On Slanderous Statements

I was called into work early yesterday, and the first part of my day took longer than usual, so as a result, I didn't have a lot of time to formulate a good post. I basically just typed out what I had on my mind at the moment.

Normally I refrain from commenting on the Hollywood types and their political opinions, because, quite frankly, I don't have a lot of respect for their opinions, since they are usually no better informed than I. Usually, in fact, they are less informed than I. I'll give an example: Rosie O'Donnell was guest hosting "the View" a couple of weeks ago, and, coincidently, conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity was a guest. During the inevitable argument, Rosie and Sean being polar opposites, and both typically stubbornly Irish, Rosie got shrill and visibly upset and started shouting, "Abble Grabble" or something like that. She meant, of course, Abu Ghraib, but like I say, most of those Hollywood types are sadly misinformed.

So, that's my excuse. Apology offered.

I recently came across a blog by a guy that I never heard of but apparently is quite a well known journalist and author. He has even done guest appearances on Imus in the Morning, and is apparently a commentator on MSNBC. His name is Craig Crawford.

Anyway, I left a comment. Mine was one of the first comments made to that post. Afterwards, other folks made comments, and I was a little surprised at the liberal bias reflected in them. I will attempt to respond to some of them here.

First thing I noticed was this statement:

"I guess I am one of those pissed off at Judy Miller for her articles claiming that the U.S. found WMD in Iraq. I hope she stays in jail a long time."

My response: It "pisses" you off that there is a possibility that WMD's exist? Why?
If the revelation that there are indeed WMD's in Iraq, wouldn't that make you feel better about the U.S. being there? Why would it anger you to be assured that we are there for the right reason? It surely sounds as if you don't want Bush to be proven right. I would think if you seriously care about your country as you say, you would want it to be true. You know what I think? I think you hate Bush so badly that it matters not that people are dying for their country and for freedom, as long as you can convince yourself and others that Bush is an evil man. And I'll say what I said on Craig's blog. That is pathetic. I didn't even mention the fact that you wish hardship on a fellow human being. That's real Liberal compassion there, friend. You must be a hit at parties.

Here's another "compassionate" statement found in a different comment on the same site:

"Consider that we have twice elected a President who has difficulty expressing a coherent thought..."

(sigh) Here we go again. Where do you get the idea that President Bush is not intelligent? It certainly doesn't show up in his academic record. He graduated from Yale. That isn't exactly Whatsamatta U! And his grades were no worse than the darling of the Democrats (no offense, ER, if you didn't vote for him), John (flip flop) Kerry. Besides, I sincerely doubt anyone could achieve the office of president if he was a moron. For the sake of argument, even if he didn't win the election in 2000, he was still smart enough to come in second. But we all know he won fair and square. Besides that, what proof do you have of his supposed lack of intelligence? Want to know what I think? I think you just hate Bush so much that you are willing to either believe previous lies told about him without any evidence to back it up, or you made it up yourself, but I sincerely don't think you have enough intelligence, yourself to think something that imaginative up. I'm sorry, I don't like to say things that are mean spirited. I don't want to make anyone think I'm a liberal.

Now let me tackle a statement made in my own blogs comment section:

Ann Coulter is only hard to read because she never uses facts...She gives fraudulent examples and gives false sources. Mark said the last "book" he bought was by Ed Klein...I thought you were talking literature here. Ed Klein smears Hillary with the same venom as the Republicans Smear our Veterans and current United States Service Men And Women.

Oh really. Ann Coulter's book that I am currently reading has 46 pages of the sources from where she got her information. In small print. So much for that claim.

And it is obvious you never read the book by Klein. He doesn't smear her. In fact, he repeatedly compliments her political savvy. The rest of what he writes about her is pretty much common knowledge. There is very little in his book that we didn't already know about her, or at least suspect. Frankly, I was a little disappointed that he didn't slam her as much as he could have, but he refused to put anything in the book that he didn't have absolute confirmation on. It would have made for a better read in my view. And lets not forget that Mr Klein is a liberal himself.

And where in the world did you get the idea that Republicans smear veterans and our servicemen? That is just patently absurd. You must be drunk or mistaking them for Liberals.

Another slander:

"...how many Presidents have we had who cannot speak in complete sentences, chew a pretzel or ride a bike?"

I've already addressed the intelligence angle. That statement is quite simply, false.
As to the rest of the comment, that is so typical of the liberal attitude. I've said it often. Liberals start name calling when they can't back up their allegations. You have proved me right again. I've read the part of the constitution that outlines the qualifications one needs to become president. Guess what? It doesn't mention that a president needs to be physically coordinated. I heard the story of the president running into a guy with his bike, but so what? Does that somehow make him incompetent to lead the most powerful nation on Earth?

Let me explain this to you so that even you can understand. Bush has integrity. Anyone that resorts to unfounded baseless slanders, name calling, innuendo, and personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issue has little.

You are dismissed now.

Humor is Bipartisan

Rich Bachelor, a liberal who doesn't want to admit it, had this to say about my weekend post about Rush Limbaugh's answer to one of his critics: "Kudos, buddy.", which leads me to my point today. Humor is bi-partisan. As is most entertainment.
Others seem to resent humorous comments if they disagree with the humorists political viewpoints.

I don't agree with many entertainers politics but I appreciate their talents. For example, I like Ellen Degeneres' and Rosie O'Donnel's comedy but I don't agree with their ideology. I like Lewis Black and The Dixie Chicks. I don't like Bruce Springsteen but that is just a matter of musical taste. I enjoy movies in which Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Robin Williams, etc. play roles. I like Al Franken's comedy when it isn't just mean spirited Bush and U.S. bashing. The list of comedians and actors and singers who I enjoy listening to goes on and on.

It is only when they becoming activists is when I don't like them much. Still, they all have the right to speak up and let themselves be heard. They also have the right to be wrong.

I guess the thing that causes me the most distress is when they resort to personal attacks and name calling to support what they believe. I've said all that before. If you don't have the facts to back up what you believe, then do some research and find them, before you go ballistic. Instead of going ballistic. I hate to tell you liberals this but hysterical diatribes with the absence of concrete facts to back them up have no validity. None.

Look, the point is: It is possible to enjoy humor and music and entertainment without dwelling on the fact that oftimes the performer doesn't agree with your ideology. And it's ok if you do. Really.

I Got Tagged

Frenzied Feline tagged me, Tech tagged her. When will it end? Not with me. Originally, I was going to let it end here but I changed my mind, it occurs to me that I would be interested in knowing what some of my friends and fellow bloggers read. Here are the questions:


1. How many books do you own?
2. What is the last book you read?
3. What is the last book you purchased?
4. Name 5 fiction books that mean a lot to you.
5. Tag 5 more people

1. How many books do you own?
I own 5 books. When I moved here it was after splitting up with my wife and I didn't bring any with me. There is a library within walking distance from where I live so if I want to read a book, I borrow one.
They are: In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, The Pleasure of My Company by Steve Martin, Flyboys by James Bradley, Mystic River by Dennis Lehane, and The Truth about Hillary by Edward Klein.

2. Last book read?
The Truth about Hillary. It just hit the stands last week!

3. Last book purchased?
See Number 2

4. Name five fiction books that mean a lot to you.
I have to cheat here. The first is the one I am writing currently by blog, A Cutting Wind, because I am trying to write it myself, Slaughterhouse 5, Breakfast of Champions, Player Piano, God Bless You Mr. Rosewater.


Oh, and I am currently reading Slander, by Ann Coulter...ER gave me the idea to go find one of her books with a comment he left in my blog. (she's hard to read, too smart for me, I guess)

5. I tag Xena, Tug, Wordsmith, Daffy, and Francis Lynn

Tag. You're it.

Note: Does anyone know if Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham get along? They never seem to mention each other in their writings. I wonder if there is some rivalry involved.

Note 2: I went to the theater and saw War of the Worlds last week and just after I sat down, someone came up, pointed at the seat next to me, and asked, "Is this seat saved?" To which I replied, "Well, inasmuch as Aquinas reasoned that even animals have no souls, How much less chance does an inanimate object such as a chair have of achieving salvation?"

I am such a jerk.

Heard On The Radio Yesterday

Usually, I don't listen to much Rush Limbaugh. When the Laura Ingraham program is over, I switch stations because between O'Reilly and Rush, I prefer Rush. But once I hear what his topic is, I usually stick in a cd and listen to music. Not that I don't like Rush. I just get tired of his self-aggrandizing, although he is usually right. But I digress.

Yesterday, He read a comment from a female blogger that was, as usual, talking about him. He seems to only pay attention to what others say if it concerns him. At any rate, the gist of the comment he read was this: She complained that he was selling t-shirts and caps and other clothing under the brand name, "Club Gitmo" these items had slogans printed on them such as, "I got my free Q'uran and prayer rug at Club Gitmo", an obvious reference to what Rush considers a vacation paradise in comparison with how Senator Duck Durbin describes the conditions at Gitmo. You know the story.

At the end of her essay, she posed the question to Rush, "What do you do with the money from the sales of these items, Rush?"

Then, he answered her on air: "Part of the money pays for the merchandise, part of it pays the shipping costs to the customer, some of it goes to pay various expenses, and the rest is profit, and that, I keep."

I am sure other motorists that may have observed me at that moment had to be asking themselves, "What is so darn funny to that guy in the Dodge?"

Larry the Cable Guy on Freedom of Speech

Not many people read posts on the weekends, and I don't want to write a good post and have it basically ignored cause some people have a life, unlike myself, so I am copying and pasting this commentary from Larry the Cable Guy. It is old but it still applies. Enjoy.

What the hell is this, Russia? I've noticed something' about freedom of speech in this country the last few years other than ya get frowned on when pop out the f-word after stubbin' yer toe on a pew after the service. But I've noticed all these Hollywood peckerheads and P.C. pinkos' ridicule ya and try and silence ya when ya say somethin' they don't like. For Example: If I made a joke about a Christian feller or an NRA member or cracked out a Bush joke the PC crowd would laugh at it so hard that the late' they just swallowed down there emaciated tree huggin' commie pie hole would be commin' out there pierced noses! But if I did a joke about an animal righter or railed on Kerry or told a joke about Rosie O'Donnell gettin' kicked in the nuts these same sum-bitches'd be protestin' in the streets cryin' bigot and homophobe and cryin' like a Retard trippin' on marbles! I guess its ok for the P.C. ass-wipes in the country to make fun of things they disagree with but if ya make fun of things they agree with all of a sudden ya need to be stopped. Funny how it seems there's only freedom of speech in this country as long as ya don't step on the P.C. toes of the same people that preach freedom of speech. 2 things amaze me in this world. 1: The fact that Rich little still sells tickets and 2: P.C. people that have crowned themselves as rulers over what we say, think or do! Arnold the Governater used the term girly-man and was called a homophobe by the same group of people that call people names on a daily basis. Once again, its only freedom of speech as long as ya don't pick on certain individuals. Ya cant have it both ways like Ricky Martin, is it freedom of speech or isn't it. And no ya shouldn't be allowed to say the f-word at church after stubbin' yer toe, thats just manners! Like a deacon said after stubbin' his toe at church, "F##K!

The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of your humble uneducated friend and blogger.

An Al-Qaida Meeting

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

Abdul: All praise Allah, and Mohammed, his prophet, what is the news today, my brother?

Achmed: Allah be praised, Our holy Jihadist brothers in England have scored a great victory for Allah and our leader, Osama.

Abdul: Praise Allah, that is good news indeed. How many of the infidel dogs have we purified this day?

Achmed: the count is still not final, but it is close to 50 so far. With Allah's help it is hopeful the numbers will go over 100, Allah be praised.

Abdul: Yes, Praise Allah. And how is the propaganda effort going in the Nation of the infidels? Are the Government leaders there still fighting among themselves?

Achmed: Yes, Allah in his infinite wisdom has planted the seeds of insurrection into the liberal wing of the party of the Democrats. The infidels, Durbin, Kennedy, Reid, Biden, Pelosi, Dean, Byrd, and the others are fulfilling their destiny and Allah is pleased.

Abdul: Then they are succeeding in setting the Infidels of their Nation against each other?

Achmed: Praise be to Allah, Their speeches, wherein they blame their own leader for our purification procedures are strengthening our resolve, and has been a source of great encouragement for our soldiers of Allah.

Abdul: Perhaps, by Allah's great wisdom, he will prevail upon them to convert. They would be mighty warriors for our cause.

Achmed: Alas, Allah has said that those who turn against their own people and join with their enemies cannot be trusted. We have the Americans on their knees now, and when we are victorious, and Bush is defeated, we will kill them, as Allah has commanded. No infidel can be permitted to live, Praise Allah!

Abdul: But what of Bush? He has been unwavering.

Achmed: True, he has indeed been the hindrance to Allah's success, the one reason we have not already won this great Jihad against the Great Satan. But we have hope that the Democrats will win the majority in the next election and then our victory will come to fruition, by Allah's grace.

Abdul: That is Allah's will. How can we lose?

Abdul and Achmed together: All praise to Allah, and to Mohammed, the only true prophet of Allah!

The preceding scenario is, of course, fiction. A figment of your humble, uneducated, friend and narrator's twisted imagination.

Or is it?

How Do We Deal With Bullies?

When I was in Jr. High school, (that's what middle school used to be called) I was unusually small for my age. This school had 7-9th grades. Even as a 9th grader, I was still one of the shortest kids in school, and that made me a target for those bigger kids, we sometimes refer to as "bullies". Often they would accost me in the hallways, or in the restroom, and pick me up, I suppose, to demonstrate their physical strength, although picking up a 65 pound kid doesn't require great strength. But it's the only reason I can think of to explain that behavior. I hated that picking up thing. But I suffered it because I was afraid if I resisted I would be "beat up". This fear only served to encourage the bully treatment.

One day, an older boy named James Wilder, who was at least a foot taller than me, approached me in the restroom, with the intention of practicing the most popular humiliation technique upon me that others like me had suffered before, that is, forcing my head into a toilet bowl. Bad idea on his part.

My parents had always taught me that fighting was never the preferred option, but sometimes the only one.

I was grabbed and dragged kicking and struggling to the nearest stall. I knew what he intended to do. At this point, I had some choices.

1. I could let it happen, and hold my wet head in my hands crying and feeling sorry for myself.

2. I could let it happen and, as soon as I could, run to the principals office and report him.

3. I could fight and maybe spare myself from the ultimate humiliation.

I chose to fight. And I beat the crap out if him. And my head stayed dry. But more importantly, I was never bullied again. By anyone.

London, England was attacked by terrorists today. Incidently, this is another reason why I believe what I write about in my blog. Now Great Britain has some choices. These same choices are the ones that the United States faced after 9/11. What will England do? I know what I would do. Do you?

Democrats Spoiling for a Fight

Well, just as I predicted back in May, The Democrats have tipped their hand and my prediction is on the verge of coming true. Chuckie Schumer (D) New York, was caught talking on a cell phone yesterday plotting to filibuster President Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court. This came from The Drudge Report:
Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cellphone aboard a Washington, DC-New York Amtrak -- plotting Democrat strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.

Schumer promised a fight over whoever the President's nominee was: "It's not about an individual judge, It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court."

The chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!

Schumer proudly declared: "We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this."

Schumer went on to say how hard it was to predict how a Supreme Court justice would turn out: "Even William Rehnquist is more moderate than they expected. The only ones that resulted how they predicted were [Antonin] Scalia and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. So most of the time they've gotten their picks wrong, and that's what we want to do to them again."

Schumer later went on to mock the "Gang of 14" judicial filibuster deal and said it wasn't relevant in the Supreme Court debate.

"A Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court."

Sadly, this is just as I predicted. The Democrats have every intention to filibuster the next Judicial appointment. It makes no difference who The President chooses. This has gone beyond mere political wrangling. This reveals the political agenda of the left, as most of their previous opposing arguments have done, but this one is so blatantly obvious, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Liberals to explain it away with any credibility at all. They simply oppose Bush, regardless of ideology or political stance, and whatever he does, They will oppose it. That is troubling to say the least, and potentially dangerous at most.

America, a Christian Nation

In a comment made on one of my friends blogs, an assertion was made that America was not founded as a christian nation. In it, the commentator made this statement: "No where does the Constitution mention "Separation of Church and State", but it also never mentions the word gun or guns, does that mean since it's not there that we will just allow you to literally pull up your sleeves and bare your arms for protection, but make guns illegal? Your logic would suggest this very principle.

Also he says this:

The Constitution also never mentions the word God, Bible, Protestant, Christian, Christianity, or Jesus, thus trying to justify that this nation was founded on Christianity is ridiculous.

I would point out one glaring mistake first: The wording is "the right to BEAR arms", not "BARE" arms. I don't think I have to define the difference here. So you think America was not founded as a christian nation, eh? Why don't we do some research and maybe we'll get an idea of what the founding fathers had in mind. Let's start with Ben Franklin, who was possibly the most non religious of all the founders.
Franklin said this:

" In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered... Have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this proof: that God governs the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I therefore beg leave to move that , henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing upon our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed with business." Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787

How about Patrick Henry? Was he wrong?

" It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not to be religionist but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Patrick Henry

Maybe John Adams will support your case, Mr. Commentator:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were...The general principles of Christianity....I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

Oh, I guess not. Want more? I have more, but I don't want my post to be too long. If these quotes are not enough to convince you that we are a Christian nation(or were once), I have more. Stay tuned.

The History of Independence Day

I don't like to post more than 2 posts at the most in one day because people have the tendency to only read one or two posts at one sitting, however, after I posted two of them, I received this by e-mail and I couldn't let it go without sharing. I also want to do a little self promoting. I think my July 2nd post is my best ever, and I didn't copy and paste any of it. It is all from my own brain. I welcome whatever comments you have, so please read that one if nothing else.


The History of Independence Day

Independence Day is the national holiday of the United States of America commemorating the signing of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

At the time of the signing the US consisted of 13 colonies under the rule of England's King George III. Leading up to the signing, there had been growing unrest in the colonies surrounding the taxes that colonists were required to pay to England. The major objection was "Taxation without Representation" -- the colonists had no say in the decisions of English Parliament.

Rather than negotiating, King George sent extra troops to the colonies to help control any rebellion that might be arising. The following timeline will give you a crash course in the history that lead to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and America's break from British rule.

1774 - The 13 colonies send delegates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to form the First Continental Congress. While unrest was brewing, the colonies were far from ready to declare war.

April 1775 -- King George's troops advance on Concord, Massachusetts, prompting Paul Revere's midnight ride that sounded the alarm "The British are coming, the British are coming."

The subsequent battle of Concord, famous for being the "shot heard round the world," would mark the unofficial beginning of the American Revolution.

May 1776 -- After nearly a year of trying to work our their differences with England, the colonies again send delegates to the Second Continental Congress.

June 1776 -- Admitting that their efforts were hopeless, a committee was formed to compose the formal Declaration of Iindependence. Headed by Thomas Jefferson, the committee also included John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Philip Livingston and Roger Sherman.

June 28, 1776 -- Jefferson presents the first draft of the declaration to congress.

July 4, 1776 -- After various changes to Jefferson's original draft, a vote was taken late in the afternoon of July 4th. Of the 13 colonies, 9 voted in favor of the Declaration; 2, Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted No; Delaware was undecided and New York abstained.

John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. It is said that he signed his name "with a great flourish" so "King George can read that without spectacles!"

July 6, 1776 -- The Pennsylvania Evening Post is the first newspaper to print the Declaration of Independence.

July 8, 1776 -- The first public reading of the declaration takes place in Philadelphia's Independence Square. The bell in Independence Hall, then known as the "Province Bell" would later be renamed the "Liberty Bell" after its inscription - "Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants Thereof."

August 1776 - The task begun on July 4, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, was not actually completed until August. Nonetheless, the 4th of July has been accepted as the official anniversary of United States independence from Britain.

July 4, 1777 -- The first Independence Day celebration takes place. It's interesting to speculate what those first 4th festivities were like. By the early 1800s the traditions of parades, picnics, and fireworks were firmly established as part of American Independence Day culture


The Star Spangled Banner
The National Anthem of the United States of America, written by Francis Scott Key, is a song that stirs emotion in many a citizen. It can be an uplifting experience to be at a public event and join in the singing of this proud anthem.

But believe it or not, some people don't know all the words to the song. They may know how to fake it, lipsynching and mumbling during the opening festivities at Ball Games. But the fact remains, they do not know the words to the National Anthem!

Friends, don't let this happen to you. Before you head out for 4th of July festivities, take a moment to memorize the lyrics to the nation's most important song.

For the purposes of the average public celebration, knowing the first verse of the anthem is plenty to get you by. True purists, however, will want to know all four verses.


The Star Spangled Banner
By Francis Scott Key
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Happy Independence Day

I put an audio post in this spot of Ray Charles' version of "America the Beautiful" but the sound quality was horrible, so I deleted it. Go get a copy of that song and play it while you read this post and you'll have the effect I wanted. This is what he sang:


Oh beautiful for heroes proved,
In liberating strife,
Who more than self, our country loved,
And mercy more than life,

America, America may God thy gold refine,
Til all success be nobleness
And every gain devined.

And you know when I was in school,
We used to sing it something like this, listen here:

Oh beautiful, for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties,
Above the fruited plain,

But now wait a minute, I'm talking about
America, sweet America
You know, God done shed his grace on thee,
He crowned thy good, yes he did, in brotherhood,
From sea to shining sea.

You know, I wish I had somebody to help me sing this
(America, America, God shed his grace on thee)
America, I love you America, you see,
My God he done shed his grace on thee,
And you oughta love him for it,
Cause he, he, he ,he crowned thy good,
He told me he would, with brotherhood,
(From sea to shining Sea).
Oh lord, oh lord, I thank you Lord
(Shining sea).

Happy Independence Day, and may God bless you.

A message from Ben Stein

For many years Ben Stein has written a biweekly column called "Monday Night At Morton's." (Morton's is a famous chain of Steakhouses known to be frequented by movie stars and famous people from around the globe.) Now, Ben is terminating the column to move on to other things in his life. Reading his final column is worth a few minutes of your time.

Ben Stein's Last Column...


How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury
Be a Star in Today's World?

As I begin to write this, I "slug" it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is "eonlineFINAL," and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.

It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it. On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.


Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.

How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails.

They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.

A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.

A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.

The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.

We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.

I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.

There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament...the policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.

Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero.

I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters. This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put it another way. Years ago, I realized I could never be as great an actor as Olivier or as good a comic as Steve Martin...or Martin Mull or Fred Willard--or as good an economist as Samuelson or Friedman or as good a writer as Fitzgerald. Or even remotely close to any of them.

But I could be a devoted father to my son, husband to my wife and, above all, a good son to the parents who had done so much for me. This came to be my main task in life. I did it moderately well with my son, pretty well with my wife and well indeed with my parents (with my sister's help). I cared for and paid attention to them in their declining years. I stayed with my father as he got sick, went into extremis and then into a coma and then entered immortality with my sister and me reading him the Psalms.

This was the only point at which my life touched the lives of the soldiers in Iraq or the firefighters in New York. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters and that it is my duty, in return for the lavish life God has devolved upon me, to help others He has placed in my path. This is my highest and best use as a human.


Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will.
By Ben Stein

I don't need to add anything to this, do I?

Missing Girl Found

I copied this off of AOL news, although I could have found it anywhere:

More than six weeks after she disappeared from a home where family members were bludgeoned to death, an 8-year-old girl was found safe Saturday, sharing a meal with a registered sex offender at a Denny's restaurant in her hometown.

Shasta Groene was reunited with her father, but her 9-year-old brother, Dylan, remained missing and was feared dead, Kootenai County Sheriff's Capt. Ben Wolfinger said.

Joseph Edward Duncan III, a registered sex offender from Fargo, N.D., was arrested and charged with kidnapping. He was being held without bond, and Wolfinger said more charges were possible.

Undoubtedly the Radio talk show hosts and bloggers, etc, will be back on the usual "keep them out of my neighborhood" line. The comment I want to make here, is one I've made before. While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, there are two major flaws. 1. Sex offenders, like everyone else, have the ability to get into a car and drive. It makes no difference where they live. You cannot protect your children by simply making the sex offender move to another neighborhood. 2. Often, they don't inform the authorities when or where they move so that the authorities don't know where they are, as in this case.

There are two things that we, as concerned parents can do to help prevent the kinds of scenarios like the one unfolding before us now. One is lobby our government to keep this scum in jail. Permanently. Or, at least until they are too old and/or infirmed to be a threat.

The other thing is more immediate. Keep a vilgilant watch on your kids. Make sure you always know where they are. Educate your kids. Teach them what to do if accosted.

Of course, there is never any guarantee that a child is ever completely out of danger. When I was living in Kansas City, a 10 year old girl was snatched literally off the sidewalk in full view of her friends and neighbors and parent in broad daylight. A neighbor gave chase, but lost sight of the suspect some blocks away. This happened only a few blocks from where I and my children lived. The body of Pamela Butler, 10, was found a few days later, after the suspect was captured. He had raped and tortured her before he killed her. He did not live in her neighborhood. He lived across town. A town of 400,000 people. Also, there is no way that we can prevent people who haven't been caught yet from striking in our neighborhoods.

The best thing we can do is watch our kids, and pray that God will keep them safe, for, when it comes right down to it, He is the only One that can.

A Question

Someone asked me today, "Do you really believe all the things you write about in your blog?" I had to stop and give it some thought.

So, I thought back, to a 7th grade classroom and the intercom crackling to life with the news that the President had just been shot. The ultimate disrespect for the office of President.

Then I thought back 5 years later and the bullets of the false revenge struck again. Twice.

And I think about all the rights that we were supposed to be guaranteed to us by the constitution, the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And how they are being continually and methodically stripped away.

A court case decided that a woman has the right to kill her baby. It was called Roe vs. Wade.

I remember how my belief in the integrity of the senate was drowned in the murky waters of Chappaquidick.

And the images of soldiers returning from Viet Nam being spat upon and called "baby killers" by the people with whom I had once identified. And the way they were reviled by the very government that should have thanked them for their service.

Murderers and child molesters being freed by technicalities and "race cards". And innocent people being persecuted for their faith in a God whom the founders of our country based our system of government on.

I can think of cases where children are being suspended and expelled from public schools for writing essays on Jesus, the Bible, or their personal belief in God. And being sent home for wearing T shirts that proclaim "Jesus loves you" while other students are allowed to wear T shirts with the images of Marilyn Manson,Godsmack, and other "death metal, Satanic Bands, and pentagrams.

I remember Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his commitment to legalize murder of the elderly and infirmed.

I think of how the Supreme Court keeps ordering the removal of the ten commandments, the very rule of law our system of justice is based on.

Hate speech by politicians, news media organizations, and radical associations.

Then I remember the pain and anger I felt when terrorists flew jet airliners into the world trade center towers and pentagon. And then there were people who blamed the attacks on our own government and those who support it.

Muslim extremists terrorists sawing off the heads of innocent civilians, some of who were in their country to help them.

Then there was the starving to death of a young comatose woman in Florida, not just a mercy killing, but a long agonizing death, and the numbers of people that think it is ok to do that to someone.

And now, My President is being called a liar and a loser and a murderer by politicians and news media who want to undermine him and his efforts to create a better world for our children

And on, and on, and on, and on.

So, Whenever someone asks me, "Do you really believe the things you write about in your blog?" I smile, and wink, and say, "Hell no, but the money's good."

For what else could I say to such a question?

Sandra Day-O'Connor steps down

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day-O'Connor tendered her resignation to the president today. While this is no longer news to most people who stay on top of the issues, it has prompted me to wonder who President Bush will choose to replace her. And, following that, I also wonder what "extraordinary circumstances" the Democrats will site to filibuster the nomination of who ever he appoints, for it is as sure as the grass is green and night follows day, they will do just that. That was the intention of the now infamous gang of 14 from the beginning.
You have to give the Democrats credit for having the foresight to expect an opening to come up in the Supreme Court, and for somehow convincing some gullible Republican senators to cross party lines and agree to the compromise on judicial appointments. Now we will see the results of that compromise. If you scroll back in my archives you will find the post where I made the prediction that the Democrats will most assuredly use this so-called compromise against anyone the President chooses to appoint.

I had heard, through other sources, that Ted Kennedy was already objecting to Bush's next judicial appointment, so I went to Google and attempted to find the exact quote. I couldn't find it. I had heard the quote repeated on talk radio but I don't recall exactly what he said. However, I will say this: What little I heard didn't convince me that Kennedy was objecting to any appointment before the fact. I think some right wingers are reading more into his statements than what he intended. But since I don't remember what I heard, I could be wrong. I'm not saying he won't object to whoever Bush chooses, in fact, I am reasonably sure that he will object, and strenuously.

In any case, I will go on record now as saying, (and mark my words): There will be a filibuster of whoever the President nominates. Unless he nominates a left wing liberal. And we all know that won't happen.

Addendum: I have just thought of the perfect choice to replace Ms. O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Zell Miller. Why? He is conservative, but he is a Democrat. This is a perfect choice, because the Democrats have demonstrated that they don't see a difference between Democrats and Liberals. (The speech by Karl Rove, when he talked about liberals and the Democrats got offended, proves that they don't differentiate between the two.) So, appointing Zell Miller to the court will meet with little or no opposition from the Democrats and thus a conservative will be confirmed.

Time to lighten up

I am getting too intense. I am frustrated with the whole politics thing. Republicans vs Democrats, Liberals, vs Conservatives. So today I am just going to post the words to an old Scottish folk song that my girlfriend, Jeannie, loves. Here it is:


Dumbarton's Drums
Traditional
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me

Across the hills o' burning heather
Dumbarton tolls the hour of pleasure
A song of love that has no measure
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me

Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me

It's she alone who can delight me
As gracefully she doth invite me
And when her tender arms enfold me
The blackest night can turn and flee

Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me

Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and kisses me

In addition to that, my son, John, who is 16 years of age is a skateboarder, and a pretty good one, too. Some time back, before I had any readers on this thing, I allowed him to post an essay on my blog.

There is, for those of you who don't know, a professional skateboarder named Bam Margera, who has a television series on MTV. In it, he plays Jackass style pranks on his parents and others. The teenage skateboarder generation think he is God. My son, ever the rebellious, free thinker type, has his own opinion. Here is his essay reprinted here:

"I hate Bam Margera, usually I am okay with money-hungry jerks and the other 5% of the entertainment industry (after all, it's only their job), but Bam Margera does kinda bother me... Like some parents said, he promotes a negative image of skateboarding to kids and to the adults who chase skateboarders out of the spots. He is saying it's okay to cause trouble and to be a moron.
Have you seen the latest video games? The commercials promote stealing and vandalism and all sorts of immature, elementary habits. Why would anyone be grateful to a person who tarnishes their sport like that? He is a horrible role model and only a half-decent skateboarder.
Tony Hawk was ok. He was a revolutionary vert skateboarder and a great role model for kids. He promoted a good image and made the skateboarding industry way more money then Bam Margera ever will...but now he's seen slashing tires in the Tony Hawk's Underground video game commercial. Skateboarders in the limelight have sunk to an all time low, trying to attract kids by luring them in with disrespect. The skateboarding industry is becoming what all of those store shop keepers and men in suits always thought it was...some cheap hobby for kids who think they're punks"

not too bad for a 15 year old kid eh?

Discrimination?

I have made two posts today, and yesterday, so be sure to scroll on down after reading the first one.
AOL reports:
"Minorities Empathize After Boutique Rebuffs Oprah
By ERIN TEXEIRA, AP

Oprah says she will no longer be shopping in Hermes stores, even though she has often plugged their products in the past.


(June 28) - Whether Oprah Winfrey was turned away from a bit of after-hours shopping in Paris because of a racist employee or a special event, news of the confrontation outside a luxury store has evoked empathy and anger from many American minorities.

In living rooms and Internet chat rooms, the Winfrey case has sparked discussion of what many see as a chronic problem for minorities: poor treatment and sometimes outright suspicion of minority shoppers no matter how well-educated or rich they are - particularly in high-end stores."

Oh, Please! This isn't about discrimination at all! This is about elitism in a most blatant form. The facts are: Oprah arrived at the store 15 minutes AFTER the store was closed, and expected them to re-open just because she wanted them to, apparently believing because she is wealthy, that she deserves "special" treatment.

Does anyone really think that if she had arrived when the store was open, that they would have refused her entrance? This is simply a matter of store employees who are finished with their day, wanting to go home and enjoy their time off, and not wanting the hassle of having to re-open the cash registers and possibly tolerate a difficult customer. I know I'm jumping to conclusions about whether Oprah is difficult, but come on, if she is raising a discrimination beef over not being let in after the store is closed, she is being difficult.

If she had arrived on time, this wouldn't even be a topic for conversation. Oprah needs to apologize, not the store.

I oppose the war

Listening to President Bush's speech last night, it occurred to me that I have been lying to myself. I have been saying I support the war in Iraq, but I don't. I oppose it. Vehemently. I oppose the war in Iraq. I also oppose the war in Afghanistan. And the war on terror worldwide. In fact, I oppose all war. War is never the preferred option. It is a last resort.

I'm not saying that I don't support President Bush and his decision to go to war. Unfortunately, war is a necessary evil that has to be waged in order to free enslaved, oppressed people when negotiation fails.

There are those who say that Bush fabricated a reason to go to war. I would hesitate to believe that of even the most reprehensible of politicians. How depraved must one be to "make up" a reason to go to war? I don't think anyone would intentionally send young men into a foreign land to die without a reason, unless that person is a madman. Do the Libs think Bush is a madman?

I suppose, in the Liberal's utopia, there is never a reason to go to war, and negotiation always solves all differences. Yes, and in this wonderful, fantasy world, men like Dennis Rader, otherwise known, back in my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, as BTK, would not have murdered ten people. And nobody would ever get sick and die horrible painful deaths. And health care would be free to all, although, in this world no one gets sick. And steak and gas prices would be affordable. And Saddam and Bin Laden would be nice reasonable men that would be willing to compromise in the interest of peace. I dearly wish that were true in the real world. But this is not Utopia.

I no longer care why we are fighting in Iraq. Does it make a difference that Saddam possibly had nothing to do with the attack on the World trade Center? Does it matter that Saddam refused to allow inspectors into Iraq in direct violation of the UN resolutions? Does it matter that his refusal was the real reason we invaded his country? Does it really matter?

The only thing I want to know now is, when can we get out? The President and Donald Rumsfeld says we will leave Iraq when we accomplish the task. What is the task now? I know it was originally to oust Saddam Hussein and to help set up a democratic form of government, governed by the Iraqis themselves. We have accomplished those tasks. Now we are training Iraqi soldiers and policemen to defend their own country. We need to do that, also, I suppose.

The Democrats are asking Bush to set a timeline for when we can get out of Iraq. I think that is a good idea. Bush says that is not a good thing for it undermines our efforts to rid Iraq of insurgents. But that is predicated on a timeline that is made public. Why can't he have a timeline in mind that will go unannounced to the world? I think maybe he does. He just isn't tipping off our enemies.

But what do I know? I'm just a simple, uneducated blogger that see's a wrong, and is powerless to right it. I am just sick of the political in-fighting and the insinuations that my President is a liar and a murderer. I just want closure. Or answers.

Truth is funnier than fiction

I ran across this news item while surfing the blogwaves. Ahhh, revenge is a dish best served cold. If this works, We can hit the remaining Justices who abused their power.

Will Smith Urges Rappers to Be Role Models

Will Smith has won my respect. Read this from Yahoo news:

Will Smith has one big introduction to make at Tuesday night's BET Awards: Gangster rappers, meet the rest of the world. Smith told The Associated Press he hopes to impress the global significance of U.S. black culture on the show's audience and artists.


"The kids that are making these trends, making these songs, don't understand the level of effect that black Americans have around the world," he said in an interview. " ... Black Americans are so elevated, it's almost worship."

Smith, co-host of the show (8 p.m. EDT) at Hollywood's Kodak Theater with wife Jada Pinkett-Smith, said he witnessed the phenomenon recently while in Africa. Touring a village in Mozambique, he came across a shack on which someone had scrawled the name of slain rapper Tupac Shakur.

"I was asking the kids: What is it about Tupac? Why is that there? I kept asking why. They were saying we want to dress like you dress, wear all the things you wear, talk how you talk."

"The impression is that black Americans are the dragon slayers. Here we are 13 percent minority in a foreign land, and yet we can make laws, change laws. If Jesse Jackson shows up at Coca-Cola, something changes."

Smith, who won the first rap Grammy in 1988 for his squeaky-clean "Parents Just Don't Understand," said he wants hip-hop artists to recognize their importance and shift away from thuggish themes.

"It's real important to have balance of the imagery. Yes, there are people who fire guns in the street, but there's also doctors who go to work in those areas to feed their children."

The gangster lifestyle is celebrated in black communities for its strength, Smith said. "That's the image of survivors. The dude that sells the drugs or has the guns or is most willing to kill somebody is the dude that has the greatest potential for survival, or at least that's the perception. So that's what people strive for.

"What I'm trying to present and what a lot of other artists are presenting is a different approach to survival and a more sound approach to survival. It's a more long-term approach based on intellect and skills that can't be taken away from you: The smartest dude survives the best."

Smith picks out Common and Mos Def as other artists "that really have something to say that don't necessarily fit on the `106th & Park' top 10."

Now more well-known as a movie star ("Men in Black," "Bad Boys," "Independence Day") than rapper, the 36-year-old Smith maintains on his latest album "Lost And Found" that his nice guy image has worked against him.

"Black radio, they won't play me though," he raps in one song. "Guess they think that Will ain't hard enough. Maybe I should just have a shootout ... just ignorant, attacking, acting rough. I mean then, will I be black enough?"

Though his current single "Switch" is a top 40 hit, the man once known as the Fresh Prince said he no longer worries about album sales.

"I'm an entertainer. I make it and close my eyes," he said. "Sometimes it sells 14 million, sometimes it sells 300,000. For me it's about just doing what I do, and hoping that my artistry makes a difference."

Ordinarily, I couldn't care less what those Hollywood people think, but in this case, I think Mr. Smith shows a remarkable understanding of the influence Hollywood culture has on our youth. Thanks for "keeping it real", Will. I think that's the first time I ever understood what that means.

___

Supreme court decisions

When the Supreme Court issued it's decision on the government seizure of private property for tax revenue purposes, I held my peace. I am a renter, and so, I have no choice in whether my home gets taken away, although I have to say, that if I were a home or business owner, I would be as outraged as everyone else. In fact, it is hard for me to fathom why anyone, regardless of political ideology, would support this obvious abuse of power now handed to the government. There is a good essay on this subject here.

But now, there is news of an even more outrageous mis-interpretation of the Constitution. Today, by a vote of 5-4, our esteemed Supreme Court has struck down our first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the first amendment, I will submit it for your perusal:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I suppose the argument can be made that since the Supreme Court is not Congress, they can get away with this. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought the Supreme Courts job was to INTERPRET the Constitution, not to CHANGE it! And I think the first amendment is pretty self explanatory. This goes directly to the line, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Removing the Ten Commandments from anything is a violation of the first amendment, period. No one said if you are not Judeo/Christian, that you have to abide by them, although, if you don't there is a strong possibility that you are breaking some civil law. Why? Because United States law is BASED on the Ten Commandments!

I think it's about time we avail ourselves of the latter part of the First amendment: To petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is speculation that at least one of the Justices will announce retirement this week, possibly even as early as today. Both Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Sandra Day-O'Connor may step down. Then, President Bush will have to appoint replacements. We know any sitting president will always appoint judges who support his own ideology, indeed, we thought a couple of the Justices that voted against the First amendment in this case, were supposedly conservative appointees. It will be interesting to see who Bush will select, and for what reason the Democrats will decide he or she meets the criteria for another judicial filibuster.

You know? I don't really care if it's a conservative or a liberal judge who is chosen to replace any justices stepping down, as long as they do what they are supposed to do, that is, interpret the Constitution rather than change it according to his/her own ideologies.

A Turtle on a fence post

Billy Graham is 86 years old. He is frail, and sick, and still brilliant. I pulled this story off AOL news:

As his final American revival meeting continued Saturday, a fragile Billy Graham was met onstage by former President Clinton, who honored the evangelist, calling him "a man I love."

Clinton spoke briefly before Graham's sermon and recalled how the man known as America's pastor had refused to preach before a segregated audience in Arkansas decades ago when that state was in a bitter fight over school desegregation.

"I was just a little boy and I'll never forget it," said Clinton, who was joined by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I've loved him ever since. God bless you, friend."
Graham called the Clintons "wonderful friends" and "a great couple," quipping that the former president should become an evangelist and allow "his wife to run the country."

It bothers me when Rev. Graham says things like that, for surely he knows that possibly one of the worse things that could happen to our country is to have Hillary in charge, however, I think this is indicative of the way that Rev. Graham has endeared himself to the world. He just loves, unconditionally. Just as God would want him to do.

I heard an interview with Franklin Graham, Billy's son, on the radio on Friday, in which he was asked what makes his father so effective in his ministry. Franklin replied that his father was like a "turtle on a fence post". That turtle didn't get there on his own, he had to have been put there by someone else. He said his father is a man of God and took special care that he would never allow himself to be put in positions in which he would look as if he was anything other than a man of God. I agree with that. I have heard that he will never allow himself to be alone with a single woman. If he is on an elevator alone, for instance, and a woman gets on, he will step off, to avoid any possiblility that someone will suspect impropriety. With that said, I have to say that I believe Franklin doesn't get it.

In my opinion, the reason that Billy Graham is so effective in his ministry is because of the intangible. That is, The Holy Spirit. If you really sit and listen to his sermons, you will notice that Rev. Grahams sermons aren't complicated explanations of theology. They are simple. They simply state the message of God's unconditional love for all humans, and how one can be saved. This is a message that everyone has heard countless times but rarely does one take heed. But it works for Graham because he has the Spirit of God in him, and that spirit speaks to our hearts through him. In other words, it isn't Billy Graham or his message at all. It is the Holy Spirit that makes the difference. Rev. Graham is just the anointed messenger.

I believe we can all learn from this great man. I, along with millions of other people, have been touched by his ministry. But I'm not sure I am ready to love Hillary Clinton.

A Lib meeting

The scene is an office, or a meeting room, or a motel room, it really doesn't matter where. There are 2 people, both liberals, watching C-span on the TV. Dick Durbin is speaking on the floor of the Senate:

Durbin: "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime Pol Pot or others that had no concern for human beings,"

Lib 1: Did I hear that right? Did he really say that?

Lib 2: I'm not sure. Did you hear him compare Gitmo guards with Pol Pot, the Nazi's and the Gulags?

Lib 1: Oh, God, I was hoping I was just hearing things.

Lib 2: Well, he said it. So now we are going to have to do some major damage control. Get on the phone. Call all the captains, tell them to contact all their people, and tell their people to tell their people....monitor all TV networks, talk radio programs...

Lib 1: Aren't we going to call Durbin and tell him to apologize?

Lib 2: If it comes down to it, he may have to, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. If we act fast enough, he may not have to.

Lib 1: OK. What are we looking for?

Lib 2: Anything. Anything that any conservative says that we can twist and demand an apology for. You know sooner or later one of them will say something we can object to. Let's just hope it's sooner rather than later.

Fast forward to a little more than a week later: The same two Liberals are meeting:

Lib 1: Well, we tried but we can't stall any longer. Durbin's going to have to apologize now.

Lib 2: Yes, he will. Send him the draft of that "non-apology" apology. Have him recite that one. That will cool the moderates down until we can find something on the conservatives.

Fast forward a couple of days later:

Lib 2: OK, So what do we have?

Lib 1: Not much, there is this Karl Rove thing where he said "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." But we can't use that. It's the truth!

Lib 2: No, wait. We CAN use that. All we have to do is act righteously indignant and call for his resignation. You know, just make enough noise to distract the media from the fact that Durbin didn't really apologize. They're mostly all on our side. It won't take any effort to convince the media to go along with us.

Lib 1: But won't the American people see through that ruse?

(pregnant pause, as both seem to be considering the possiblility)

Lib 2: YEAH, RIGHT!

Both Together: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

An open letter to Karl Rove

At a dinner for the New York state republicans on Wednesday, Karl Rove had this to say:
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,"

This has ignited a firestorm of indignation from the liberals similar to the firestorm ignited by Senator Dick Durbin's remarks about the Gitmo detainee camp in Cuba, but not as deserved.
Liberals are calling for an apology and I, for one, agree. With that in mind I have prepared an open letter for Mr. Rove. This is it:

Dear Mr. Karl Rove:
In light of the recent statements you made at the dinner for New York Republicans We, as concerned Americans feel that you owe an apology to the Liberals. Although the remarks are completely true, as evidenced by the very words of certain liberals soon after 9/11, in the interest of fostering good will among your peers, I have taken the liberty to prepare a statement for you. You may use it verbatim:

More than most people, a senator lives by his words, but occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.

We believe if you apologize forthwith, the country can get back to the business at hand, and that is the continual distraction and stalling of governing the country.

sincerely,
Concerned Conservatives

I think that should appease the liberals. After all, It worked for Durbin!

Torture or Interrogation?

Just when I thought I was finished with this whole sordid "Dick Durbin" thing, my friend ER, takes it up again. He has quite an interesting thread going on over at his place. But this time it's more about what constitutes torture than what Senator Dick said. And about whether what is happening in Gitmo is really happening.

I have so many points to make about this, that I am going to devote an entire post to the subject here, rather than continue to add comment after comment ad nauseum over there.

To begin with, let me refer you to the previous post I made about this on June 17, wherein I pointed out that the "FBI memo" he read his statement from was repudiated by a spokesman for the FBI. This is one fact of this case that hasn't received much attention from the press.

Next, although there may be some incidents of over-zealousness on the part of some prison guards at Gitmo, these incidents pale in comparison with the gross human rights abuses exhibited by the Nazi's, Pol Pot, or the Soviet Gulags.

The point was made over on ER's blog, that these prisoners were arrested seemingly for no reason, however there is no validity to that point. Those detainees were taken prisoner directly from the fields of battle, and they were trying to kill us. And, not to belabor that point, but they really haven't been arrested at all, but detained for the duration of the war. The reason for this is to prevent them from rejoining the fight against our people, and by so doing, prevent them from attacking America again. To say that we are detaining these people for no reason is patently ridiculous.

Those detainees that accuse our soldiers of torture and/or inhumane treatment should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. There was recently an Al-Quaida training manual found in Iraq by American forces that outlines the procedure to be followed should an Al-Quaidan be captured and detained. It instructs the detainee to accuse his captors of abuse. That of course, should go without saying, after all, our own domestic prisons are full of prisoners that are innocent. Don't believe that? Just ask any of them, they'll tell you.

I am tired of discussing this. I really believe that whenever a senator or congressman of any party stands up in public and makes any kind of controversial statements, it's because his party is trying to distract the other party and America from the issues at hand. Especially a PREPARED statement, which was the case in this instance. Quite different from an off-the-cuff statement made at a birthday party.

I am sure I can "filibuster" at length about this subject further, but I have neither the time nor the inclination.

The Mouth that roared

Listening to an interview with 2 of the soldiers that were assigned to guard Saddam Hussein, something that he reportedly said struck a chord. (I waited too long to post this. Now I can't find the interview.) But the gist of it is: He told his guards that he is still president of Iraq and even invited them to come visit him when he is back in power. Now, some may see this is arrogance, some may see it as delusional. I think he has an even more insane plan in mind.

Stay with me here. Do you remember a little known book by an author named Leonard Wibberly called, "The Mouse That Roared"? If you haven't, or, even if you have, let me offer a brief synopsis of the concept.

The Grand Duchy of Fenwick, a very small country in the western part of Europe, possibly nestled in between bigger countries such as Luxembourg and Litchenstein, was facing dire financial difficulties, indeed, they were facing bankruptcy. So they hatched an ingenious plan. Noting that the whenever the United States won a war, they would then start donating foreign aid to the defeated countries. The Fenwickians reasoned that if they declared war with the US and lost, then the U S would bail them out of their financial difficulty. But something went wrong with the plan. They won!

I won't get into the particulars of how that happened. I will just say that maybe Saddam had something similar in mind when he knowingly refused to allow the U N inspectors into his country to search for WMD's that he claimed he didn't have. After all, he had been warned that failure to comply with the U N resolutions was tantamount to an overt act of war. Knowing this, he thumbed his nose at America and the U. N. Anyway.

Possibly, Saddam and his son's extravagant lifestyle was depleting the countries coffers to the point that they were beginning to be alarmed. Yes, I know that millions were discovered all over the country after we went in. But to someone as wealthy as Saddam, ONLY millions may appear close to the bottom of the barrel. Maybe, just maybe, he was hoping for a typical American bail out.

OK, it was just a thought. Someone offered a comment that all the conservatives seemed to find one or two news reports, link to them, and then say basically the same things that everyone else is saying about them. I was just offering a different take. I hope this satisfies you.

Bolton blocked again

Well, I knew this would happen as soon as the news came out, in May, that 14 senators, 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans, had reached a compromise regarding the filibuster of Presidential nominees.
I said at the time, This compromise was no compromise at all, but a strategic win for the Democrats. It is incredible to me that Senators, who are supposed to be intelligent, would agree to a compromise with such an obvious, huge loophole. In this blog, I stated that most of these guys are lawyers and who knows better how to create and exploit loopholes better than lawyers? And to think, I used to say one had to be smart to be a lawyer. I think I'm about to change my mind about that. Maybe only Democrat lawyers are smart. Or so it would seem in this case.
So, it happened exactly as I said it would. The Democrats would use the "extraordinary circumstances" loophole that they created and to which somehow they fooled the 7 Republican lawmakers into agreeing. These 7 Republicans, in my opinion, had to know to what they were agreeing. I believe they knew this would happen. Why, then, did they agree to this preposterous compromise? Perhaps the 2006 elections will give us a clue, but for now, we can only speculate.
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who voted in May to advance the nomination, switched positions and urged Bush to consider another candidate, while only three Democrats crossed party lines. Well, we all suspected that he had another agenda then.
So, it appears that President Bush will have to exercise his option to make Bolton a recess appointment, which is a temporary solution, but hopefully, it will convince the Democrat senators and those few turncoat Republican senators that Bolton is the right choice after all.

Headlines in 2029

Someone sent this to me in e-mail. Somehow I don't think it's far off:

Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia formally known as California. White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language.

Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.

Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped.

Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.

Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American Territory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon).

Iraq still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.

France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica.

Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.

George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.

Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.

85-year, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss.

Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.

Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.

Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.

Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights.

Average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches.

New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036.

Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts.

Capitol Hill intern indicted for refusing to have sex with congressman.

IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.

Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines.

Natalee Holloway still missing, Aruba police to begin investigation.

Actually, I have in my twisted little mind an idea for a book which will seek to show what life will be like in the future, if current trends continue at the present rate. Some of these will no doubt be included. If any of you professional writers out there would be interested in co-authoring a book with me, please e-mail me. The link to my e-mail is in my profile.

Father's Day

Being the youngest of 6 children in My family, It is perhaps more difficult than my siblings for me to remember much of the things that my father did, or said, that makes him special to me. So, I sent e-mails to all my brothers and sisters, asking them to send me a short story or anecdote that best describes what our father meant to each of us. For some reason, I didn't get any replies. So, I will simply tell what he means to me.

My father and I had what many would probably agree was the typical rebellious teen/loving but firm father relationship. We fought on numerous occasions over what I wanted to do versus what he wanted me to do, which were, of course, the "right" things. Somehow we made it through and I grew to respect the man on so many levels as time went on.

At this point, I am reminded of something Mark Twain once said:
"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

Now for some memories. I remember more than a few times that my mother would tell me to "Go help your dad" when he was working on the washing machine, or the car, etc. I would go and stand there looking bored and he'd say, "what do you want?" and I'd say "Mom told me to help you." he'd say, "You wanna help? stay out of the way!"
We were a church going family, but I was not the best behaved boy in church. I remember specifically 2 occasions when my father responded to my behavior unusually. By that I mean he didn't respond the way I would have expected. Both times I had been caught doing something I shouldn't have done in church. I expected, both times, to really get a beating when I got home, (not really beating, just a good spanking, in retrospect) but instead once he dropped by the Dairy Queen on the way home and bought me a pineapple sundae. The other time, he just said nothing about the incident. Years later, I realized what he was thinking. The fear and humiliation I was already feeling was punishment enough. And he was right.

Fast forward on to his final days. My father died of a long lasting painful disease called Chronic Respiratory Pulmonary Disease. Once, while visiting him at his bedside on a day that I sincerely believed was very nearly his last, he astounded me with a revelation. He told me about 2 times when he had been proud of me. Perhaps it would be important to say at this time that my dad was not one given to displays of effusion, however, on this occasion he spoke about a time, years before, that I had stood up in church and told the congregation that I was glad that my parents made me go to church with them when I didn't want to go. Personally, I had forgotten that I did that. But he hadn't. He also told me he was always proud of how good a basketball player I was. Knock me over with a feather! I had no idea he even knew I played much basketball! Incidentally, I wasn't that good. I tried out for the 7th grade team and was cut, and was so devastated, that I never tried out for another sport in school. But he never said a word about it.
My older brother told me, just last year, that Dad believed if you didn't make any money from the things that you did that it wasn't important. I know that sounds like a pretty shallow man, but you have to see the man the way I do to understand and realize just how special that made him. I wish my siblings had responded to my request, those anecdotes would tie this together so much better.

Dad didn't die in the next few days. Instead, a very different and miraculous thing occurred. He entered the hospital shortly thereafter with severe breathing difficulties, and the Doctor told my mother that he would be surprised if Dad lived through the night. That day, my father prayed to God, asking him to either take him or cure him as he could no longer go on in his present condition. And, contrary to what you are supposed to do, he gave God a timeframe to work with. He told God he wanted to be cured or dead by 2:00 PM the next day. At precisely 2:00 the next day, Dad drew the first unobstructed breath he had drawn in years! From there, he made a complete recovery and was running up steps in a matter of weeks! Dad didn't just sit back and enjoy this new lease on life he had received. Not my dad. He applied for and was given a mission from the state home mission board of the Southern Baptist Convention. In the next few years, he planted and pastored a small church in Claflin, Kansas. I believe that was the work God had been grooming him for his entire life. And so did he. After establishing that church, and making sure it was self sufficient, his disease returned and shortly thereafter, he died in my mother's arms.

I don't have many more memories of him that are worth sharing. They are just little things that are special to me alone, that I'm quite sure no one else would be able to appreciate. One thing that I have always been grateful for: I got the chance that so many people never get, and that is, I was able to reconcile all the differences I ever had with my father before he died. I don't feel guilty. I don't feel sorry I never got the chance to say "I love you, Dad". Because, you see, I did tell him I loved him.

Happy Father's Day and God bless you, Dad, rest in peace.

That "memo"

I said if and when I find the actual "Downing Street Memo" that I would have a comment on it. Well, here it is. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I can't see anything in this thing that indicates President Bush was planning anything underhanded. In fact, it seems to me, that it proves him right.

The memo does mention this, which some might construe as plans to illegally wage war with Saddam: "The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD."

But, notice that it does say: "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors." That means that the decision to go to war was in Saddam's court. History tells us he did exactly what he needed to do to ensure war. He refused, again, to let the UN inspectors into the country. Another related thing I would like to bring up here: Common sense tells us, that if Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's, then he would certainly have avoided war by LETTING IN THE INSPECTORS! In my opinion, Bush has once again proven that he is a man of integrity, and his detractors have proven they are not.

Reaction to DICK Durbin

Today, I ran across this item on the FOX news web site.
GOP leaders called on their Democratic counterparts Friday to denounce the comments of Sen. Dick Durbin, who earlier this week blasted the Guantanamo detainee camp.

In the remarks first expressed on the Senate floor late Tuesday, the Illinois Democrat read the report of an FBI agent who described treatment of prisoners at the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Among the descriptions, the report noted one case in which a detainee was held in such cold temperatures that he shivered, another in which a prisoner was held in heat passing 100 degrees, one in which prisoners were left in isolation so long they fouled themselves and one where a prisoner was chained to the floor and forced to listen to loud rap music.

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime Pol Pot or others that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said.

But here is the part of the story that made me say, "What the......?"

"One knowledgeable official familiar with the memo cited by Durbin as well as other memos said the FBI agent made no such allegation and that the memo described only someone chained to the floor. Anything beyond that is simply an interpretation, the official said."

The FBI agent made no such allegation???

Well now, not only was the senator making anti-American and anti-military accusations, but now that it appears they aren't even true!

I have a suggestion for Senator DICK....If you are going to make serious allegations about the inhuman treatment of enemy combatants by the American military prison guards, perhaps you could make them sound like REAL abuse. Say American prison guards are torturing and murdering innocent civilians including women and children. I mean, as long as we're lying anyway, why not go all out? But come on...turning the air conditioner on and off? making him sit in one place all day? Please.

Further, it has been reported that DICK tried to backtrack on his statements today by saying he only meant, when reading the aforementioned memo, that it brought to his mind the treatment of prisoners by those regimes.

Do you know what I think of when i read that memo? I think, "Is that all? Is that all we are doing to get this animal to talk?" If in some off chance that this type of interrogation technique fails to illicit the desired results, I support falling back on the old tried and true rubber hose. Whatever it takes! If it prevents further terrorist attacks against the innocent civilian men, women, and children of our country, I say GO FOR IT! But that's just me.

Terri Schaivo autopsy

The Terri Schaivo autopsy results were made public on Tuesday. In order to get the facts straight, I sent a correspondent, Emily Lutella, to Tampa, Florida, to interview the medical examiner firsthand. The following is the interview in it's entirety:*

Emily: Dr. Thogmartin, I understand that Mrs. Schaivo's autopsy report confirms that she was in a persistent vegetative state.

M.E.: the autopsy showed that Ms. Schiavo's condition was consistent with a person in a persistent vegetative state.

Emily: So does that mean she was or she wasn't?

M.E. "This damage was irreversible. No amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons. That term refers to a clinical diagnosis, not a pathological diagnosis. There was nothing in the autopsy that is inconsistent with persistent vegetative state."


Emily: Do we now know why she collapsed in the first place?

M.E.: "I consider the manner of her death to be undetermined."

Emily: Is there any evidence that her collapse was caused in any way by her husband?

M.E.: "The autopsy showed that physical abuse or poison did not play a role in her collapse."

Emily: What about the assertion that she was bulimic?

M.E.: "There was no evidence she had had an eating disorder before she collapsed, although a disorder was widely suspected because she had diminished levels of potassium in her blood."

Emily: What about the fact that she was able to follow that balloon with her eyes?

M.E.: despite a widely televised video that appeared to show Ms. Schiavo responding to voices and other movement in her room, the autopsy said that Ms. Schiavo was blind in her final days. She would not have been able to eat or drink had she been fed by mouth, as her parents had requested. The autopsy found no evidence that she suffered a heart attack, or that she had been given harmful drugs that may have accelerated her death.




Emily: In spite of her being in that state, it seems that starvation is a particuarly cruel and painful means of euthanasia. In your opinion, does being in a PVS justify starving her to death?

M.E.: "Ms. Schiavo technically died of marked dehydration - not starvation - after her feeding tube was removed."

Emily: Dehydration? Well. That's very different. Nevermind.

Point is: I can accept that Mrs. Schaivo was in a persistent vegetative state as her husband and his lawyer asserts. But, if you are going to euthanize someone, anyone, why starve that person to death (or dehydrate them)? Isn't there a quicker, less painful way to do it? And why was killing her necessary in the first place? Her parents only wanted her husband to release her into their care. Why couldn't he have dome that? This whole sordid episode is just sickening. And, I am afraid, it leads to the proverbial "slippery slope" towards wholesale euthanasia of anyone that we feel has "outlived their usefulness".

* The above interview is a parody, however everything attributed to Dr. Thogmartin is a direct quote from the New York Times' article on the press conference. Emily Lutella is a character from "Saturday Night live" played by the Late Gilda Radner.

Dick Durbin gets stupid

I found this on Laura Ingraham's web site today. When I heard on her radio program that Durbin compared Gitmo to Pol Pot's regime I was not sure I heard it right. What kind of un-American jerk is this guy? In my opinion, it is treasonous for elected representatives of our government to spread anti-Americanism hate speech throughout the world. He needs to apologize to America for this one.


DURBIN COMPARES U.S. INTERROGATIONS TO POL POT AND NAZIS! Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), speaking on the Senate floor, described our interrogation practices at Gitmo (keeping the 20th hijacker cold or hot, or playing of loud rap music) as akin to something that "happened by [sic] the Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some madman regime like Pol Pot." Not only is this absurd and hideously inaccurate, but Durbin's comments makes our military's job more difficult, and encourages anti-Americanism around the world. Thanks, Dick.

In other news, President Bush blasted the Democrat party at a kick off dinner for the 2006 republican campaign yesterday, saying that they are a party of obstructionist and adding that "that is not leadership". This is a departure from the President's usual attitude of respectfulness that has characterized him in the past. And I say it's about time he took the gloves off. Democrats need to learn that they are not serving the best interests of the American people by constantly belittling and tearing down the progress that President Bush has accomplished in his tenure as president. The things that Democrats and Liberals say about Bush is just evidence of the misplaced hate that they have for him and the Republicans. I still don't understand why they hate him so much, but in my opinion, if they spent 1/10 the energy hating the actual enemies of our country that they expend hating the President, we might be able to bring this war to an end, and consequently, our men home to their families.

The Verdict is in

Back on April 30, I posted a comment on Michael Jackson, where I predicted he would be acquitted. This was back when I didn't make paragraphs and typed in all lower case letters. Here is an excerpt from that post:
let me shed some heretofore never addressed light on this mess. Several years ago, I did some research on pedophilia and I have some insights into this case that the media hasn't really bothered to touch on, at least as far as I know. To begin with, Michael Jackson says he loves children and would never hurt a child. Believe him. He really does love children. All pedophiles do. And molesting a child, in a pedophiles twisted mind, is not hurting them, rather it is an expression of the love they have for the child. He really believes he has done nothing wrong. pedophiles cannot differentiate between love and sex. When he molests children he is showing the child that he loves him. Is there hope that Michael can be cured? Studies have shown the answer is no. There is no evidence to suggests that pedophilia can ever be cured, however, if the pedophile can be brought to the point that he can acknowledge that he has a problem, he can control the urge to "show love". The problem with this is that one can never know if the sexual urges of a pedophile will stay controlled. There is always a chance that he will molest again. From the press and media reports concerning Michaels childhood and lifestyle, I can say with reasonable confidence that he fits the psychological profile of the textbook pedophile and in my opinion, he is one of the few that will never admit responsibility for his crimes. Therefore, if Michael Jackson is acquitted this time, he will not stop. And even if he is found guilty, he better be locked away or he will continue molesting children the rest of his life, especially if he can continue to find mothers and fathers that are willing to whore their son out for a few dollars and jewelry. With that said, let me say that Michael Jackson should not have to bear the burden of his crimes alone...He could not have gotten away with this for this long had he not had the cooperation of greedy parents, who care more for monetary gain than their own children. In short, even if Michael Jackson has never touched a child in a sexual way, the psychological evidence suggests that he will eventually.
Now, let me add one thing about the outcome of this trial. I tried, unsuccessfully, to find out if the prosecution had put a psychologist on the stand to testify as to the psychological makeup of a pedophile. I don't think he did. I think this may have been the reason he lost his case. Pedophiles are hard to spot unless one knows what to look for. Michael Jackson appears to be weird and freaky, but on the outside, there is little to suggest that he is anything worse than that. Had a psychologist been called to testify, I believe the jury could have seen him for what he is.
Geraldo Rivera, on Fox news, said Michael has assured him that he will never sleep with children again, but, coming from a pedophile, that is a promise that means nothing, in the same way a wife beater tells his wife he will never touch her again or an alchoholic will never drink again. (I can't believe someone with Geraldo's intelligence could be so naive)
If he continues to molest children, (and now that he has been acquitted, there is no reason to suspect he won't) There will undoubtedly be another chance for a prosecutor to do it right.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------