes at least an hour of the 3 to commenting on what Hollywood has to say about Bush and his administration and policies.
I love Laura's radio program. She is a lucid, funny, intelligent apologist for the conservatives in America. She makes very good points with humor, sarcasm, and often righteous indignation. But I have this issue about her:
She seems to care about what Hollywood thinks. No, I take that back. She definitely cares about what Hollywood thinks, and that bothers me. Why, you say? Because the majority of the Hollywood types have no more clue about what is really happening in the real America than the Aboriginal Pygmies of New Guinea.
As I have mentioned before in this blog, one glaring example of this truth was the shameful display of ignorance exhibited by one Rosie O'Donnell on a recent airing of the chick TV program "The View", Which was hosted on that day by the aforementioned O'Donnell.
Those of you loyal readers of your humble uneducated blogger, may remember the post I refer to. The guest that day was Sean Hannity, an unapologetic conservative radio and television talk show host. As the interview with Hannity continued, Rosie became more and more visibly upset and eventually became red faced, screeching, "Abble Grabble, Abble Grabble!" over and over. For those of you who don't understand "Abble Grabble", She meant Abu Ghraib, the infamous prison in Iraq where Pvt Lindsey Graham helped fellow prison guards force some prisoners into some rather embarrassing positions.
But I digress. The point is this: As Laura herself has stated, and, in fact, wrote a book about it, Hollywood should stay out of the political arena if they don't know what they're talking about. I happen to disagree with that myself. I maintain it is a free country, and we are all guaranteed the right of freedom of speech, therefore the Hollywood types can scream "Abble Grabble" to their hearts content, and I will defend with my life their right to do it.
The issue I referred to is this: Laura continues to give these people credibility by constantly referring to their statements. I don't care what Hollywood has to say about anything but what they know, which is making movies, TV shows, singing, or whatever. To broadcast what they say, even if it is only to ridicule them gives them that much more of a forum. My opinion is this: If we ignore them, they will eventually do what Laura suggest they do. Shut up and sing.
So, my uninvited suggestion to Laura Ingraham is this: Shut up and comment on politics! And I mean that in a good respectful Christian way.
Just a suggestion from your humble friend and uneducated blogger.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
I Respond to an Objection
On another blog that I ran across recently, I left a couple of comments in the comments section regarding the treatment of Karl Rove by those that I categorize as "liberals"
Apparently one of the commentators there took offense to my use of that word, visited my blog, and left the following comment:
Mark,
Thought I would come across the aisle and deliver this note I left in Crawford's space. (By the way, I'm very sorry your having a bad time with your family situation and the government).
My last word on this page. Mark Manness(sic), I believe in freedom of speech. I think you can see that all of us here do, with all the great debate we have. You are welcome as the Champion of the Republican party, because it does encourage great thought for both sides of the issues.
I would just ask that you stop using the word "Liberal" like it's a dirty word and as a dirty label to put us all in a box we don't deserve. Every time I see the usage of Liberal from a conservative to make a point, I see hatred and prejudice emanating from the label. It's unmistakable. Your use of "Liberal" reminds me of other nasty labels to box in human beings in History.
I'm asking you to think about this and make a change at least here, where we welcome your opinion.
Here is my response:
Sheila, I don't hate anyone. I have noticed, though, that the preponderance of namec-calling and hateful comments appear to come much more often from those who I call Liberals than conservatives. What do you prefer to be called? And how does being called liberal compare to some of the things that the "whatever you want to be calleds" call George W. Bush and Cheney and Karl Rove etc? You might want to check out my post dated July 12, and entitled "slanderous statements" where I have responded, respectfully, to the slanders that I have read on both Crawfords blog and my own. Didn't you yourself call some conservative a "twerp"?
You might have noticed unless you were focused on me calling liberals liberals that I never call people names or attack them personally, unlike Bruiser, who continually mounts personal attacks, innuendos, and indulges in name calling shamelessly. He is right proud of being called a liberal. You might notice. Also, that I choose not to respond to him or anyone like him, but I do allow him to post on here. I do not delete his statements, no matter how unfounded and inane they are, because I too, believe in freedom of speech. As I often say, You have the right to say what you want. You also have the right to be wrong.
You say, "Every time I see the usage of Liberal from a conservative to make a point, I see hatred and prejudice emanating from the label. It's unmistakable." I don't intend to place a negative connotation on the word, but perhaps I should object to your use of the word conservative in the connotation in which you used it.
I really don't know what else to label you. I perceive that your own ideology is decidedly liberal so unless you can suggest a more appropriate word, I am afraid I will have to continue to use the word liberal. The word Moderate doesn't go far enough to the left to apply.
Why wouldn't you be proud of the label anyway? I am proud of being a conservative. When Karl Rove made the statements that liberals wanted to understand the terrorists, most of the Democrats instantly objected. He didn't say the Democrats were liberals, but judging from their reaction to his statement, they consider themselves liberal, so I really don't understand why it offends you.
Interestingly enough, my friend, ER, who is a proud Democrat, often objects to being labeled a liberal too, but sometimes he doesn't seem to mind it. I guess he believes himself to be liberal on some things, but not on all of them.
I actually don't consider myself a Republican, so much as independent. When I think Republicans are mistaken I say so. Peruse my Blog, and you will find posts where I have objected to some comments made by conservative talk show hosts, such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. And In fact, I was going to make this post about the issue I have with Laura Ingraham. But I chose to respond to you instead. You should feel special. Laura has been bumped for you.
Apparently one of the commentators there took offense to my use of that word, visited my blog, and left the following comment:
Mark,
Thought I would come across the aisle and deliver this note I left in Crawford's space. (By the way, I'm very sorry your having a bad time with your family situation and the government).
My last word on this page. Mark Manness(sic), I believe in freedom of speech. I think you can see that all of us here do, with all the great debate we have. You are welcome as the Champion of the Republican party, because it does encourage great thought for both sides of the issues.
I would just ask that you stop using the word "Liberal" like it's a dirty word and as a dirty label to put us all in a box we don't deserve. Every time I see the usage of Liberal from a conservative to make a point, I see hatred and prejudice emanating from the label. It's unmistakable. Your use of "Liberal" reminds me of other nasty labels to box in human beings in History.
I'm asking you to think about this and make a change at least here, where we welcome your opinion.
Here is my response:
Sheila, I don't hate anyone. I have noticed, though, that the preponderance of namec-calling and hateful comments appear to come much more often from those who I call Liberals than conservatives. What do you prefer to be called? And how does being called liberal compare to some of the things that the "whatever you want to be calleds" call George W. Bush and Cheney and Karl Rove etc? You might want to check out my post dated July 12, and entitled "slanderous statements" where I have responded, respectfully, to the slanders that I have read on both Crawfords blog and my own. Didn't you yourself call some conservative a "twerp"?
You might have noticed unless you were focused on me calling liberals liberals that I never call people names or attack them personally, unlike Bruiser, who continually mounts personal attacks, innuendos, and indulges in name calling shamelessly. He is right proud of being called a liberal. You might notice. Also, that I choose not to respond to him or anyone like him, but I do allow him to post on here. I do not delete his statements, no matter how unfounded and inane they are, because I too, believe in freedom of speech. As I often say, You have the right to say what you want. You also have the right to be wrong.
You say, "Every time I see the usage of Liberal from a conservative to make a point, I see hatred and prejudice emanating from the label. It's unmistakable." I don't intend to place a negative connotation on the word, but perhaps I should object to your use of the word conservative in the connotation in which you used it.
I really don't know what else to label you. I perceive that your own ideology is decidedly liberal so unless you can suggest a more appropriate word, I am afraid I will have to continue to use the word liberal. The word Moderate doesn't go far enough to the left to apply.
Why wouldn't you be proud of the label anyway? I am proud of being a conservative. When Karl Rove made the statements that liberals wanted to understand the terrorists, most of the Democrats instantly objected. He didn't say the Democrats were liberals, but judging from their reaction to his statement, they consider themselves liberal, so I really don't understand why it offends you.
Interestingly enough, my friend, ER, who is a proud Democrat, often objects to being labeled a liberal too, but sometimes he doesn't seem to mind it. I guess he believes himself to be liberal on some things, but not on all of them.
I actually don't consider myself a Republican, so much as independent. When I think Republicans are mistaken I say so. Peruse my Blog, and you will find posts where I have objected to some comments made by conservative talk show hosts, such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. And In fact, I was going to make this post about the issue I have with Laura Ingraham. But I chose to respond to you instead. You should feel special. Laura has been bumped for you.
Karl Rove (Again)
Once again, the Left wing Liberal dogs are in full attack mode. Or rather, still.
This time they are accusing Karl Rove of committing a crime, under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. There are some fundamental flaws in this story though that, of course, the Liberals and the Left leaning members of the media are somehow failing to mention, although they are no doubt aware of them. I refer you to this article in the Wall Street Journal: Karl Rove, Whistleblower
Upon reading this article, and this one,the phrase, "making a mountain out of a mole hill" comes to mind
I am of the opinion that this is nothing more than a blatant attempt to discredit the Bush Administration by discrediting those in it. I am sick of it. All of it.
Update: I called the Missouri Dept of Social Services child abuse and neglect hotline this morning and reported the abuse of my son by his mom's boyfriend, and they said my report doesn't qualify for investigation. Since when? Last I heard, if a mother spanked her own child in a grocery store the mom would be brought up on charges, but when a control freak throws someone else's kid down, tries to push him down a flight of concrete stairs and threatens him with violence, it doesn't qualify? Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
This time they are accusing Karl Rove of committing a crime, under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. There are some fundamental flaws in this story though that, of course, the Liberals and the Left leaning members of the media are somehow failing to mention, although they are no doubt aware of them. I refer you to this article in the Wall Street Journal: Karl Rove, Whistleblower
Upon reading this article, and this one,the phrase, "making a mountain out of a mole hill" comes to mind
I am of the opinion that this is nothing more than a blatant attempt to discredit the Bush Administration by discrediting those in it. I am sick of it. All of it.
Update: I called the Missouri Dept of Social Services child abuse and neglect hotline this morning and reported the abuse of my son by his mom's boyfriend, and they said my report doesn't qualify for investigation. Since when? Last I heard, if a mother spanked her own child in a grocery store the mom would be brought up on charges, but when a control freak throws someone else's kid down, tries to push him down a flight of concrete stairs and threatens him with violence, it doesn't qualify? Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Democrats- Advocates for the Poor?
Again, Rich Bachelor has brought up a subject that I feel must be clarified. After Francis Lynn said,
"all politicians lie. It's just that yours (liberals, I assume. My words here, not Francis') lie more than mine." in answer to Francis, Rich Bachelor responded thusly:
"Of course they do Frank: they're not as well funded"
Let me put forth some real numbers here. According to an article in "The Roll Call", the official congressional newspaper, of Jan. 15, 2001, entitled the "Roll Call 50 Richest", by reporter Amy Keller:
1. Sen. John Kerry (D) Mass., $620 million
2. Sen. Jon Corzine (D) NJ,$400 million
3. Sen. Herb Kohl (D) Wis., $300 million
4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) W.Va., 200 million
5. Sen Lincoln Chaffee (R) R.I., $63 million
6. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) CA., $50 million
7. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) Wash., $40 million (later Bankrupt)
8. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R) Ill., $40 million
9. Sen. Bob Bennett (R) Utah, $30 million
10. Sen. John Edwards (D) N.C., $25 million
11. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D) Mass., $25 million
If "moderate Republican" Lincoln Chaffee (R) R.I. ever figures out that he is in the wrong party, nine of the top 11 would be Democrats. And Republican multi-millionaires are also more likely to have earned their money than to have married it.
Compare Republican Senator Bob Bennett, (who is still reaping the benefits of his days as a CEO of Franklin International Institute...Under his direction, the firm went from 4 employees to 800 and revenues skyrocketed from almost zero to more than $80 million annually) to John Kerry, who boasts a massive fortune thanks to his ketchup heiress wife's wealth.
Seriously now, who would be more likely to have a beer with a trucker? Tom Delay or Barbara Boxer?
"all politicians lie. It's just that yours (liberals, I assume. My words here, not Francis') lie more than mine." in answer to Francis, Rich Bachelor responded thusly:
"Of course they do Frank: they're not as well funded"
Let me put forth some real numbers here. According to an article in "The Roll Call", the official congressional newspaper, of Jan. 15, 2001, entitled the "Roll Call 50 Richest", by reporter Amy Keller:
1. Sen. John Kerry (D) Mass., $620 million
2. Sen. Jon Corzine (D) NJ,$400 million
3. Sen. Herb Kohl (D) Wis., $300 million
4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) W.Va., 200 million
5. Sen Lincoln Chaffee (R) R.I., $63 million
6. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) CA., $50 million
7. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) Wash., $40 million (later Bankrupt)
8. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R) Ill., $40 million
9. Sen. Bob Bennett (R) Utah, $30 million
10. Sen. John Edwards (D) N.C., $25 million
11. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D) Mass., $25 million
If "moderate Republican" Lincoln Chaffee (R) R.I. ever figures out that he is in the wrong party, nine of the top 11 would be Democrats. And Republican multi-millionaires are also more likely to have earned their money than to have married it.
Compare Republican Senator Bob Bennett, (who is still reaping the benefits of his days as a CEO of Franklin International Institute...Under his direction, the firm went from 4 employees to 800 and revenues skyrocketed from almost zero to more than $80 million annually) to John Kerry, who boasts a massive fortune thanks to his ketchup heiress wife's wealth.
Seriously now, who would be more likely to have a beer with a trucker? Tom Delay or Barbara Boxer?
Personal News
I may not be able to post a commentary on current events today. I have other things that take precedence on my mind. My ex-wife's live in boyfriend called me late last night and told me he is cutting my son's visit with them short and I have to go to Baltimore today to pick him up from the airport. What a jerk! For a control freak, he doesn't seem to have too much control over a kid that really isn't hard to handle at all. So, because he is such a jerk, my son will have even less time to spend with his mother and close friends in KC than the obligatory six weeks mandatd by the court. I am livid.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Just Wondering
I was thinking, after hearing some sound bites of politicians ducking questions, (they don't really duck questions, do they?) what would happen if all politicians, Conservative and Liberal, Republican and Democrat, were to base everything they do or say on the truth and always answer questions posed to them honestly.
How different would things be? Just a thought.
How different would things be? Just a thought.
On Slanderous Statements
I was called into work early yesterday, and the first part of my day took longer than usual, so as a result, I didn't have a lot of time to formulate a good post. I basically just typed out what I had on my mind at the moment.
Normally I refrain from commenting on the Hollywood types and their political opinions, because, quite frankly, I don't have a lot of respect for their opinions, since they are usually no better informed than I. Usually, in fact, they are less informed than I. I'll give an example: Rosie O'Donnell was guest hosting "the View" a couple of weeks ago, and, coincidently, conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity was a guest. During the inevitable argument, Rosie and Sean being polar opposites, and both typically stubbornly Irish, Rosie got shrill and visibly upset and started shouting, "Abble Grabble" or something like that. She meant, of course, Abu Ghraib, but like I say, most of those Hollywood types are sadly misinformed.
So, that's my excuse. Apology offered.
I recently came across a blog by a guy that I never heard of but apparently is quite a well known journalist and author. He has even done guest appearances on Imus in the Morning, and is apparently a commentator on MSNBC. His name is Craig Crawford.
Anyway, I left a comment. Mine was one of the first comments made to that post. Afterwards, other folks made comments, and I was a little surprised at the liberal bias reflected in them. I will attempt to respond to some of them here.
First thing I noticed was this statement:
"I guess I am one of those pissed off at Judy Miller for her articles claiming that the U.S. found WMD in Iraq. I hope she stays in jail a long time."
My response: It "pisses" you off that there is a possibility that WMD's exist? Why?
If the revelation that there are indeed WMD's in Iraq, wouldn't that make you feel better about the U.S. being there? Why would it anger you to be assured that we are there for the right reason? It surely sounds as if you don't want Bush to be proven right. I would think if you seriously care about your country as you say, you would want it to be true. You know what I think? I think you hate Bush so badly that it matters not that people are dying for their country and for freedom, as long as you can convince yourself and others that Bush is an evil man. And I'll say what I said on Craig's blog. That is pathetic. I didn't even mention the fact that you wish hardship on a fellow human being. That's real Liberal compassion there, friend. You must be a hit at parties.
Here's another "compassionate" statement found in a different comment on the same site:
"Consider that we have twice elected a President who has difficulty expressing a coherent thought..."
(sigh) Here we go again. Where do you get the idea that President Bush is not intelligent? It certainly doesn't show up in his academic record. He graduated from Yale. That isn't exactly Whatsamatta U! And his grades were no worse than the darling of the Democrats (no offense, ER, if you didn't vote for him), John (flip flop) Kerry. Besides, I sincerely doubt anyone could achieve the office of president if he was a moron. For the sake of argument, even if he didn't win the election in 2000, he was still smart enough to come in second. But we all know he won fair and square. Besides that, what proof do you have of his supposed lack of intelligence? Want to know what I think? I think you just hate Bush so much that you are willing to either believe previous lies told about him without any evidence to back it up, or you made it up yourself, but I sincerely don't think you have enough intelligence, yourself to think something that imaginative up. I'm sorry, I don't like to say things that are mean spirited. I don't want to make anyone think I'm a liberal.
Now let me tackle a statement made in my own blogs comment section:
Ann Coulter is only hard to read because she never uses facts...She gives fraudulent examples and gives false sources. Mark said the last "book" he bought was by Ed Klein...I thought you were talking literature here. Ed Klein smears Hillary with the same venom as the Republicans Smear our Veterans and current United States Service Men And Women.
Oh really. Ann Coulter's book that I am currently reading has 46 pages of the sources from where she got her information. In small print. So much for that claim.
And it is obvious you never read the book by Klein. He doesn't smear her. In fact, he repeatedly compliments her political savvy. The rest of what he writes about her is pretty much common knowledge. There is very little in his book that we didn't already know about her, or at least suspect. Frankly, I was a little disappointed that he didn't slam her as much as he could have, but he refused to put anything in the book that he didn't have absolute confirmation on. It would have made for a better read in my view. And lets not forget that Mr Klein is a liberal himself.
And where in the world did you get the idea that Republicans smear veterans and our servicemen? That is just patently absurd. You must be drunk or mistaking them for Liberals.
Another slander:
"...how many Presidents have we had who cannot speak in complete sentences, chew a pretzel or ride a bike?"
I've already addressed the intelligence angle. That statement is quite simply, false.
As to the rest of the comment, that is so typical of the liberal attitude. I've said it often. Liberals start name calling when they can't back up their allegations. You have proved me right again. I've read the part of the constitution that outlines the qualifications one needs to become president. Guess what? It doesn't mention that a president needs to be physically coordinated. I heard the story of the president running into a guy with his bike, but so what? Does that somehow make him incompetent to lead the most powerful nation on Earth?
Let me explain this to you so that even you can understand. Bush has integrity. Anyone that resorts to unfounded baseless slanders, name calling, innuendo, and personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issue has little.
You are dismissed now.
Normally I refrain from commenting on the Hollywood types and their political opinions, because, quite frankly, I don't have a lot of respect for their opinions, since they are usually no better informed than I. Usually, in fact, they are less informed than I. I'll give an example: Rosie O'Donnell was guest hosting "the View" a couple of weeks ago, and, coincidently, conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity was a guest. During the inevitable argument, Rosie and Sean being polar opposites, and both typically stubbornly Irish, Rosie got shrill and visibly upset and started shouting, "Abble Grabble" or something like that. She meant, of course, Abu Ghraib, but like I say, most of those Hollywood types are sadly misinformed.
So, that's my excuse. Apology offered.
I recently came across a blog by a guy that I never heard of but apparently is quite a well known journalist and author. He has even done guest appearances on Imus in the Morning, and is apparently a commentator on MSNBC. His name is Craig Crawford.
Anyway, I left a comment. Mine was one of the first comments made to that post. Afterwards, other folks made comments, and I was a little surprised at the liberal bias reflected in them. I will attempt to respond to some of them here.
First thing I noticed was this statement:
"I guess I am one of those pissed off at Judy Miller for her articles claiming that the U.S. found WMD in Iraq. I hope she stays in jail a long time."
My response: It "pisses" you off that there is a possibility that WMD's exist? Why?
If the revelation that there are indeed WMD's in Iraq, wouldn't that make you feel better about the U.S. being there? Why would it anger you to be assured that we are there for the right reason? It surely sounds as if you don't want Bush to be proven right. I would think if you seriously care about your country as you say, you would want it to be true. You know what I think? I think you hate Bush so badly that it matters not that people are dying for their country and for freedom, as long as you can convince yourself and others that Bush is an evil man. And I'll say what I said on Craig's blog. That is pathetic. I didn't even mention the fact that you wish hardship on a fellow human being. That's real Liberal compassion there, friend. You must be a hit at parties.
Here's another "compassionate" statement found in a different comment on the same site:
"Consider that we have twice elected a President who has difficulty expressing a coherent thought..."
(sigh) Here we go again. Where do you get the idea that President Bush is not intelligent? It certainly doesn't show up in his academic record. He graduated from Yale. That isn't exactly Whatsamatta U! And his grades were no worse than the darling of the Democrats (no offense, ER, if you didn't vote for him), John (flip flop) Kerry. Besides, I sincerely doubt anyone could achieve the office of president if he was a moron. For the sake of argument, even if he didn't win the election in 2000, he was still smart enough to come in second. But we all know he won fair and square. Besides that, what proof do you have of his supposed lack of intelligence? Want to know what I think? I think you just hate Bush so much that you are willing to either believe previous lies told about him without any evidence to back it up, or you made it up yourself, but I sincerely don't think you have enough intelligence, yourself to think something that imaginative up. I'm sorry, I don't like to say things that are mean spirited. I don't want to make anyone think I'm a liberal.
Now let me tackle a statement made in my own blogs comment section:
Ann Coulter is only hard to read because she never uses facts...She gives fraudulent examples and gives false sources. Mark said the last "book" he bought was by Ed Klein...I thought you were talking literature here. Ed Klein smears Hillary with the same venom as the Republicans Smear our Veterans and current United States Service Men And Women.
Oh really. Ann Coulter's book that I am currently reading has 46 pages of the sources from where she got her information. In small print. So much for that claim.
And it is obvious you never read the book by Klein. He doesn't smear her. In fact, he repeatedly compliments her political savvy. The rest of what he writes about her is pretty much common knowledge. There is very little in his book that we didn't already know about her, or at least suspect. Frankly, I was a little disappointed that he didn't slam her as much as he could have, but he refused to put anything in the book that he didn't have absolute confirmation on. It would have made for a better read in my view. And lets not forget that Mr Klein is a liberal himself.
And where in the world did you get the idea that Republicans smear veterans and our servicemen? That is just patently absurd. You must be drunk or mistaking them for Liberals.
Another slander:
"...how many Presidents have we had who cannot speak in complete sentences, chew a pretzel or ride a bike?"
I've already addressed the intelligence angle. That statement is quite simply, false.
As to the rest of the comment, that is so typical of the liberal attitude. I've said it often. Liberals start name calling when they can't back up their allegations. You have proved me right again. I've read the part of the constitution that outlines the qualifications one needs to become president. Guess what? It doesn't mention that a president needs to be physically coordinated. I heard the story of the president running into a guy with his bike, but so what? Does that somehow make him incompetent to lead the most powerful nation on Earth?
Let me explain this to you so that even you can understand. Bush has integrity. Anyone that resorts to unfounded baseless slanders, name calling, innuendo, and personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issue has little.
You are dismissed now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
