"O Bla Dee, O Blah Da, Life goes on, bra! La la how the life goes on!" ~ John Lennon
Many interesting things have been going on in the news since my last posting. I have a few comments about them, hopefully short ones:
Senator Ted Stevens (R) Alaska, is under investigation for alleged corruption. According to the AP:
Federal agents searched the home of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens on Monday, focusing on records related to his relationship with an oil field services contractor jailed in a public corruption investigation, a law enforcement official said.
Frankly, I'm getting a little bit sick of all the charges of corruption regarding all politicians. In particular, I am disappointed in any GOP politicians who get themselves mired in such situations. They should know the Dems are out to get them, no matter how innocuous (or unfounded) the charges, therefore, they should conduct themselves in such a manner that there could not possibly be any reason to suspect them of any malfeasance whatsoever.
You don't have to be the head checker down at the Walmart to figure that out.
Moreover, I am not so sure Stevens isn't guilty. After all, he is the author of the infamous "bridge to nowhere" legislation. That was shameful.
I am so fed up with these jerks that I am re-considering my registration as a Republican and thinking seriously of re-registering, once again, as an Independent.
A woman in Ocean City, Maryland has been charged with murder of her unborn infant after she checked into a hospital emergency room bleeding profusely. Doctors examined her and discovered a placenta and half of an umbilical cord in her, indicating she had recently given birth. When authorities searched her home, a freshly aborted infant was found, plus three more infant bodies.
She had performed an abortion on herself, possibly several.
So, my question would be: Why is she being charged with murder? Abortion is legal, is it not?
The answer to that question is simple:
No doctor made money from this particular abortion, therefore, it is illegal.
The only reason Libs want to keep the murder of pre-born infants legal in this country is money. Abortion is a multi-million dollar business.
If a doctor wants to get rich(er) in this country, all he has to do is abandon morality and start performing abortions. And assisting suicides.
Chief Justice John Roberts fell on a dock at his summer home in Maine and was transported to the hospital, where doctors determined he had a seizure. Apparently, it is not so serious that it will cause him to abandon his seat on the Supreme court.
On a whim, I decided to visit the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground to see what the "party of compassion" had to say about Roberts' sudden medical situation.
I was surprised. A few commenters were sympathetic and wished him well.
A few.
Not a majority by any stretch of the imagination, but a few. Most wished him dead.
Iraq's Soccer team won a championship and thousands, if not millions of Iraqi's celebrated the victory.
What? I thought Iraq was a quagmire with innocent Iraqi civilians cowering in fear under their beds from the evil American imperialists. How have they managed to field a whole soccer team at all, let alone a championship team?
Is it possible the American media is giving us an inaccurate and incomplete picture of military successes in Iraq? (Bite your tongue)
Ok. There's more, but I broke my promise to keep my comments short. More later, if I don't get too disgusted with all the insanity.
By the way, uneducated blogger points to whoever can identify the book and author of the quote used in the title of this entry.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Alert The Media!
"Our character...is an omen of our destiny, and the more integrity we have and keep, the simpler and nobler that destiny is likely to be." ~ George Santayana
Alert the media! I know many will be surprised, but I disagree with a Conservative talk radio show host.
I only listen to talk radio when I am driving, and often, not even then. However, when I tune into talk radio between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM weekdays, I choose to listen to either Glen Beck here on Fredericksburg's local station 1230 AM, or Chris Core, a Conservative talk show host, on WMAL, the Washington DC station.
Yesterday, I was listening to Chris Core as he explained why Michael Vick shouldn't
be sent to jail should he be convicted in the now infamous dog fighting case.
That's right. I said he thinks Vick shouldn't be sent to jail. Why?
I have to admit Mr. Core has a unique perspective. He says if Vick is convicted and sentenced to six years it would effectively end his career as an NFL star quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. This is no doubt true. However, Core insists if Vick can't play for the team, hundreds of innocent people's incomes will be adversely affected. All of the people who make their living off Atlanta's football franchise will suffer a severe loss of income, according to Mr. Core. Therefore, Vick should be fined, given community service or something else instead of jail.
In my opinion, Chris Core is way off base on this one.
To begin with, The Atlanta Falcons made money before Michael Vick, and they will continue to make money long after he is gone. They will not lose a significant amount of money just because Vick is not playing. In fact, Atlanta hasn't made it to the Super Bowl since Vick has been quarterback. They won the Superbowl without him.
The notion that anyone will lose money besides Vick himself is simply ludicrous.
Additionally, if Vick goes to jail, the Falcons will have to use someone else as starting quarterback, and who's to say they wouldn't get a better one than Vick? He really isn't the best quarterback in history. In my opinion he isn't even the best among the current quarterbacks in the NFL.
It takes at least 11 players to make a football team, and each of these 11+ players has his own role on the team. Atlanta cannot win without each and every player doing the job they are contracted to play.
One player does not a team make.
People buy tickets to watch Atlanta play, and they will continue to pay for tickets regardless of who is starting quarterback.
The possibility that some people who earn money from the Atlanta Falcons football club will lose money because one player has shown a complete lack of character and integrity is no excuse to ignore the law.
No, it wouldn't seem to be fair, but who said life is fair?
Personally, I doubt Vick will go to jail. Sports stars rarely do time, even when they are convicted. Even if he is sentenced to a term in jail, he will probably be out within a couple of years, and if I know anything of NFL history, he will play again.
If Michael Vick is found guilty, he should go to jail. Because dog fighting is a crime. Because people who get convicted of a crime of this severity should do time, regardless of who they are or how much money they earn. Because anything short of jail time would be a travesty of justice. Because the eyes of adoring children are on him and they must be taught that even sports idols are not above the law. Because integrity cannot be compromised at any price.
And because it's the law.
Alert the media! I know many will be surprised, but I disagree with a Conservative talk radio show host.
I only listen to talk radio when I am driving, and often, not even then. However, when I tune into talk radio between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM weekdays, I choose to listen to either Glen Beck here on Fredericksburg's local station 1230 AM, or Chris Core, a Conservative talk show host, on WMAL, the Washington DC station.
Yesterday, I was listening to Chris Core as he explained why Michael Vick shouldn't
be sent to jail should he be convicted in the now infamous dog fighting case.That's right. I said he thinks Vick shouldn't be sent to jail. Why?
I have to admit Mr. Core has a unique perspective. He says if Vick is convicted and sentenced to six years it would effectively end his career as an NFL star quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. This is no doubt true. However, Core insists if Vick can't play for the team, hundreds of innocent people's incomes will be adversely affected. All of the people who make their living off Atlanta's football franchise will suffer a severe loss of income, according to Mr. Core. Therefore, Vick should be fined, given community service or something else instead of jail.
In my opinion, Chris Core is way off base on this one.
To begin with, The Atlanta Falcons made money before Michael Vick, and they will continue to make money long after he is gone. They will not lose a significant amount of money just because Vick is not playing. In fact, Atlanta hasn't made it to the Super Bowl since Vick has been quarterback. They won the Superbowl without him.
The notion that anyone will lose money besides Vick himself is simply ludicrous.
Additionally, if Vick goes to jail, the Falcons will have to use someone else as starting quarterback, and who's to say they wouldn't get a better one than Vick? He really isn't the best quarterback in history. In my opinion he isn't even the best among the current quarterbacks in the NFL.
It takes at least 11 players to make a football team, and each of these 11+ players has his own role on the team. Atlanta cannot win without each and every player doing the job they are contracted to play.
One player does not a team make.
People buy tickets to watch Atlanta play, and they will continue to pay for tickets regardless of who is starting quarterback.
The possibility that some people who earn money from the Atlanta Falcons football club will lose money because one player has shown a complete lack of character and integrity is no excuse to ignore the law.
No, it wouldn't seem to be fair, but who said life is fair?
Personally, I doubt Vick will go to jail. Sports stars rarely do time, even when they are convicted. Even if he is sentenced to a term in jail, he will probably be out within a couple of years, and if I know anything of NFL history, he will play again.
If Michael Vick is found guilty, he should go to jail. Because dog fighting is a crime. Because people who get convicted of a crime of this severity should do time, regardless of who they are or how much money they earn. Because anything short of jail time would be a travesty of justice. Because the eyes of adoring children are on him and they must be taught that even sports idols are not above the law. Because integrity cannot be compromised at any price.
And because it's the law.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
An Experiment
"One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one." ~ Agatha Christie
Let's get one thing out of the way first. I don't care if Senator David Vitter's number was on the DC madam's list. I won't back off my original predictions until proven completely wrong. There are thousands of numbers on that list, and Vitter's is one of them. One out of thousands. One number does not prove me wrong. Only until every name on that list is revealed will I recant. And then, only if it proves that I was wrong, and that there are more Republicans listed than Democrats.
Until then, I have only one more comment to make on the matter:
Larry Flint, publisher of Hustler magazine has offered a million dollars to anyone who comes forward with proof of sexual scandals involving Washington politicians. He wants to publish names of all Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, and any other politicians who have been caught with their pants down, so to speak, with the exception of those who aren't "hypocrites". Those are Flints words, not mine.
Who do you suppose are hypocrites in Larry Flints eyes? Here's a hint:
Flint is a Democrat.
If any more selected names are eventually revealed by Hustler, unless the entire list is published, mark my words. All the names published will be Republicans and/or religious leaders. And the Liberally biased American media will be happy to broadcast it to the unwashed masses.
Consider the source. It's Hustler. It is the nature of the beast. This isn't rocket surgery.
Now. That was not my intended topic for this entry. The following is:
I've been giving quite a bit of thought lately, to the ideological differences between Liberals and Conservatives in several seemingly eternal and divisive issues. The war in Iraq, National (socialized) health care, global warming, taxation, and welfare, among other things.
Liberals have, for the most part, embraced the concept of a "cut and run" policy in Iraq. They have expressed a belief that if we pull our troops out of Iraq, the terrorists will be satisfied and stop murdering innocent civilians and attacking Americans, both military and civilian. After all, they believe it is the United States fault that they have found it necessary to invade Iraq and protect Iraq from the evil American Imperialists, don't they? If we weren't over there, there would be no need for them to continue to bomb us.
Conservatives insist that if we pull out before the "job is finished", chaos would overrun Iraq, and terrorists attacks will increase dramatically, both here and abroad. it has often been said by many, (me included) that we are fighting them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them over here. It is predicted if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us to our shores and begin to attack American civilians.
Osama bin Laden has said, America is a paper tiger, meaning that we are weak-willed and will cave at the slightest hint that we are in danger. President Bill Clinton's pull out of Somalia (sorry Rick and Goat) after the "Black Hawk Down" episode is the inspiration behind bin Laden's famous quote. Osama saw how America reacted to the tragic events in Somalia and became emboldened to perpetrate further attacks on America and America's interests abroad.
The Liberals would have us believe that somehow we have made him change his assessment of America's resolve.
However, they can't tell us how we did that.
Conservatives (me included) believe if we remove our troops from Iraq, bin Laden and his support groups (including the New York Slimes, Washington ComPost, etc) will see that as a sign of weakness and will immediately move to complete the annihilation of any nation that isn't 100% Muslim, according to bin Laden's narrow definition.
We believe the Islamic terrorists ultimate goal is not to force the United States and their allies out of Iraq, but rather, global domination, by converting everyone in the world to Islam. If we don't convert, the only alternative is a swift and merciless death.
There is no other choice. Anyone that believes all religions can live together in peace and harmony is delusional. The Islamic Jihadists have made their point crystal clear.
Liberals appear to believe it is possible to negotiate with terrorists to achieve an ultimate goal of a one-world global utopia, where all people can live together with mutual respect for all religious and ideological differences.
There appears to be no way to resolve these differences between Liberals and Conservatives short of testing them.
So, I propose an experiment.
Firstly, let's establish some ground rules:
It is vitally important that no word of this experiment is allowed to leak out or the results will be tainted, and any conclusions reached will be rendered meaningless and neither side will be vindicated. Under no circumstances can the media be informed.
No one can be made aware that this experiment is ongoing except a very minimum of principles involved. Only the President and a select few military leaders can be allowed to know what we are doing.
With these conditions satisfied, the President should order a massive retreat of all forces in the Middle East, down to the last cook and bottle washer. Completely leave Iraq to only the citizens and insurgents. Re-deploy all the troops to friendly countries just as close to the Iraqi border as we possibly can.
Then, we wait to see exactly what the terrorists will do in response.
If, as the Leftists insist, they quietly and peacefully disperse back to their own countries and return to farming, or banking, or drilling oil wells, or whatever they did before they enlisted into bin Ladens army, we will know at last, that the Liberals were right all along, and we can all become registered Democrats.
But if, as I suspect, they immediately step up their attacks against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and abroad, and if they do indeed follow us to America and start blowing up amusement parks, football stadiums, casinos, and government and financial buildings, it will be proven that the Conservatives have been right all along and all Americans will register as Republicans.
And, if the terrorists run amok, as I believe they will, the President should not be questioned nor criticized should he decide to just nuke the entire Mideast, and thereby eradicate Islamic terrorism once and for all.
That should settle once and for all the question of whether surrender or achieving victory is the best policy.
Next: National Health Care. Stay tuned.
Let's get one thing out of the way first. I don't care if Senator David Vitter's number was on the DC madam's list. I won't back off my original predictions until proven completely wrong. There are thousands of numbers on that list, and Vitter's is one of them. One out of thousands. One number does not prove me wrong. Only until every name on that list is revealed will I recant. And then, only if it proves that I was wrong, and that there are more Republicans listed than Democrats.
Until then, I have only one more comment to make on the matter:
Larry Flint, publisher of Hustler magazine has offered a million dollars to anyone who comes forward with proof of sexual scandals involving Washington politicians. He wants to publish names of all Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, and any other politicians who have been caught with their pants down, so to speak, with the exception of those who aren't "hypocrites". Those are Flints words, not mine.
Who do you suppose are hypocrites in Larry Flints eyes? Here's a hint:
Flint is a Democrat.
If any more selected names are eventually revealed by Hustler, unless the entire list is published, mark my words. All the names published will be Republicans and/or religious leaders. And the Liberally biased American media will be happy to broadcast it to the unwashed masses.
Consider the source. It's Hustler. It is the nature of the beast. This isn't rocket surgery.
Now. That was not my intended topic for this entry. The following is:
I've been giving quite a bit of thought lately, to the ideological differences between Liberals and Conservatives in several seemingly eternal and divisive issues. The war in Iraq, National (socialized) health care, global warming, taxation, and welfare, among other things.
Liberals have, for the most part, embraced the concept of a "cut and run" policy in Iraq. They have expressed a belief that if we pull our troops out of Iraq, the terrorists will be satisfied and stop murdering innocent civilians and attacking Americans, both military and civilian. After all, they believe it is the United States fault that they have found it necessary to invade Iraq and protect Iraq from the evil American Imperialists, don't they? If we weren't over there, there would be no need for them to continue to bomb us.
Conservatives insist that if we pull out before the "job is finished", chaos would overrun Iraq, and terrorists attacks will increase dramatically, both here and abroad. it has often been said by many, (me included) that we are fighting them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them over here. It is predicted if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us to our shores and begin to attack American civilians.
Osama bin Laden has said, America is a paper tiger, meaning that we are weak-willed and will cave at the slightest hint that we are in danger. President Bill Clinton's pull out of Somalia (sorry Rick and Goat) after the "Black Hawk Down" episode is the inspiration behind bin Laden's famous quote. Osama saw how America reacted to the tragic events in Somalia and became emboldened to perpetrate further attacks on America and America's interests abroad.
The Liberals would have us believe that somehow we have made him change his assessment of America's resolve.
However, they can't tell us how we did that.
Conservatives (me included) believe if we remove our troops from Iraq, bin Laden and his support groups (including the New York Slimes, Washington ComPost, etc) will see that as a sign of weakness and will immediately move to complete the annihilation of any nation that isn't 100% Muslim, according to bin Laden's narrow definition.
We believe the Islamic terrorists ultimate goal is not to force the United States and their allies out of Iraq, but rather, global domination, by converting everyone in the world to Islam. If we don't convert, the only alternative is a swift and merciless death.
There is no other choice. Anyone that believes all religions can live together in peace and harmony is delusional. The Islamic Jihadists have made their point crystal clear.
Liberals appear to believe it is possible to negotiate with terrorists to achieve an ultimate goal of a one-world global utopia, where all people can live together with mutual respect for all religious and ideological differences.
There appears to be no way to resolve these differences between Liberals and Conservatives short of testing them.
So, I propose an experiment.
Firstly, let's establish some ground rules:
It is vitally important that no word of this experiment is allowed to leak out or the results will be tainted, and any conclusions reached will be rendered meaningless and neither side will be vindicated. Under no circumstances can the media be informed.
No one can be made aware that this experiment is ongoing except a very minimum of principles involved. Only the President and a select few military leaders can be allowed to know what we are doing.
With these conditions satisfied, the President should order a massive retreat of all forces in the Middle East, down to the last cook and bottle washer. Completely leave Iraq to only the citizens and insurgents. Re-deploy all the troops to friendly countries just as close to the Iraqi border as we possibly can.
Then, we wait to see exactly what the terrorists will do in response.
If, as the Leftists insist, they quietly and peacefully disperse back to their own countries and return to farming, or banking, or drilling oil wells, or whatever they did before they enlisted into bin Ladens army, we will know at last, that the Liberals were right all along, and we can all become registered Democrats.
But if, as I suspect, they immediately step up their attacks against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and abroad, and if they do indeed follow us to America and start blowing up amusement parks, football stadiums, casinos, and government and financial buildings, it will be proven that the Conservatives have been right all along and all Americans will register as Republicans.
And, if the terrorists run amok, as I believe they will, the President should not be questioned nor criticized should he decide to just nuke the entire Mideast, and thereby eradicate Islamic terrorism once and for all.
That should settle once and for all the question of whether surrender or achieving victory is the best policy.
Next: National Health Care. Stay tuned.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Another Sandwich Story
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us, Tae see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An’ foolish notion" ~ Robert Burns
Lone Ranger posted a humorous story today which reminded me of an interesting incident that happened to me once, many years ago, when the earth was cooling. So, I thought I'd depart from the usual political, moral outrage kind of blog entry and tell this true story:
My first wife and I went to a McDonalds for lunch. She found a place for us to sit and told me what she wanted to est, a fish sandwich with cheese and a pickle on it, and I went to the counter to place our order.
Try to imagine my surprise when the counter person informed me that they couldn't sell me a fish sandwich with a pickle. They said they weren't allowed to place a pickle on a fish sandwich.
"Why?" I asked. At this point, I am merely curious. It makes no difference to me whether her fish sandwich is made to her specific specifications or not. But, admittedly, I was mildly chagrined that this seemingly innocuous request should be denied.
"It's just not the way we make them", I was told.
No other explanation.
"You can't put a pickle on a fish sandwich". I repeated, and then, "You can't put a pickle on a fish sandwich?... Why can't you make them that way?"
"It's the rules."
I then proceeded to ask the same question ten different ways, and the only answer I got was, "It's the rules."
"Why is it the rules?" I was getting heated.
"I don't know," answered the counter person.
"Let me speak to your manager", I demanded.
Shortly, the manager appeared, and it was clear he had been prepped in advance to deal with an unreasonable customer. "How can I help you?" he asked, a little too sweetly.
I tried very hard to control my temper, as I intoned, "This person is trying to tell me McDonalds isn't allowed to put pickles on fish sandwiches."
The manager smiled grimly. I've read that phrase in cheap paperbacks before, but I must confess I'd never really understood how one could "smile grimly" until this moment. "That's correct" , he said, then placed his body in a defensive position, probably in expectation of a physical confrontation.
"Why?" I said again, for the hundredth time, "Why can't McDonalds put a pickle on a fish sandwich?"
"Sir, McDonalds is a corporation whose success is dependent on very specific ways of preparing the product, which maximises the marketability of the McDonalds product. If we were to change the things that make our company successful, it could seriously impair our ability to stay in business" , he explained, and then added, helpfully, "We can sell you our regular fish sandwich and put a pickle on the side for you."
Ignoring the now obvious and flawless logic of why McDonalds refuses to capitulate to an irate customer's unreasonable demands, I asked, "If you can put a pickle on the side, why can't you just eliminate the extra step and expense of using up a superfluous paper container by simply putting the pickle on the sandwich?"
"Can't do it. Not allowed. I could literally be fired for breaking the rule. It's kind of like a copyright. If we put a pickle on the fish sandwich we run the risk of infringing on some one else's copyright."
"I won't tell anyone." I was being sincere.
"Nope, sorry."
I changed strategy. "OK. Tell me something. What are you allowed to put on fish sandwiches?"
"Fish, cheese, and tartar sauce. We are allowed to sell fish sandwiches without the cheese or the tartar sauce, but we can't put a pickle on the sandwich."
"What's in the tartar sauce?" I asked, innocently.
"You mean, what's the tartar sauce made of? I'm not completely sure of all the ingredients. I think it's mostly mayonnaise and pickles."
"Then" , I said, triumphantly, "I want you to put tartar sauce on the sandwich, but leave out every ingredient except the pickles."
He hesitated. "I'm sorry, sir..." he began, but apparently found himself at a loss for words. He didn't finish the thought.
"OK", I caved. "Give me the sandwich with the pickle on the side."
I took the order to our table and an impatient angry first wife, and sat down fuming.
First wife asked, "What took you so long?"
I answered her, but that's a whole other chapter in the story.
Lone Ranger posted a humorous story today which reminded me of an interesting incident that happened to me once, many years ago, when the earth was cooling. So, I thought I'd depart from the usual political, moral outrage kind of blog entry and tell this true story:
My first wife and I went to a McDonalds for lunch. She found a place for us to sit and told me what she wanted to est, a fish sandwich with cheese and a pickle on it, and I went to the counter to place our order.
Try to imagine my surprise when the counter person informed me that they couldn't sell me a fish sandwich with a pickle. They said they weren't allowed to place a pickle on a fish sandwich.
"Why?" I asked. At this point, I am merely curious. It makes no difference to me whether her fish sandwich is made to her specific specifications or not. But, admittedly, I was mildly chagrined that this seemingly innocuous request should be denied.
"It's just not the way we make them", I was told.
No other explanation.
"You can't put a pickle on a fish sandwich". I repeated, and then, "You can't put a pickle on a fish sandwich?... Why can't you make them that way?"
"It's the rules."
I then proceeded to ask the same question ten different ways, and the only answer I got was, "It's the rules."
"Why is it the rules?" I was getting heated.
"I don't know," answered the counter person.
"Let me speak to your manager", I demanded.
Shortly, the manager appeared, and it was clear he had been prepped in advance to deal with an unreasonable customer. "How can I help you?" he asked, a little too sweetly.
I tried very hard to control my temper, as I intoned, "This person is trying to tell me McDonalds isn't allowed to put pickles on fish sandwiches."
The manager smiled grimly. I've read that phrase in cheap paperbacks before, but I must confess I'd never really understood how one could "smile grimly" until this moment. "That's correct" , he said, then placed his body in a defensive position, probably in expectation of a physical confrontation.
"Why?" I said again, for the hundredth time, "Why can't McDonalds put a pickle on a fish sandwich?"
"Sir, McDonalds is a corporation whose success is dependent on very specific ways of preparing the product, which maximises the marketability of the McDonalds product. If we were to change the things that make our company successful, it could seriously impair our ability to stay in business" , he explained, and then added, helpfully, "We can sell you our regular fish sandwich and put a pickle on the side for you."
Ignoring the now obvious and flawless logic of why McDonalds refuses to capitulate to an irate customer's unreasonable demands, I asked, "If you can put a pickle on the side, why can't you just eliminate the extra step and expense of using up a superfluous paper container by simply putting the pickle on the sandwich?"
"Can't do it. Not allowed. I could literally be fired for breaking the rule. It's kind of like a copyright. If we put a pickle on the fish sandwich we run the risk of infringing on some one else's copyright."
"I won't tell anyone." I was being sincere.
"Nope, sorry."
I changed strategy. "OK. Tell me something. What are you allowed to put on fish sandwiches?"
"Fish, cheese, and tartar sauce. We are allowed to sell fish sandwiches without the cheese or the tartar sauce, but we can't put a pickle on the sandwich."
"What's in the tartar sauce?" I asked, innocently.
"You mean, what's the tartar sauce made of? I'm not completely sure of all the ingredients. I think it's mostly mayonnaise and pickles."
"Then" , I said, triumphantly, "I want you to put tartar sauce on the sandwich, but leave out every ingredient except the pickles."
He hesitated. "I'm sorry, sir..." he began, but apparently found himself at a loss for words. He didn't finish the thought.
"OK", I caved. "Give me the sandwich with the pickle on the side."
I took the order to our table and an impatient angry first wife, and sat down fuming.
First wife asked, "What took you so long?"
I answered her, but that's a whole other chapter in the story.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Independence Day 2007
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Poison Pero posted the entire Declaration of Independence on his blog today and upon reading it I am struck by the relevance the ancient document has on events today.
The United States of America was founded as a Republic and governed by a Democratic process of government, which as Abraham Lincoln so aptly described, is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Today, it seems many of our duly elected representatives, both Republican and Democrat, have forgotten that the our Government is actually governed by the people, and not by them.
The recent vote on the Presidents immigration bill proposal has proven that once and in a while, our representatives must be reminded who is really in charge. The switchboards on Capitol Hill were literally jammed with calls. Calls that effectively communicated the will of the United States real government, that of the people of this great land.
I was born in freedom and liberty as were most who read this. Too often we forget what true freedom really is, but we need only to ask someone who was not born and raised in freedom to truly understand the gift that our founding fathers have bestowed on us.
As we celebrate our Independence on this Independence day of 2007, try to remember what the founders of this great republic had to endure to bring freedom to you and me, and to our children. And resolve this day to resist the usurping of our God given authority by certain elected so-called representatives of "we the people".
Enjoy your celebration.
Poison Pero posted the entire Declaration of Independence on his blog today and upon reading it I am struck by the relevance the ancient document has on events today.
The United States of America was founded as a Republic and governed by a Democratic process of government, which as Abraham Lincoln so aptly described, is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Today, it seems many of our duly elected representatives, both Republican and Democrat, have forgotten that the our Government is actually governed by the people, and not by them.
The recent vote on the Presidents immigration bill proposal has proven that once and in a while, our representatives must be reminded who is really in charge. The switchboards on Capitol Hill were literally jammed with calls. Calls that effectively communicated the will of the United States real government, that of the people of this great land.
I was born in freedom and liberty as were most who read this. Too often we forget what true freedom really is, but we need only to ask someone who was not born and raised in freedom to truly understand the gift that our founding fathers have bestowed on us.
As we celebrate our Independence on this Independence day of 2007, try to remember what the founders of this great republic had to endure to bring freedom to you and me, and to our children. And resolve this day to resist the usurping of our God given authority by certain elected so-called representatives of "we the people".
Enjoy your celebration.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Fairness? Doctrine?
"I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." ~ Charles De Gaulle
So now the immigration bill is dead, thanks the people exerting their will to force their Congressmen to do what they hired them to do.
If an illegal immigrant obeyed his boss like our senators and congressmen obey their bosses (constituents), he would be fired and quite possibly be forced to sneak back across the border. And his employers would save themselves a buck fifty an hour until they can hire another illegal alien.
So now the bill is tabled until the Democrats win the next Presidential election. Well, I can wait. Can't you?
Now, the next issue that confronts us and threatens to destroy America from within, is the so-called fairness doctrine.
This issue is neither doctrinal or fair.
This is yet another pathetic attempt by the losers...er...Democrats to stifle Conservatives first amendment rights to free speech. Not Liberals right to free speech. Conservatives.
Can you imagine the outrage that would pour from Conservatives if Liberals had control of the nations airwaves? What would happen if we were subjected to Liberal spin every time we turned on radio or television news?
Wait a minute. What am I saying? They already do control America's airwaves. If you don't believe that, turn on your television, click your remote to any news channel you wish. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, even FOX News. They are all overwhelmingly Liberal, although admittedly, FOX News isn't as Liberal as the others. But they do present Liberal viewpoints objectively.
When CNN or any of those others listed presents a point-counterpoint type panel discussion, the Liberal points are well represented, usually by 3-4 Liberal attorneys, politicians, and/or reporters. The usually lone Conservative viewpoint is well represented by the third vice president of The John Birch Society or something.
I have a novel idea. I think we should give the Democrats what they want. Allow equal time to Liberals during Conservative and religious talk radio shows. For instance, Rush has a three hour daily show. Let the Liberals have one and a half hours of Rush's show to state their point of view. They could put on someone who rivals Rush in popularity such as Janeane Garafalo or Al Franken.
OK. I'm kidding about Franken and Garafalo.
Hijack half of Focus on the Family to promote Al Gore's religion, Global Warming. Let's be fair, and give him a chance to convert the unbelievers.
Take one and a half hours of Sean Hannity's radio show and give it over to say...Alec Baldwin to present his side. I see nothing wrong with doing that.
After all, that's fair, isn't it?
After a couple of months, radio will go back to an all music, all the time format. Why? Because people will stop listening to talk radio altogether. It isn't that I want to return to radio stations that play nothing but music, but I think my suggestion would prove the point to those who wish to legislate equality in airtime.
See, Politicians can make laws making it illegal to present only one side of an issue all they want.
But they can't make people listen.
Actually, the only way the Democrats could force radio and television stations to present opposing views equally, and make it a success, would be to also make a law requiring the people to listen.
But then we would have a "Big Brother" society, and Democrats don't really want that, do they?
So now the immigration bill is dead, thanks the people exerting their will to force their Congressmen to do what they hired them to do.
If an illegal immigrant obeyed his boss like our senators and congressmen obey their bosses (constituents), he would be fired and quite possibly be forced to sneak back across the border. And his employers would save themselves a buck fifty an hour until they can hire another illegal alien.
So now the bill is tabled until the Democrats win the next Presidential election. Well, I can wait. Can't you?
Now, the next issue that confronts us and threatens to destroy America from within, is the so-called fairness doctrine.
This issue is neither doctrinal or fair.
This is yet another pathetic attempt by the losers...er...Democrats to stifle Conservatives first amendment rights to free speech. Not Liberals right to free speech. Conservatives.
Can you imagine the outrage that would pour from Conservatives if Liberals had control of the nations airwaves? What would happen if we were subjected to Liberal spin every time we turned on radio or television news?
Wait a minute. What am I saying? They already do control America's airwaves. If you don't believe that, turn on your television, click your remote to any news channel you wish. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, even FOX News. They are all overwhelmingly Liberal, although admittedly, FOX News isn't as Liberal as the others. But they do present Liberal viewpoints objectively.
When CNN or any of those others listed presents a point-counterpoint type panel discussion, the Liberal points are well represented, usually by 3-4 Liberal attorneys, politicians, and/or reporters. The usually lone Conservative viewpoint is well represented by the third vice president of The John Birch Society or something.
I have a novel idea. I think we should give the Democrats what they want. Allow equal time to Liberals during Conservative and religious talk radio shows. For instance, Rush has a three hour daily show. Let the Liberals have one and a half hours of Rush's show to state their point of view. They could put on someone who rivals Rush in popularity such as Janeane Garafalo or Al Franken.
OK. I'm kidding about Franken and Garafalo.
Hijack half of Focus on the Family to promote Al Gore's religion, Global Warming. Let's be fair, and give him a chance to convert the unbelievers.
Take one and a half hours of Sean Hannity's radio show and give it over to say...Alec Baldwin to present his side. I see nothing wrong with doing that.
After all, that's fair, isn't it?
After a couple of months, radio will go back to an all music, all the time format. Why? Because people will stop listening to talk radio altogether. It isn't that I want to return to radio stations that play nothing but music, but I think my suggestion would prove the point to those who wish to legislate equality in airtime.
See, Politicians can make laws making it illegal to present only one side of an issue all they want.
But they can't make people listen.
Actually, the only way the Democrats could force radio and television stations to present opposing views equally, and make it a success, would be to also make a law requiring the people to listen.
But then we would have a "Big Brother" society, and Democrats don't really want that, do they?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
An Illegal Abortion
"If it were not for injustice, men would not know justice." ~ Heraclitus
Gayle, The Dragon Lady (not Hillary) mentioned over at her place, that she recently experienced some temporary blogger's block. I have suffered somewhat the same malady, except mine wouldn't be considered bloggers' block so much as a lack of passion. I just haven't been feeling that particular sense of outrage that makes me want to sit down and start pecking on this keyboard.
But yesterday, I heard the news that the body of a missing pregnant woman had been found, and her boyfriend, the father of her unborn child, arrested for her murder. That draws out the old familiar passion. Why passion for this one singular case as opposed to all the hundreds of murders that go on continually across this country?
The boyfriend, a police officer, was arrested on two counts of murder.
Two counts? He allegedly killed one woman. He only aborted the baby. After all, the baby wasn't out of the womb yet.
Why is he being charged with murder for something doctors all over the world are doing everyday legally?
According to Liberal law, made legitimate through unashamed Liberal manipulation of the Supreme Court of the United States, the unborn baby of Jesse Davis was not even a viable human being. The fetus before birth is actually only a lump of tissue. Why is it illegal to simply remove a lump of non-viable tissue? How, in our Liberal world, can Bobby Cutts Jr. be charged with murder?
It seems to me, if we are to be bound by the Supreme Courts ruling, the most he should be charged with in regard to the removal of a lump of tissue, is performing an abortion without a license, or maybe performing an abortion without presenting his girlfriend with a bill for his services.
Why isn't NARAL objecting to the additional charge of murder? Or Planned Parenthood? Or NOW?
Well, it's early yet.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU defends him, if not against both charges of murder, at least the charge of murder of the unborn baby. Sorry, I mean fetus.
Of course I am being facetious. The fact is, this time the law got it right. The killing of an unborn infant is murder. It's murder whether it is committed by an evil, murderous cop or a legally licensed doctor. Murder is murder. And murdering an unborn baby is particularly heinous.
To prosecute this murder and not abortionists is as much a murder of reason as it is a murder of a baby.
Oh, one more observation. The accused murderer is a black man. That means along with the ACLU, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will soon be descending on Canton bloviating about how Bobby Cutts is only being accused because he is black or because his civil rights are being violated or something. Somehow, they will manage to bring racism into the equation. They will probably blame the murders on the dead white woman.
But wait. In this Liberal society, logic doesn't count. Only emotion.
Gayle, The Dragon Lady (not Hillary) mentioned over at her place, that she recently experienced some temporary blogger's block. I have suffered somewhat the same malady, except mine wouldn't be considered bloggers' block so much as a lack of passion. I just haven't been feeling that particular sense of outrage that makes me want to sit down and start pecking on this keyboard.
But yesterday, I heard the news that the body of a missing pregnant woman had been found, and her boyfriend, the father of her unborn child, arrested for her murder. That draws out the old familiar passion. Why passion for this one singular case as opposed to all the hundreds of murders that go on continually across this country?
The boyfriend, a police officer, was arrested on two counts of murder.
Two counts? He allegedly killed one woman. He only aborted the baby. After all, the baby wasn't out of the womb yet.
Why is he being charged with murder for something doctors all over the world are doing everyday legally?
According to Liberal law, made legitimate through unashamed Liberal manipulation of the Supreme Court of the United States, the unborn baby of Jesse Davis was not even a viable human being. The fetus before birth is actually only a lump of tissue. Why is it illegal to simply remove a lump of non-viable tissue? How, in our Liberal world, can Bobby Cutts Jr. be charged with murder?
It seems to me, if we are to be bound by the Supreme Courts ruling, the most he should be charged with in regard to the removal of a lump of tissue, is performing an abortion without a license, or maybe performing an abortion without presenting his girlfriend with a bill for his services.
Why isn't NARAL objecting to the additional charge of murder? Or Planned Parenthood? Or NOW?
Well, it's early yet.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU defends him, if not against both charges of murder, at least the charge of murder of the unborn baby. Sorry, I mean fetus.
Of course I am being facetious. The fact is, this time the law got it right. The killing of an unborn infant is murder. It's murder whether it is committed by an evil, murderous cop or a legally licensed doctor. Murder is murder. And murdering an unborn baby is particularly heinous.
To prosecute this murder and not abortionists is as much a murder of reason as it is a murder of a baby.
Oh, one more observation. The accused murderer is a black man. That means along with the ACLU, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will soon be descending on Canton bloviating about how Bobby Cutts is only being accused because he is black or because his civil rights are being violated or something. Somehow, they will manage to bring racism into the equation. They will probably blame the murders on the dead white woman.
But wait. In this Liberal society, logic doesn't count. Only emotion.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
How Was Your Father's day?
"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child!" ~ William Shakespeare
How was your Father's day? Mine was adequate, due to the fact that my Fiancee made a big deal over it for me. I am not her father, so I don't understand the point, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
I have five kids. One gave me a gift. One called me and wished me happy Father's day. That's all. It's ok. I am not a good father anyway. It seems to me one should have to be a good father to deserve Father's day gifts.
My father was a good father. He must have been. He raised 6 kids, and all but one have become very successful, upstanding adults with fine upstanding kids of their own. None but me have ever been divorced and none but me have had kids who became juvenile delinguents, or any other kind of criminal.
My father is dead.
I really have no reason to celebrate Father's day, but I do appreciate it when others wish me well becaue I am a father.
I think my Father's day was pretty appropriate for me. I spent the majority of the day screaming as I tried to assemble an "easy to assemble" charcoal grill so I could spend 10 minutes grilling burgers for my fiancee's dad at his house. I bet I dropped a wingnut, or screw, or washer, or something on the ground at least 100 times. Who designs these things? Did the person who designed these things consider that it is all but impossible to attach a grill lid to a grill using wingnuts and screws while the lid is closed?
My son opted to stay home. It seems he prefers watching skateboard videos alone, at home, to spending time with his dad on Father's day.
But I'm not bitter. As I said, I believe one should have to be a good father to deserve Father's day wishes and gifts. It's not that I haven't tried my best, but I am not a good father.
To have a thankless child!" ~ William Shakespeare
How was your Father's day? Mine was adequate, due to the fact that my Fiancee made a big deal over it for me. I am not her father, so I don't understand the point, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
I have five kids. One gave me a gift. One called me and wished me happy Father's day. That's all. It's ok. I am not a good father anyway. It seems to me one should have to be a good father to deserve Father's day gifts.
My father was a good father. He must have been. He raised 6 kids, and all but one have become very successful, upstanding adults with fine upstanding kids of their own. None but me have ever been divorced and none but me have had kids who became juvenile delinguents, or any other kind of criminal.
My father is dead.
I really have no reason to celebrate Father's day, but I do appreciate it when others wish me well becaue I am a father.
I think my Father's day was pretty appropriate for me. I spent the majority of the day screaming as I tried to assemble an "easy to assemble" charcoal grill so I could spend 10 minutes grilling burgers for my fiancee's dad at his house. I bet I dropped a wingnut, or screw, or washer, or something on the ground at least 100 times. Who designs these things? Did the person who designed these things consider that it is all but impossible to attach a grill lid to a grill using wingnuts and screws while the lid is closed?
My son opted to stay home. It seems he prefers watching skateboard videos alone, at home, to spending time with his dad on Father's day.
But I'm not bitter. As I said, I believe one should have to be a good father to deserve Father's day wishes and gifts. It's not that I haven't tried my best, but I am not a good father.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Discretion
"Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." ~ Ulysses Everet McGill (From "O Brother, Where art thou?")
I wrote this enormously long comment over at Eric's place and then decided instead to go ahead and post my comment as an entry here, but after I copied what I wrote over there, and deleted it, I then copied another statement, thereby losing the entire content of my comment, which I failed to paste here first.
Does that make sense to anyone?
So, I am going to attempt to rewrite it. The original was brilliant, and this one will no doubt be far inferior to that one.
I begin with the original comment to which I was attempting to respond, (Parentheses are mine)to wit:
Erudite Redneck said...
Re, "Freedom of speech is not license to speak harmful hyperoble. (sic)" (This statement was copied and pasted from Art's comment, made previously)
Yes, it is.
It is perfectly acceptable -- in fact, it is my patriotic duty! -- to scream FIRE in a theater if the theater is ON FIRE!
This country is on fire! And warmongering imperialists like George W. Bush and his lackeys -- using the concept of liberty as a makeshift human shield, as if she were a slut they can buy and sell, to hide their intent -- set the fire! Liberty?
They wants (sic?) no liberty. They want an empire because they think THAT lowly of this country. They want it to be equal to the Ottoman, or the Soviet, or the Roman empire, the lowest forms of government -- beneath the worst of their subjects.
But we are CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS. And my First Amendment rights are more important that this stupid Iraq war, this president, or EITHER party. And if ewither (sic) of you think othersise (sic), you are, in fact, traitors to the ideals of this nation. You've sold your birthright for a mess of porridge labeled "Bush," who is no conservative, no leader, no statesman, and no commander -- and you know it.
Yes. Well. I see we're back to an impasse.
God bless the Congress of these united states (No capitalization? Could this be Freudian?): May it find its balls and take OUT this brainless, godless, soulless, senseless president before he destroys this country.
G'night.
Now, I try to be fair and acknowledge a commenter when said commenter makes (in my opinion) a valid point, and this time is no exception. ER makes a valid point.
"Obi Wan" Pelosi and Harry "The body" Reid, are indeed guaranteed a first amendment right to make statements in dissension against American policy. They can announce the war is lost, or the surge is not working, or any General with whom they happen to disagree with is incompetent, even when they have no experience in military command themselves. They have every right to say anything they want.
They also have the right to be wrong. And stupid. And disagreeable.
But I think they have to also make use of some discretion when making statements that could undermine the efforts of our military, and at the same time, embolden our enemies.
Yes, we have a patriotic duty to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre when it is indeed on fire, however, wouldn't the chances of an ensuing panic be lessened somewhat by quietly going to each patron and calm urging them to leave the theatre quietly and orderly, yet quickly? Shouting fire would cause even more havoc, would it not? Wouldn't less people be injured by remaining calm than would be injured by a mad rush to the exits?
The press is complicit in this, too. Some of us are old enough to remember when the press used discretion. They knew more than they reported, yet they refused to divulge details that could compromise the country and politicians. They do that today, also, but not to protect The United States or it's leaders. Instead, they do it now to protect the guilty, tear down our leaders, and to undermine our country.
FDR, Eisenhower, and Jack Kennedy all cheated on their spouses but the average American didn't hear about it because the press didn't report the affairs. Babe Ruth and other famous sport stars lived scandalous private lives, but their accomplishments in their respective arenas were what the press reported. Reporting their bad behavior would have accomplished nothing positive.
Nothing.
Conversely, Today's media reports every negative accomplishment they can find, while playing down or even completely ignoring positive accomplishments of our leaders and our troops.
What word is the opposite of discretion? if there is such a word, it certainly applies to the modern media.
We all have the right to say whatever we want. But we also have the right...nay...the responsibility to use discretion, especially when refraining from doing so can result in catastrophe. Do Reid, Murtha, Pelosi, Durbin, and the others who continually harangue America and her troops use discretion? Does the press? Do any of them really care if American troops are killed as a result of their making use of their right to free speech?
I suspect the answer to that question can only be found in their hearts.
So, making liberal use of their first amendment right of free speech is not treasonous. But it certainly isn't helping our leaders and our troops, is it? What is the definition of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy?"
Taking advantage of our right to free speech to undermine our troops and our country's leaders isn't giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It's just not giving aid and comfort to our side.
Apparently, there's a fine line between patriotism and treason.
Hey! I think this post is even better than my comment over there!
I wrote this enormously long comment over at Eric's place and then decided instead to go ahead and post my comment as an entry here, but after I copied what I wrote over there, and deleted it, I then copied another statement, thereby losing the entire content of my comment, which I failed to paste here first.
Does that make sense to anyone?
So, I am going to attempt to rewrite it. The original was brilliant, and this one will no doubt be far inferior to that one.
I begin with the original comment to which I was attempting to respond, (Parentheses are mine)to wit:
Erudite Redneck said...
Re, "Freedom of speech is not license to speak harmful hyperoble. (sic)" (This statement was copied and pasted from Art's comment, made previously)
Yes, it is.
It is perfectly acceptable -- in fact, it is my patriotic duty! -- to scream FIRE in a theater if the theater is ON FIRE!
This country is on fire! And warmongering imperialists like George W. Bush and his lackeys -- using the concept of liberty as a makeshift human shield, as if she were a slut they can buy and sell, to hide their intent -- set the fire! Liberty?
They wants (sic?) no liberty. They want an empire because they think THAT lowly of this country. They want it to be equal to the Ottoman, or the Soviet, or the Roman empire, the lowest forms of government -- beneath the worst of their subjects.
But we are CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS. And my First Amendment rights are more important that this stupid Iraq war, this president, or EITHER party. And if ewither (sic) of you think othersise (sic), you are, in fact, traitors to the ideals of this nation. You've sold your birthright for a mess of porridge labeled "Bush," who is no conservative, no leader, no statesman, and no commander -- and you know it.
Yes. Well. I see we're back to an impasse.
God bless the Congress of these united states (No capitalization? Could this be Freudian?): May it find its balls and take OUT this brainless, godless, soulless, senseless president before he destroys this country.
G'night.
Now, I try to be fair and acknowledge a commenter when said commenter makes (in my opinion) a valid point, and this time is no exception. ER makes a valid point.
"Obi Wan" Pelosi and Harry "The body" Reid, are indeed guaranteed a first amendment right to make statements in dissension against American policy. They can announce the war is lost, or the surge is not working, or any General with whom they happen to disagree with is incompetent, even when they have no experience in military command themselves. They have every right to say anything they want.
They also have the right to be wrong. And stupid. And disagreeable.
But I think they have to also make use of some discretion when making statements that could undermine the efforts of our military, and at the same time, embolden our enemies.
Yes, we have a patriotic duty to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre when it is indeed on fire, however, wouldn't the chances of an ensuing panic be lessened somewhat by quietly going to each patron and calm urging them to leave the theatre quietly and orderly, yet quickly? Shouting fire would cause even more havoc, would it not? Wouldn't less people be injured by remaining calm than would be injured by a mad rush to the exits?
The press is complicit in this, too. Some of us are old enough to remember when the press used discretion. They knew more than they reported, yet they refused to divulge details that could compromise the country and politicians. They do that today, also, but not to protect The United States or it's leaders. Instead, they do it now to protect the guilty, tear down our leaders, and to undermine our country.
FDR, Eisenhower, and Jack Kennedy all cheated on their spouses but the average American didn't hear about it because the press didn't report the affairs. Babe Ruth and other famous sport stars lived scandalous private lives, but their accomplishments in their respective arenas were what the press reported. Reporting their bad behavior would have accomplished nothing positive.
Nothing.
Conversely, Today's media reports every negative accomplishment they can find, while playing down or even completely ignoring positive accomplishments of our leaders and our troops.
What word is the opposite of discretion? if there is such a word, it certainly applies to the modern media.
We all have the right to say whatever we want. But we also have the right...nay...the responsibility to use discretion, especially when refraining from doing so can result in catastrophe. Do Reid, Murtha, Pelosi, Durbin, and the others who continually harangue America and her troops use discretion? Does the press? Do any of them really care if American troops are killed as a result of their making use of their right to free speech?
I suspect the answer to that question can only be found in their hearts.
So, making liberal use of their first amendment right of free speech is not treasonous. But it certainly isn't helping our leaders and our troops, is it? What is the definition of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy?"
Taking advantage of our right to free speech to undermine our troops and our country's leaders isn't giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It's just not giving aid and comfort to our side.
Apparently, there's a fine line between patriotism and treason.
Hey! I think this post is even better than my comment over there!
Thursday, June 14, 2007
MADDENING!... Or A Suit With No Pair Of Pants
"Speak when you are angry--and you will make the best speech you'll ever regret." ~ Laurence J. Peter
Last night, I heard a story on WABC radio that I hadn't heard anywhere else, and I thought it was interesting enough to create a blog entry about, but now I can't remember what it was, and I can't find it anywhere on the Internet. It's maddening.
It sucks to get old and start losing ones short term memory.
I have been hearing a lot about one story, though, but I can't think of any comment to make about it, because the story speaks for itself. It is also maddening. Any comment I could make would be superfluous so, I won't comment, but I welcome comments from readers. From ABC news:
A Washington, D.C. law judge broke down in tears and had to take a break from his testimony because he became too emotional while questioning himself about his experience with a missing pair of pants.
Administrative law judge Roy Pearson is representing himself in civil court and claimed that he is owed $54 million from a local dry cleaner who he says lost his pants, despite a sign in their store which ensures "Satisfaction Guaranteed."
The case gained national attention soon after the lawsuit was filed. The pants are expected to be introduced into evidence, although the judge says the pants are not his, and the correct pants are still missing.
The sartorial loss caused Pearson to suffer what he calls severe "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."
You can read more here, if you aren't already nauseous.
Wait. I do want to make one comment. It entails a seeming contradiction in the Judge's story. Has the attorney for the defendant taken note of this?
According to ABC's initial reporting of the story: The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.
"Satisfaction Guaranteed."
Yet, the latest ABC installment reports:
Pearson has a long history with the Chungs. In 2002, after a disagreement over another pair of Pearson's pant which Custom Cleaners allegedly lost - and compensated him for with $150 - Pearson was banned from the store, defense attorney Christopher Manning claimed in court.
Manning said that Pearson pleaded with the Chungs to let him back into the store, because he didn't have a car, he said, and they were the only dry cleaners in the neighborhood.
So which is the real reason? Did Pearson patronize the store because they advertised satisfaction guaranteed, or because they were the only store he could walk to?
By the way, I've seen similar behavior from dry cleaning patrons before. A few years ago I witnessed a shameful tirade from a wealthy woman directed at a black dry cleaning store owner. She was angry that he failed to remove a spot from her dress. For those who don't already know this, there are some stains that dry cleaning can't remove.
She said, "Why don't you people stay in the ghetto where you belong?"
Could this lawsuit be racially motivated? Whether it is or isn't, I will be surprised if Manning doesn't somehow connect a racial motivation to Pearson's suit. Let's keep an eye on this.
Last night, I heard a story on WABC radio that I hadn't heard anywhere else, and I thought it was interesting enough to create a blog entry about, but now I can't remember what it was, and I can't find it anywhere on the Internet. It's maddening.
It sucks to get old and start losing ones short term memory.
I have been hearing a lot about one story, though, but I can't think of any comment to make about it, because the story speaks for itself. It is also maddening. Any comment I could make would be superfluous so, I won't comment, but I welcome comments from readers. From ABC news:
A Washington, D.C. law judge broke down in tears and had to take a break from his testimony because he became too emotional while questioning himself about his experience with a missing pair of pants.
Administrative law judge Roy Pearson is representing himself in civil court and claimed that he is owed $54 million from a local dry cleaner who he says lost his pants, despite a sign in their store which ensures "Satisfaction Guaranteed."
The case gained national attention soon after the lawsuit was filed. The pants are expected to be introduced into evidence, although the judge says the pants are not his, and the correct pants are still missing.
The sartorial loss caused Pearson to suffer what he calls severe "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."
You can read more here, if you aren't already nauseous.
Wait. I do want to make one comment. It entails a seeming contradiction in the Judge's story. Has the attorney for the defendant taken note of this?
According to ABC's initial reporting of the story: The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.
"Satisfaction Guaranteed."
Yet, the latest ABC installment reports:
Pearson has a long history with the Chungs. In 2002, after a disagreement over another pair of Pearson's pant which Custom Cleaners allegedly lost - and compensated him for with $150 - Pearson was banned from the store, defense attorney Christopher Manning claimed in court.
Manning said that Pearson pleaded with the Chungs to let him back into the store, because he didn't have a car, he said, and they were the only dry cleaners in the neighborhood.
So which is the real reason? Did Pearson patronize the store because they advertised satisfaction guaranteed, or because they were the only store he could walk to?
By the way, I've seen similar behavior from dry cleaning patrons before. A few years ago I witnessed a shameful tirade from a wealthy woman directed at a black dry cleaning store owner. She was angry that he failed to remove a spot from her dress. For those who don't already know this, there are some stains that dry cleaning can't remove.
She said, "Why don't you people stay in the ghetto where you belong?"
Could this lawsuit be racially motivated? Whether it is or isn't, I will be surprised if Manning doesn't somehow connect a racial motivation to Pearson's suit. Let's keep an eye on this.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Facts On Thompson
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~ John Adams
Well, it seems that many Conservatives are salivating over the prospect that former Senator Fred Thompson (R) Tennessee, will be announcing his candidacy for President in the very near future. Some speculate it may be as early as the fourth of July.
My fear is that too many Conservatives are thinking Senator Thompson is another Reagan. I fear this may be wishful thinking. There is no guarantee, at least, not before thoroughly checking Thompson's voting record, that he is indeed another Reagan. Besides the fact that both Reagan and Thompson are actors, I am not so sure the similarities don't end there. Why? Because I know little about Thompson.
I remember I had the same reservations about Ronald Reagan when he ran for President. An actor? What does an actor know about running a country? This ain't a movie, Ronald.
There is one huge difference between the two actors. Thompson was a Senator before he was an actor.
So, this is what I did:
I went to a website called, "On the Issues" and I read there how Senator Fred Dalton Thompson voted on various issues when he was in the U.S. Senate. The website has determined Fred Thompson to be a "Moderate Populist Conservative" candidate.
What is that, you ask? It means, in a nutshell, that he has appeal to both Liberal and Conservatives, in different areas. Perhaps that is the kind of President America is looking for.
Check it out. See what you think. Do you agree with him? On how many issues?
So now, I'm impressed. He and I agree on so many issues, it's hard not to support him. I think I still prefer Rep. Duncan Hunter (R) California, but he is still not getting enough media attention. He needs recognition to expect to be taken seriously in the 2008 election.
Fred Thompson has the media attention and the popularity to win the nomination and the election. Add Duncan Hunter to the ticket as Vice President and we have what I consider a winning Conservative combination.
NOTE: Those of you who have been reading and appreciating Marshall Arts comments on this blog, as well as others, and are as impressed as I am with his intelligent, lucid, and well thought out opinions, will no doubt be happy to know (as I am) that Art has finally created his own blog. I have added it to my blogroll. Please be sure to visit and offer any comments you have. (Psst! Like Dan Trabue, he thrives on disagreement).
Well, it seems that many Conservatives are salivating over the prospect that former Senator Fred Thompson (R) Tennessee, will be announcing his candidacy for President in the very near future. Some speculate it may be as early as the fourth of July.
My fear is that too many Conservatives are thinking Senator Thompson is another Reagan. I fear this may be wishful thinking. There is no guarantee, at least, not before thoroughly checking Thompson's voting record, that he is indeed another Reagan. Besides the fact that both Reagan and Thompson are actors, I am not so sure the similarities don't end there. Why? Because I know little about Thompson.
I remember I had the same reservations about Ronald Reagan when he ran for President. An actor? What does an actor know about running a country? This ain't a movie, Ronald.
There is one huge difference between the two actors. Thompson was a Senator before he was an actor.
So, this is what I did:
I went to a website called, "On the Issues" and I read there how Senator Fred Dalton Thompson voted on various issues when he was in the U.S. Senate. The website has determined Fred Thompson to be a "Moderate Populist Conservative" candidate.
What is that, you ask? It means, in a nutshell, that he has appeal to both Liberal and Conservatives, in different areas. Perhaps that is the kind of President America is looking for.
Check it out. See what you think. Do you agree with him? On how many issues?
So now, I'm impressed. He and I agree on so many issues, it's hard not to support him. I think I still prefer Rep. Duncan Hunter (R) California, but he is still not getting enough media attention. He needs recognition to expect to be taken seriously in the 2008 election.
Fred Thompson has the media attention and the popularity to win the nomination and the election. Add Duncan Hunter to the ticket as Vice President and we have what I consider a winning Conservative combination.
NOTE: Those of you who have been reading and appreciating Marshall Arts comments on this blog, as well as others, and are as impressed as I am with his intelligent, lucid, and well thought out opinions, will no doubt be happy to know (as I am) that Art has finally created his own blog. I have added it to my blogroll. Please be sure to visit and offer any comments you have. (Psst! Like Dan Trabue, he thrives on disagreement).
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Paris Hilton
"A person is never happy except at the price of some ignorance." ~ Anatole France
OK. So Paris Hilton had to go back to jail after a sympathetic sheriff gave her a nice ankle bracelet and sent her home. Then the judge sent her back. That's bizarre. By all accounts, she cried and screamed and pleaded with her mother to help her when it became clear she wasn't going to dodge the bullet any longer.
When I heard this news, one thought came to my mind:
She is a product of her environment.
I've heard all the comments about her being a spoiled little rich girl who gets special treatment because she is rich. To me, that simplistic explanation smacks of class envy.
I won't excuse Paris for what she did. She broke the law. She got what she deserved. Actually, I'm not so sure she didn't get some special treatment in this case. To me, forty five days seems to be a very short and easy sentence for repeated charges of drunk driving, along with failure to appear in court to answer those charges.
Driving while intoxicated should be treated much more seriously than it is currently, anyway. People should be made aware of the potential deadly repercussions of driving while intoxicated. A long stretch in prison would most certainly make that point clearly for the average offender.
But Paris Hilton is not your average drunk driver.
I realize that many people would challenge that statement.
No sentence will be short and easy for Ms. Hilton, and many people would say that is how it should be. And I will agree. But I also don't believe she needs to spend any more time in jail than she has already. Let me explain:
First, Ms. Hilton is a child of remarkable privilege. We poor average Americans tend to scoff at the super rich in this country, preferring to think of ourselves as somehow better, or more relevant to the real America. We are the people who do the real work, while people like the Hiltons take in the profits. Much of this simplistic view of the classes is true, but this view is nevertheless, simplistic.
I used to be afflicted with class envy, too, until I had an epiphany.
When I was a teen, back when the earth was cooling, you might say, I was involved in a church youth group, and most of the group were children of privilege. I was the only one among this small group of teens that didn't have a "rich daddy".
One of my friends was the daughter of a president of a large chemical corporation. One was the son of a man who owned a large prestigious Real Estate firm. Another friends father was a vice president for Boeing Military Aircraft division. My father was one of several thousand employees who worked at Boeing. He had worked his way up from a tool and die man to methods engineer, a fancy term for efficiency expert. He was moderately successful, but only made $15,000 a year when he retired. He retired in 1979, and back then, 15,000 was respectable but in no way could he have been considered wealthy.
The time of which I speak, I had an eye opening conversation with some of my friends that I still remember to this day. I was trying to explain why I couldn't go on some weekend trip with "the gang" because I simply couldn't afford the expense. One of the girls just smiled and said, "Why don't you just withdraw some money from your savings account?"
I was astounded. She really didn't understand that there were people in the world who couldn't buy everything they wanted without eventually running out of money. It was at this time that I realized these people were not to be envied. Instead, they were to be pitied for their ignorance of real people and real life struggles and the real value of a dollar.
A few years later, I was amused rather than astounded as I spoke with a friends wife, who was a daughter of a wealthy neurosurgeon. My friend's father was wealthy, too, but he had watched his father eventually attain millionaire status through hard work and perseverance. He understood the value of a dollar, while his wife had grown up with maids and butlers to help fulfill her every need. Once again, the topic was the need for funds. In her innocence, her response was, "Whenever I need money, I just ask daddy for it!"
She was blissfully and seriously ignorant.
My point in these examples is that Paris Hilton should not be vilified or even disdained for her behavior. It is the only life she knows. As I stated, she is the product of her environment.
Second, we must remember that one who has never been in real trouble is completely out of ones element when incarcerated for even a short period of time. Granted, Paris has escaped consequences of her many indiscretions in the past, but she was nevertheless wholly unprepared for the consequences of her hedonistic behavior.
No doubt she expected her public stature and family wealth to get her out of this latest predicament. This time it didn't.
Once again, I can relate to this situation. Although I have occasionally done things for which I should have been arrested for in my wilder days, I managed to keep myself out of jail.
But one time I did spend about four hours in the county lock-up. It was a severely traumatic experience for me. I can say, from personal experience, those four hours were more than enough to convince me that I never wanted to be placed in that situation again. And I never have been since.
The real reason, I suspect, that Ms. Hilton pitched such a fit in court, is that she already had experienced the reality of imprisonment, however short, and was given a false sense that she would never have to endure it again. Thinking back on my personal experience in a similar situation, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't react in much the same way, although I like to think I'd display a little less emotion.
Over all, I think Paris Hilton will ultimately learn a great deal from this. I think her incarceration will give her new insights and understanding of the less fortunate in our society.
If she hasn't learned her lesson by now, she never will. Any more jail time than she already has would be superfluous.
OK. So Paris Hilton had to go back to jail after a sympathetic sheriff gave her a nice ankle bracelet and sent her home. Then the judge sent her back. That's bizarre. By all accounts, she cried and screamed and pleaded with her mother to help her when it became clear she wasn't going to dodge the bullet any longer.
When I heard this news, one thought came to my mind:
She is a product of her environment.
I've heard all the comments about her being a spoiled little rich girl who gets special treatment because she is rich. To me, that simplistic explanation smacks of class envy.
I won't excuse Paris for what she did. She broke the law. She got what she deserved. Actually, I'm not so sure she didn't get some special treatment in this case. To me, forty five days seems to be a very short and easy sentence for repeated charges of drunk driving, along with failure to appear in court to answer those charges.
Driving while intoxicated should be treated much more seriously than it is currently, anyway. People should be made aware of the potential deadly repercussions of driving while intoxicated. A long stretch in prison would most certainly make that point clearly for the average offender.
But Paris Hilton is not your average drunk driver.
I realize that many people would challenge that statement.
No sentence will be short and easy for Ms. Hilton, and many people would say that is how it should be. And I will agree. But I also don't believe she needs to spend any more time in jail than she has already. Let me explain:
First, Ms. Hilton is a child of remarkable privilege. We poor average Americans tend to scoff at the super rich in this country, preferring to think of ourselves as somehow better, or more relevant to the real America. We are the people who do the real work, while people like the Hiltons take in the profits. Much of this simplistic view of the classes is true, but this view is nevertheless, simplistic.
I used to be afflicted with class envy, too, until I had an epiphany.
When I was a teen, back when the earth was cooling, you might say, I was involved in a church youth group, and most of the group were children of privilege. I was the only one among this small group of teens that didn't have a "rich daddy".
One of my friends was the daughter of a president of a large chemical corporation. One was the son of a man who owned a large prestigious Real Estate firm. Another friends father was a vice president for Boeing Military Aircraft division. My father was one of several thousand employees who worked at Boeing. He had worked his way up from a tool and die man to methods engineer, a fancy term for efficiency expert. He was moderately successful, but only made $15,000 a year when he retired. He retired in 1979, and back then, 15,000 was respectable but in no way could he have been considered wealthy.
The time of which I speak, I had an eye opening conversation with some of my friends that I still remember to this day. I was trying to explain why I couldn't go on some weekend trip with "the gang" because I simply couldn't afford the expense. One of the girls just smiled and said, "Why don't you just withdraw some money from your savings account?"
I was astounded. She really didn't understand that there were people in the world who couldn't buy everything they wanted without eventually running out of money. It was at this time that I realized these people were not to be envied. Instead, they were to be pitied for their ignorance of real people and real life struggles and the real value of a dollar.
A few years later, I was amused rather than astounded as I spoke with a friends wife, who was a daughter of a wealthy neurosurgeon. My friend's father was wealthy, too, but he had watched his father eventually attain millionaire status through hard work and perseverance. He understood the value of a dollar, while his wife had grown up with maids and butlers to help fulfill her every need. Once again, the topic was the need for funds. In her innocence, her response was, "Whenever I need money, I just ask daddy for it!"
She was blissfully and seriously ignorant.
My point in these examples is that Paris Hilton should not be vilified or even disdained for her behavior. It is the only life she knows. As I stated, she is the product of her environment.
Second, we must remember that one who has never been in real trouble is completely out of ones element when incarcerated for even a short period of time. Granted, Paris has escaped consequences of her many indiscretions in the past, but she was nevertheless wholly unprepared for the consequences of her hedonistic behavior.
No doubt she expected her public stature and family wealth to get her out of this latest predicament. This time it didn't.
Once again, I can relate to this situation. Although I have occasionally done things for which I should have been arrested for in my wilder days, I managed to keep myself out of jail.
But one time I did spend about four hours in the county lock-up. It was a severely traumatic experience for me. I can say, from personal experience, those four hours were more than enough to convince me that I never wanted to be placed in that situation again. And I never have been since.
The real reason, I suspect, that Ms. Hilton pitched such a fit in court, is that she already had experienced the reality of imprisonment, however short, and was given a false sense that she would never have to endure it again. Thinking back on my personal experience in a similar situation, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't react in much the same way, although I like to think I'd display a little less emotion.
Over all, I think Paris Hilton will ultimately learn a great deal from this. I think her incarceration will give her new insights and understanding of the less fortunate in our society.
If she hasn't learned her lesson by now, she never will. Any more jail time than she already has would be superfluous.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
A Tale Of Two Politicians
"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." ~ Henry Kissinger
Today, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, received two and a half years in prison after he was convicted in March of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
At almost the same time, William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana has been indicted on charges of bribery, more than two years after he was seen on videotape accepting bribes, and after authorities found $90,000.00 in cold hard marked cash hidden in his freezer.
Caveat: An indictment is not a finding of guilt. In this country, a suspect in a crime, even one as obvious and well documented as this one, is considered innocent until proven guilty.
It's sort of like, "Who are you gonna believe? Me? or your lyin' eyes?"
What do you want to bet that Jefferson, if convicted, gets less time than Libby, if any time at all?
What is incredible to me is that there is a lot of hard evidence that Jefferson actually committed the crimes of which he has been charged, (in fact, he will be, if convicted, officially the most corrupt politician in modern history) but there is quite a lot of doubt that Libby did anything wrong. There wasn't even enough evidence to try him on the crime for which the Democrats wanted him to be convicted, the outing of a "covert" CIA agent.
And of course, unlike Republicans who get caught doing something unethical or downright illegal, he will stay in the House and fight, claiming complete innocence despite the mountain of evidence against him. Republicans, as we know, will resign immediately upon the mere suspicion of impropriety.
And Jefferson's behavior is likely what Speaker Pelosi was referring to when she said hers would be the most ethical Congress in history, no?
There will be more, much more, on this as time goes by.
Also, I have added another blog to my high quality but not so short blogroll. It is DUmmie Funnies, a blog devoted to taking comments directly from Democratic Underground and the daily Kos and making fun of them. It's pretty good comic relief, although not side splitting humor. That's probably because the DU regulars are more irrelevant and pathetic then they are funny.
But I have added the blog to my blogroll, nonetheless. Go there and see what you think.
Today, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, received two and a half years in prison after he was convicted in March of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
At almost the same time, William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana has been indicted on charges of bribery, more than two years after he was seen on videotape accepting bribes, and after authorities found $90,000.00 in cold hard marked cash hidden in his freezer.
Caveat: An indictment is not a finding of guilt. In this country, a suspect in a crime, even one as obvious and well documented as this one, is considered innocent until proven guilty.
It's sort of like, "Who are you gonna believe? Me? or your lyin' eyes?"
What do you want to bet that Jefferson, if convicted, gets less time than Libby, if any time at all?
What is incredible to me is that there is a lot of hard evidence that Jefferson actually committed the crimes of which he has been charged, (in fact, he will be, if convicted, officially the most corrupt politician in modern history) but there is quite a lot of doubt that Libby did anything wrong. There wasn't even enough evidence to try him on the crime for which the Democrats wanted him to be convicted, the outing of a "covert" CIA agent.
And of course, unlike Republicans who get caught doing something unethical or downright illegal, he will stay in the House and fight, claiming complete innocence despite the mountain of evidence against him. Republicans, as we know, will resign immediately upon the mere suspicion of impropriety.
And Jefferson's behavior is likely what Speaker Pelosi was referring to when she said hers would be the most ethical Congress in history, no?
There will be more, much more, on this as time goes by.
Also, I have added another blog to my high quality but not so short blogroll. It is DUmmie Funnies, a blog devoted to taking comments directly from Democratic Underground and the daily Kos and making fun of them. It's pretty good comic relief, although not side splitting humor. That's probably because the DU regulars are more irrelevant and pathetic then they are funny.
But I have added the blog to my blogroll, nonetheless. Go there and see what you think.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
A Message For The President
Usually, I precede my posts with a quotation. Today's post is a quotation. From Mark Levin's blog, in it's entirety:
The President Is Losing Me
I guess it's legacy time over at the White House. The president is imitating Arnold Schwarzenegger now. Does the president have any conservative domestic initiatives that he's actively pursuing? If so, I'd like to know what they are. Richard Nixon tried this when his ratings were low. It didn't work.
Mr. President, the Left hated you the day you walked into the Oval Office, if not before. Their hate for you is frozen in time. If you actually believe in what you are doing, then I and many others misjudged you. You expanded the federal role in education, and we held our nose because of the war. You signed McCain-Feingold in the dead of night, and we held our nose because of the war. You expanded Medicare by adding prescription drugs, and we held our nose because of the war. You increased farm subsidies, and we held our nose because of the war.
Today you disparage us for opposing a massive amnesty program that endangers our economy and national security. Today you even embrace the religion of global warming, a stunning shift from prior policy (your administration even went to the Supreme Court and argued correctly that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant).
What's a conservative to do?
I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't even attempt to add anything.
The President Is Losing Me
I guess it's legacy time over at the White House. The president is imitating Arnold Schwarzenegger now. Does the president have any conservative domestic initiatives that he's actively pursuing? If so, I'd like to know what they are. Richard Nixon tried this when his ratings were low. It didn't work.
Mr. President, the Left hated you the day you walked into the Oval Office, if not before. Their hate for you is frozen in time. If you actually believe in what you are doing, then I and many others misjudged you. You expanded the federal role in education, and we held our nose because of the war. You signed McCain-Feingold in the dead of night, and we held our nose because of the war. You expanded Medicare by adding prescription drugs, and we held our nose because of the war. You increased farm subsidies, and we held our nose because of the war.
Today you disparage us for opposing a massive amnesty program that endangers our economy and national security. Today you even embrace the religion of global warming, a stunning shift from prior policy (your administration even went to the Supreme Court and argued correctly that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant).
What's a conservative to do?
I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't even attempt to add anything.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The War On Terrorism
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." ~ Robert E. Lee
ER mentioned the GWOT in my last comment section. The letters "GWOT" is an acronym for the Global War on Terror. His comment inspired these thoughts. They are my thoughts. However rambling, they are nonetheless, my own.
Many people on the left say there is no such thing as a Global War on Terror. I would tend to agree.
The term, "Global war on terror" is a misnomer.
There is no war on terror. There is, however, a war on terrorism. The words, "terrorism" and "terror" are not synonymous. There is no global war on terror or terrorism, either. An alliance of a few countries fighting against terrorists is not global.
If anything, based on the number of countries that encourage, or at least tolerate terrorists in their midst, it would be considered a global war of terrorism.
ER also says the war in Iraq is not justified. He says we had a reason to invade Afghanistan but not Iraq. I believe he is wrong.
I think many Americans have forgotten why we went into Iraq in the first place. All of the anti-war rhetoric and political in-fighting since the war began has obscured the true reason for the war. Perhaps the continual accusations of illegality and calls for troop withdrawal are intentionally meant to make the average American forget.
In fact, they have been so successful at obscuring the facts that I myself, have forgotten how many times Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at U.N. sanctions. Was it 11? 15? 18? I don't remember, but it was certainly more than once or twice. He was warned we would attack if he continued to refuse to comply with our demands. He didn't comply, and so we followed through with our promise.
How is that illegal or unjustified?
Saddam started this war. We didn't. If he had simply done the things we had asked, we wouldn't have found it necessary to enforce our demands.
Then, terrorists invaded Iraq, and began to attack our troops. They tried to make it look as though we were the ones who were to blame for global terrorism. Then they began killing their own people. The numbers of innocent deaths that the leftists constantly bring up in their efforts to "prove" America is wrong are innocent Iraqi's that are being killed by the terrorists.
Our troops kill terrorists, not innocent civilians. There is unintentional collateral damage, even atrocities on occasion, but that happens in all wars. Even the ones we are not involved in. It is a tragic fact, but our intention is not to kill innocents.
There has been terrorism for centuries. We didn't create them.
We are not the terrorists.
What reason did we have to invade Afghanistan? According to intelligence reports, Osama bin Laden was there, and being sheltered by the Taliban led government. But was that a better reason to invade Afghanistan than the reasons we had to invade Iraq?
We invaded a country and dismantled a government so we could find one man, who we failed to find. How is that more justified than removing a vicious dictator who willfully and repeatedly refused to capitulate to our demands that he prove to us that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?
The leftists would insist that since we never found such weapons, they didn't exist, but intelligence reports said they did. Who were we to believe? The murderous, lying, dictator or our own intelligence gatherers?
Did we really have a choice? If any of us feel threatened by another individual, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to talk them into stopping that behavior, wouldn't we do something drastic to stop that behavior?
On a side note, why do the leftists protest the war on terrorism so vehemently when it was their own pet organization, the U.N, with whose sanctions Saddam repeatedly refused to comply?
That seems disingenuous to me. If the UN demanded that Saddam comply and he doesn't, it seems to me that the first people to cry for his deposal would be the Liberals. After all, they believe the UN is more important than the United States.
I hate war. I wish to God we had never gone into Iraq. I wish we had not even had to make a decision on whether or not to go to war. It has led to such division among Americans that I fear we may never be united again.
But regardless of our reasons for being there, and whether we are justified or not, we are there. We must finish. We must win. We at least should be united in that.
ER mentioned the GWOT in my last comment section. The letters "GWOT" is an acronym for the Global War on Terror. His comment inspired these thoughts. They are my thoughts. However rambling, they are nonetheless, my own.
Many people on the left say there is no such thing as a Global War on Terror. I would tend to agree.
The term, "Global war on terror" is a misnomer.
There is no war on terror. There is, however, a war on terrorism. The words, "terrorism" and "terror" are not synonymous. There is no global war on terror or terrorism, either. An alliance of a few countries fighting against terrorists is not global.
If anything, based on the number of countries that encourage, or at least tolerate terrorists in their midst, it would be considered a global war of terrorism.
ER also says the war in Iraq is not justified. He says we had a reason to invade Afghanistan but not Iraq. I believe he is wrong.
I think many Americans have forgotten why we went into Iraq in the first place. All of the anti-war rhetoric and political in-fighting since the war began has obscured the true reason for the war. Perhaps the continual accusations of illegality and calls for troop withdrawal are intentionally meant to make the average American forget.
In fact, they have been so successful at obscuring the facts that I myself, have forgotten how many times Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at U.N. sanctions. Was it 11? 15? 18? I don't remember, but it was certainly more than once or twice. He was warned we would attack if he continued to refuse to comply with our demands. He didn't comply, and so we followed through with our promise.
How is that illegal or unjustified?
Saddam started this war. We didn't. If he had simply done the things we had asked, we wouldn't have found it necessary to enforce our demands.
Then, terrorists invaded Iraq, and began to attack our troops. They tried to make it look as though we were the ones who were to blame for global terrorism. Then they began killing their own people. The numbers of innocent deaths that the leftists constantly bring up in their efforts to "prove" America is wrong are innocent Iraqi's that are being killed by the terrorists.
Our troops kill terrorists, not innocent civilians. There is unintentional collateral damage, even atrocities on occasion, but that happens in all wars. Even the ones we are not involved in. It is a tragic fact, but our intention is not to kill innocents.
There has been terrorism for centuries. We didn't create them.
We are not the terrorists.
What reason did we have to invade Afghanistan? According to intelligence reports, Osama bin Laden was there, and being sheltered by the Taliban led government. But was that a better reason to invade Afghanistan than the reasons we had to invade Iraq?
We invaded a country and dismantled a government so we could find one man, who we failed to find. How is that more justified than removing a vicious dictator who willfully and repeatedly refused to capitulate to our demands that he prove to us that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?
The leftists would insist that since we never found such weapons, they didn't exist, but intelligence reports said they did. Who were we to believe? The murderous, lying, dictator or our own intelligence gatherers?
Did we really have a choice? If any of us feel threatened by another individual, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to talk them into stopping that behavior, wouldn't we do something drastic to stop that behavior?
On a side note, why do the leftists protest the war on terrorism so vehemently when it was their own pet organization, the U.N, with whose sanctions Saddam repeatedly refused to comply?
That seems disingenuous to me. If the UN demanded that Saddam comply and he doesn't, it seems to me that the first people to cry for his deposal would be the Liberals. After all, they believe the UN is more important than the United States.
I hate war. I wish to God we had never gone into Iraq. I wish we had not even had to make a decision on whether or not to go to war. It has led to such division among Americans that I fear we may never be united again.
But regardless of our reasons for being there, and whether we are justified or not, we are there. We must finish. We must win. We at least should be united in that.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Perverting Memorial Day
"I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom." ~ Bob Dylan
I mentioned in a post well over a year ago, that I listen to NPR on weekends. I enjoy "A Prairie Home Companion" hosted by Liberal Garrison Keillor. The program has a variety of musical acts and comedy skits that I enjoy, since I like a variety of music from bluegrass to opera. And I like comedy.
It is a funny show, but it wasn't so funny when Keillor sang an Americanized version of an Eric Bogle song called "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda". The original song is an anti-war anthem, and Keillor sang his version, unashamedly, as a condemnation of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq.
I think singing that particular Americanized version of the song to commemorate Memorial day was in bad taste.
Now, I have mentioned several times that I am anti-war myself, but that I recognize sometimes, that war is the only option we have in certain circumstances. I believe the war in Iraq is a necessary evil, and that we need to win it, and win it convincingly.
There are some particular lines in the original song, about an Australian "swagman" who is drafted to fight in WW I, and loses his legs at Gallipoli, that Keillor didn't change.
The lines that condemn war.
Throughout his version, he simply changed the nationality of the narrator from Australian to American, and the band didn't play "Waltzing Matilda" but "The Star Spangled Banner".
But there are some significant differences between Keillor's version and reality. The narrator of song was drafted against his will into the army. Today's fighting men and women were not drafted. They volunteered.
In Bogle's original version, the narrator fights for his life, there being no indication that he fights for any cause other than a selfish one. In reality, our soldiers fight for freedom, often times sacrificing their own lives for the Iraqi people.
In both versions, the narrator laments that none of his countrymen seem to care about his personal sacrifice. In reality, there are millions of people across America who pray for and honor our soldiers for their tremendous sacrifice.
About the only ones that don't are the anti-war leftists, (Like Garrison Keillor) and Democrats. To them, that sacrifice is pointless and a waste.
Then there is the verse that asks, "The young people ask, What are they marching for? And I ask myself the same question." In my opinion there is no doubt that they march in pride of their heroic battle for the freedom of the world.
I find myself asking, particularly because this is the day in which we memorialize the heroes of American freedom, the question, "Why does the American left continually condemn what is obviously a just and unavoidable war?"
I mentioned in a post well over a year ago, that I listen to NPR on weekends. I enjoy "A Prairie Home Companion" hosted by Liberal Garrison Keillor. The program has a variety of musical acts and comedy skits that I enjoy, since I like a variety of music from bluegrass to opera. And I like comedy.
It is a funny show, but it wasn't so funny when Keillor sang an Americanized version of an Eric Bogle song called "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda". The original song is an anti-war anthem, and Keillor sang his version, unashamedly, as a condemnation of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq.
I think singing that particular Americanized version of the song to commemorate Memorial day was in bad taste.
Now, I have mentioned several times that I am anti-war myself, but that I recognize sometimes, that war is the only option we have in certain circumstances. I believe the war in Iraq is a necessary evil, and that we need to win it, and win it convincingly.
There are some particular lines in the original song, about an Australian "swagman" who is drafted to fight in WW I, and loses his legs at Gallipoli, that Keillor didn't change.
The lines that condemn war.
Throughout his version, he simply changed the nationality of the narrator from Australian to American, and the band didn't play "Waltzing Matilda" but "The Star Spangled Banner".
But there are some significant differences between Keillor's version and reality. The narrator of song was drafted against his will into the army. Today's fighting men and women were not drafted. They volunteered.
In Bogle's original version, the narrator fights for his life, there being no indication that he fights for any cause other than a selfish one. In reality, our soldiers fight for freedom, often times sacrificing their own lives for the Iraqi people.
In both versions, the narrator laments that none of his countrymen seem to care about his personal sacrifice. In reality, there are millions of people across America who pray for and honor our soldiers for their tremendous sacrifice.
About the only ones that don't are the anti-war leftists, (Like Garrison Keillor) and Democrats. To them, that sacrifice is pointless and a waste.
Then there is the verse that asks, "The young people ask, What are they marching for? And I ask myself the same question." In my opinion there is no doubt that they march in pride of their heroic battle for the freedom of the world.
I find myself asking, particularly because this is the day in which we memorialize the heroes of American freedom, the question, "Why does the American left continually condemn what is obviously a just and unavoidable war?"
Sunday, May 27, 2007
No Habla Inglais? Adios, Muchacha!
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
No habla Inglais? Adios, muchacha! That's what we should say to the illegal aliens in this country. That, and whatever "get out" means in whatever language applies to the specific illegal alien.
Much has been said over the last couple of weeks about the new immigration bill to which President Bush, Ted Kennedy, John McClain, and others have supposedly agreed. The interesting thing is that this time, there are opposing groups in both parties. Perhaps this is the first and possibly only time the two parties have come to a bi-partisan consensus on something.
I am a Conservative registered Republican, but I completely disagree with President Bush on this one. I cannot understand why any intelligent man could actually think this ridiculous proposal would even begin to work to solve the immigration problem in America.
Personally, I call this an amnesty program. Others on both the left and right agree and disagree.
What a country!
And then, I had a thought:
Why don't we enforce the existing immigration laws?
Michael Chertoff, the head of our Homeland Security Department, says it is impossible to deport every illegal immigrant in America. For this reason, we should give them citizenship? And this is the Head of Homeland Security?
Ann Coulter had a good point. Using that kind of logic, rapist and murderers should receive amnesty.
Here is my solution to this seemingly tricky problem:
1. Finish building the fence. Legislation has already been passed and signed authorizing the United States to build a border fence to keep illegals out. To date, 2 miles have been built. Finish it.
2. Deport every illegal alien to their home countries. Yes, it is a daunting task, but it can be done. We have the resources. We need to use them.
3. Arrest the ones who are wanted for various crimes. Deny them bail, prosecute them, put them in jail, and throw away the key.
4. Keep them from coming back in. That would no doubt require hiring more border patrolmen. And supplying them with the necessary equipment to do their job. Like guns, security cameras, vehicles, and dogs.
5. Prosecute all companies that hire illegal aliens. Fine them. Arrest their executives. Whatever. But punish them.
See? Problem solved! And all in less than 15 minutes! Oh, I love it when things zip along!
No habla Inglais? Adios, muchacha! That's what we should say to the illegal aliens in this country. That, and whatever "get out" means in whatever language applies to the specific illegal alien.
Much has been said over the last couple of weeks about the new immigration bill to which President Bush, Ted Kennedy, John McClain, and others have supposedly agreed. The interesting thing is that this time, there are opposing groups in both parties. Perhaps this is the first and possibly only time the two parties have come to a bi-partisan consensus on something.
I am a Conservative registered Republican, but I completely disagree with President Bush on this one. I cannot understand why any intelligent man could actually think this ridiculous proposal would even begin to work to solve the immigration problem in America.
Personally, I call this an amnesty program. Others on both the left and right agree and disagree.
What a country!
And then, I had a thought:
Why don't we enforce the existing immigration laws?
Michael Chertoff, the head of our Homeland Security Department, says it is impossible to deport every illegal immigrant in America. For this reason, we should give them citizenship? And this is the Head of Homeland Security?
Ann Coulter had a good point. Using that kind of logic, rapist and murderers should receive amnesty.
Here is my solution to this seemingly tricky problem:
1. Finish building the fence. Legislation has already been passed and signed authorizing the United States to build a border fence to keep illegals out. To date, 2 miles have been built. Finish it.
2. Deport every illegal alien to their home countries. Yes, it is a daunting task, but it can be done. We have the resources. We need to use them.
3. Arrest the ones who are wanted for various crimes. Deny them bail, prosecute them, put them in jail, and throw away the key.
4. Keep them from coming back in. That would no doubt require hiring more border patrolmen. And supplying them with the necessary equipment to do their job. Like guns, security cameras, vehicles, and dogs.
5. Prosecute all companies that hire illegal aliens. Fine them. Arrest their executives. Whatever. But punish them.
See? Problem solved! And all in less than 15 minutes! Oh, I love it when things zip along!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
How To Get Rich(er)
"Nevermind what I told you to do! Do what I tell you!" ~ W. C. Fields
Oh, this is irony. Slip-and-fall lawyer, John Edwards is demonstrating first hand how to beat poverty. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty
Here's a teaser:
"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show."
The report goes on to say Edwards made 9 speeches overall at American Universities at a total price of more than $285,000.
Let us remember that the University of California at Davis is a tax payer funded institution, so it is Californian tax dollars that are paying for Edwards to spout off in favor of using U.S. tax money to fund college educations. This equates to tax dollars that pay for a speaker who advocates raising taxes to pay for speakers who charge $55,000 a speech.
See? Irony!
And while I'm on the subject of John Edwards; I sometimes wonder about how his wife's doctors feel about treating her, knowing that if he can find anything even remotely negligent about her treatment, they will likely get sued. Treating the wife of a highly successful ambulance chasing lawyer has to be a frightening thought. I bet only the most confident doctors would even attempt the task.
All I can say is they better cure her. That is, if they want to continue practicing medicine.
Oh, this is irony. Slip-and-fall lawyer, John Edwards is demonstrating first hand how to beat poverty. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty
Here's a teaser:
"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show."
The report goes on to say Edwards made 9 speeches overall at American Universities at a total price of more than $285,000.
Let us remember that the University of California at Davis is a tax payer funded institution, so it is Californian tax dollars that are paying for Edwards to spout off in favor of using U.S. tax money to fund college educations. This equates to tax dollars that pay for a speaker who advocates raising taxes to pay for speakers who charge $55,000 a speech.
See? Irony!
And while I'm on the subject of John Edwards; I sometimes wonder about how his wife's doctors feel about treating her, knowing that if he can find anything even remotely negligent about her treatment, they will likely get sued. Treating the wife of a highly successful ambulance chasing lawyer has to be a frightening thought. I bet only the most confident doctors would even attempt the task.
All I can say is they better cure her. That is, if they want to continue practicing medicine.
Friday, May 18, 2007
The New Immigration Proposal
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." ~ Ernest Benn
Normally, I don't copy and paste news stories here, but I think this story speaks for itself:
"In a striking reach across party lines, the White House and key lawmakers agreed Thursday on a sweeping immigration plan to grant legal status to millions of people in the country unlawfully."
Sounds a lot like amnesty to me. Could it be?
"The compromise brought together an unlikely alliance of liberal Democrats such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and conservative Republicans such as Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona on an issue that carries heavy potential risks and rewards for all involved."
OK. I already have a problem with this. Anytime Kennedy is involved, I know there will be trouble.
"The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and - after paying fees and a $5,000 fine - ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first."
Oh yeah, that'll work. Anyone else think illegals who are getting everything free right now will pony up five grand AND voluntarily go back home? Or come forward?
It goes on, but that last part has pretty much convinced me the whole plan is ridiculous, so I am not going to list the other provisions. It won't work. Even if some of the illegals do come forward with $5,000.00, it won't come close to solving the problem.
Why would anyone come forward with that kind of money to be legal when they already have everything they want for free? I know if I was enjoying a free ride with no expectation of responsibility in return, I wouldn't spend a cent to make things even more complicated for me.
Besides the fact that it won't work, the proposal deals somewhat with the number of illegals in the country but it does next to nothing to solve the most serious underlying problem with our open border policies.
This is a National security issue. As I said on a previous post, if friendly, hard working people can enter this country undetected, so can un-friendly murderous terrorists. There is no provision in the current proposal that will prevent terrorists from entering this country illegally for the purpose of committing terrorists acts against innocent Americans.
Build a wall. Deport the illegals. Keep them out. Enforce the border.
Normally, I don't copy and paste news stories here, but I think this story speaks for itself:
"In a striking reach across party lines, the White House and key lawmakers agreed Thursday on a sweeping immigration plan to grant legal status to millions of people in the country unlawfully."
Sounds a lot like amnesty to me. Could it be?
"The compromise brought together an unlikely alliance of liberal Democrats such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and conservative Republicans such as Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona on an issue that carries heavy potential risks and rewards for all involved."
OK. I already have a problem with this. Anytime Kennedy is involved, I know there will be trouble.
"The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and - after paying fees and a $5,000 fine - ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first."
Oh yeah, that'll work. Anyone else think illegals who are getting everything free right now will pony up five grand AND voluntarily go back home? Or come forward?
It goes on, but that last part has pretty much convinced me the whole plan is ridiculous, so I am not going to list the other provisions. It won't work. Even if some of the illegals do come forward with $5,000.00, it won't come close to solving the problem.
Why would anyone come forward with that kind of money to be legal when they already have everything they want for free? I know if I was enjoying a free ride with no expectation of responsibility in return, I wouldn't spend a cent to make things even more complicated for me.
Besides the fact that it won't work, the proposal deals somewhat with the number of illegals in the country but it does next to nothing to solve the most serious underlying problem with our open border policies.
This is a National security issue. As I said on a previous post, if friendly, hard working people can enter this country undetected, so can un-friendly murderous terrorists. There is no provision in the current proposal that will prevent terrorists from entering this country illegally for the purpose of committing terrorists acts against innocent Americans.
Build a wall. Deport the illegals. Keep them out. Enforce the border.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Well Done, Good And Faithful Servant
"I am a Christian." ~ Jerry Falwell
Reverend Jerry Falwell graduated to the Church Triumphant yesterday.
I liked Jerry Falwell. I used to watch him preach on TV from his Thomas Road Baptist Church pulpit. I often listened and appreciated him as he preached the truth of the Bible. Contrary to what you may read on Liberal web sites, and blogs, he didn't preach a message of hate or intolerance. He simply told the truth as he saw it, based on his interpretation of the Bible. He preached a message of love, repentance, and forgiveness.
He smiled as he spoke.
I remember one Television broadcast in which he played a videotape of himself bunging jumping. He looked as if he was having fun. It was also, to my mind, a moment which proved Falwell's humanity. In that one short video clip, he showed me humility and and a self deprecating sense of humor.
He made some controversial statements but they were only controversial because people generally don't like to hear the truth if it appears to condemn them.
I am not going to repeat them, or the hateful responses to them here. He deserves a better tribute than that.
He may have been mistaken at times, but the mistakes were not because of what he said, or in their intent, but in how he said it. Or more likely, in how his message was perceived.
Remember, Jesus Christ angered the unrepentant sinner, too. So did the apostle Paul, and every one of the early Christians. Those who were convicted of their sin by the early Christians often responded by putting them to death.
No doubt there are many these days who would have done the same to Falwell, if the law would have permitted.
Just peruse any Liberal web site or blog to read the celebration. They are figuratively dancing on his grave.
Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Reverend Falwell is in Heaven now, basking in the light of God's Glory, with God's words, "Well done, good and faithful servant." echoing forever in his ears.
Reverend Jerry Falwell graduated to the Church Triumphant yesterday.
I liked Jerry Falwell. I used to watch him preach on TV from his Thomas Road Baptist Church pulpit. I often listened and appreciated him as he preached the truth of the Bible. Contrary to what you may read on Liberal web sites, and blogs, he didn't preach a message of hate or intolerance. He simply told the truth as he saw it, based on his interpretation of the Bible. He preached a message of love, repentance, and forgiveness.
He smiled as he spoke.
I remember one Television broadcast in which he played a videotape of himself bunging jumping. He looked as if he was having fun. It was also, to my mind, a moment which proved Falwell's humanity. In that one short video clip, he showed me humility and and a self deprecating sense of humor.
He made some controversial statements but they were only controversial because people generally don't like to hear the truth if it appears to condemn them.
I am not going to repeat them, or the hateful responses to them here. He deserves a better tribute than that.
He may have been mistaken at times, but the mistakes were not because of what he said, or in their intent, but in how he said it. Or more likely, in how his message was perceived.
Remember, Jesus Christ angered the unrepentant sinner, too. So did the apostle Paul, and every one of the early Christians. Those who were convicted of their sin by the early Christians often responded by putting them to death.
No doubt there are many these days who would have done the same to Falwell, if the law would have permitted.
Just peruse any Liberal web site or blog to read the celebration. They are figuratively dancing on his grave.
Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Reverend Falwell is in Heaven now, basking in the light of God's Glory, with God's words, "Well done, good and faithful servant." echoing forever in his ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
