"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~ George Bernard Shaw
Three primaries. Three different winners. What does this all prove?
Absolutely nothing.
On the Democrat side, Hillary looks to be gathering some momentum, however, she ran pretty much unopposed in Michigan, and still only garnered 54% of the vote. She will declare herself the big winner in Michigan, but the results are misleading.
The way I see it, she did poorly compared to her competition, which was Kucinich, Gravel, and undecided.
I try to put myself in the shoes of a Democrat voter and think, "Who do I vote for if Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot?" I can't think as Democrats do, so I can only surmise, but if I am trying to make a statement against Hillary, I would choose "undecided". If I am simply showing my support for the Democrats, I would vote for Hillary. So, nothing is proved by Hillary winning this primary.
For Republicans, was anyone really surprised that Romney won in a state where he was born and where his father was once the governor?
It is a hollow victory at best.
I'm sure it is heartening that Fred Thompson fared as well as he did, considering he wasn't even running in the Michigan primary. The same goes for Guiliani.
I wonder though, how their decision to skip this particular primary will effect them in the general election should Fred or Rudy win the eventual nomination. Are people generally thin skinned enough to take umbrage at the fact that their state was considered not important enough for Fred and Rudy's campaign?
So, after the smoke has cleared, what have we learned? Is there yet a clear front runner?
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I just don't see any point in holding state primaries.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The Great Divide
"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. True friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation." ~ George Washington
Since some time before the beginning of the Presidential primaries, I have become increasingly concerned over what appears to be a divide between factions of the Republican party. Specifically, between the backers of the various candidates.
There is a divide in the Democratic party, too, but as far as I'm concerned, that is a good thing. So, they can fight until the destroy themselves for all I care. In fact, I wish they would.
It's American to back a particular candidate for President, but let's not lose our focus in our zeal to convince others to agree with us. Republicans need to stick together. The vigor in which we back our favorite candidates is admirable but we must remember when the convention comes, we have to come together.
This is my concern:
If this divide widens, we face the very real possibility of accidentally creating a third party candidate and that would virtually hand the election over to the Democrats.
And that is something we cannot let happen. That would absolutely be the worst case scenario.
I like Hunter. Others like Thompson, and still others like Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee. Some others even like Ron Paul.
But some of us (me included) are growing increasingly angry with each other over our particular choice of candidates. That also concerns me.
No matter who our favorite candidates are, when the convention convenes, we must back whatever candidate the party chooses. Even if we have to hold our noses to do so. We cannot embrace a third party candidate or simply refuse to vote at all.
And we must not let our personal feelings cause a disruption of friendships that we have forged and cultivated out of a mutual love and respect for our country and our party. Our goal remains the same whoever we choose to lead us into the next four years.
I, for one, hereby resolve to be less snarky with my fellow Republicans, even if they are supporting Guiliani.
Let's back our candidate until he either wins or loses the nomination. Don't let the primaries make your decision on who to support for you. Support the candidates that best reflect your own personal ideologies regardless of who wins in South Carolina, or Michigan, or wherever. When you vote in the primaries, the issue will resolve itself.
If your candidate doesn't win the eventual nomination, then throw your support behind the party's candidate. But in any event, let's remains friends.
Since some time before the beginning of the Presidential primaries, I have become increasingly concerned over what appears to be a divide between factions of the Republican party. Specifically, between the backers of the various candidates.
There is a divide in the Democratic party, too, but as far as I'm concerned, that is a good thing. So, they can fight until the destroy themselves for all I care. In fact, I wish they would.
It's American to back a particular candidate for President, but let's not lose our focus in our zeal to convince others to agree with us. Republicans need to stick together. The vigor in which we back our favorite candidates is admirable but we must remember when the convention comes, we have to come together.
This is my concern:
If this divide widens, we face the very real possibility of accidentally creating a third party candidate and that would virtually hand the election over to the Democrats.
And that is something we cannot let happen. That would absolutely be the worst case scenario.
I like Hunter. Others like Thompson, and still others like Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee. Some others even like Ron Paul.
But some of us (me included) are growing increasingly angry with each other over our particular choice of candidates. That also concerns me.
No matter who our favorite candidates are, when the convention convenes, we must back whatever candidate the party chooses. Even if we have to hold our noses to do so. We cannot embrace a third party candidate or simply refuse to vote at all.
And we must not let our personal feelings cause a disruption of friendships that we have forged and cultivated out of a mutual love and respect for our country and our party. Our goal remains the same whoever we choose to lead us into the next four years.
I, for one, hereby resolve to be less snarky with my fellow Republicans, even if they are supporting Guiliani.
Let's back our candidate until he either wins or loses the nomination. Don't let the primaries make your decision on who to support for you. Support the candidates that best reflect your own personal ideologies regardless of who wins in South Carolina, or Michigan, or wherever. When you vote in the primaries, the issue will resolve itself.
If your candidate doesn't win the eventual nomination, then throw your support behind the party's candidate. But in any event, let's remains friends.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
It's A Popularity Contest
"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half." ~ Gore Vidal
I probably wasn't the first person to point this out, but I am the first person I know of to point this out.
Now, many others, both professional and non-professional, have agreed.
I called it. I said Hillary's (almost) crying was a blatant attempt to win votes from the Liberal Democrats, because Liberals feel instead of think. And it worked. Just as I knew it would.
Liberals are so predictable!
Hillary's show of emotion won her Blue Hampshire. She played the whiny bleeding heart sob sister Liberals like a Stradivarius, and they bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
Dan asks me why I have such a low opinion of the rank-and-file average Americans intelligence....well, that's why.
I will say it again. The average American doesn't pay close enough attention to politics to be able to make an informed decision. That's why the Democrats win elections. They only vote (if they vote at all) for the candidate they hear the most about, and the media makes sure the people mostly hear about the candidates that the media wants to win. And the media usually overwhelmingly support Democrats.
But Democrats aren't the only victims of this media manipulation.
Republicans can sometimes be just as gullible, and for the same reason. Whatever candidate the media talks the most about is the candidate that Republicans end up supporting. Example?
There is Conservative media. Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Hewitt, Savage, and many others. Rush refuses to endorse any one candidate, and technically, so does Hannity (or so he says). Mark Levin has remained pretty much silent on which candidate he favors but he has mentioned on many occasions that he likes Duncan Hunter (as I do).
But if one listens to Hannity even once in a while, it becomes blatantly evident he is a Rudy Guiliani supporter. I really don't know who the others support, but Hannity is the second most listened to talk radio host in the country so his influence cannot be denied.
Guiliani has a lot of support from self-described "Reagan Conservatives", yet he bears little resemblance to Reagan. In fact, he may very well be the most Liberal of all the Republican candidates (not including Ron Paul, of course, but he's not really a Republican anyway). So why do they support Rudy so vigorously?
I may be way off base here, but I believe it has to do with the exposure he gets from Conservative pundits like Hannity. Especially Hannity. Does Hannity show such enthusiasm for Duncan Hunter?
No.
Why not?
Watch this:
Hunter is the most Reaganesque candidate in this election field. Hannity claims to be a Reagan Conservative. Hannity even claims he likes Hunter. In fact, all the Conservative talk show hosts say the same thing. I have never heard a negative word about Hunter from any of them. So why will they not support him instead of Liberal Rudy Guiliani?
I don't know.
But it makes my point. The average American voter will not do the homework necessary to find out which candidate best exemplifies their own politically ideology. They rely on media hype to make those decisions for them.
Republican or Democrat.
You want to become President? All you have to do is get your name out there in the media, and have them (as Ann puts it) talk you up. If you can get them to mention your name more than anyone else's, you will have the election sewn up.
Good luck.
I probably wasn't the first person to point this out, but I am the first person I know of to point this out.
Now, many others, both professional and non-professional, have agreed.
I called it. I said Hillary's (almost) crying was a blatant attempt to win votes from the Liberal Democrats, because Liberals feel instead of think. And it worked. Just as I knew it would.
Liberals are so predictable!
Hillary's show of emotion won her Blue Hampshire. She played the whiny bleeding heart sob sister Liberals like a Stradivarius, and they bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
Dan asks me why I have such a low opinion of the rank-and-file average Americans intelligence....well, that's why.
I will say it again. The average American doesn't pay close enough attention to politics to be able to make an informed decision. That's why the Democrats win elections. They only vote (if they vote at all) for the candidate they hear the most about, and the media makes sure the people mostly hear about the candidates that the media wants to win. And the media usually overwhelmingly support Democrats.
But Democrats aren't the only victims of this media manipulation.
Republicans can sometimes be just as gullible, and for the same reason. Whatever candidate the media talks the most about is the candidate that Republicans end up supporting. Example?
There is Conservative media. Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Hewitt, Savage, and many others. Rush refuses to endorse any one candidate, and technically, so does Hannity (or so he says). Mark Levin has remained pretty much silent on which candidate he favors but he has mentioned on many occasions that he likes Duncan Hunter (as I do).
But if one listens to Hannity even once in a while, it becomes blatantly evident he is a Rudy Guiliani supporter. I really don't know who the others support, but Hannity is the second most listened to talk radio host in the country so his influence cannot be denied.
Guiliani has a lot of support from self-described "Reagan Conservatives", yet he bears little resemblance to Reagan. In fact, he may very well be the most Liberal of all the Republican candidates (not including Ron Paul, of course, but he's not really a Republican anyway). So why do they support Rudy so vigorously?
I may be way off base here, but I believe it has to do with the exposure he gets from Conservative pundits like Hannity. Especially Hannity. Does Hannity show such enthusiasm for Duncan Hunter?
No.
Why not?
Watch this:
Hunter is the most Reaganesque candidate in this election field. Hannity claims to be a Reagan Conservative. Hannity even claims he likes Hunter. In fact, all the Conservative talk show hosts say the same thing. I have never heard a negative word about Hunter from any of them. So why will they not support him instead of Liberal Rudy Guiliani?
I don't know.
But it makes my point. The average American voter will not do the homework necessary to find out which candidate best exemplifies their own politically ideology. They rely on media hype to make those decisions for them.
Republican or Democrat.
You want to become President? All you have to do is get your name out there in the media, and have them (as Ann puts it) talk you up. If you can get them to mention your name more than anyone else's, you will have the election sewn up.
Good luck.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Hillary's (Crocodile) Tears
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much" ~ William Shakespeare
OK. Every one's talking about this, so I guess I'll have to add my take. Hillary in tears? Hardly. Hillary is simply doing what Liberals do. Attempting to win the sympathy vote. She finds herself losing ground against Obama, so she's playing the sympathy card. She's either learned from Bill or she is being coached by the same person or persons who taught Bill how to cry on cue. Remember the funeral of Ron Brown? Here's a video to remind you:
The only difference is she hasn't yet learned how to manufacture real tears.
As Rush often says, "Liberals feel. Conservatives think".
Yes, the whole thing is phony. A transparent display of false emotion expressly intended to buoy up a sinking campaign.
Give Hillary's handlers credit, though. They know how to manipulate the Liberal base by using emotion.
But note this: We are often told that it's important to listen as much to how it's said as to what is said. In this instance we need to pay attention to what was said here.
Watch the video, and pay close attention to what she says:
The first red flag goes up when the question is asked. Is this another of Hillary's planted questioners?
Next, listen to her answer. "I have so many opportunities for this country. I just don't want to see us fall backward." What the heck is she talking about? Fall backward? From where? We have a strong thriving economy. We have the lowest unemployment in decades. We have low taxes. Thanks to the surge, which Liberal Defeatocrats like Hillary have opposed vehemently, we are winning the war in Iraq.
And by the way, notice she said "I have so many opportunities...", rather than "I see so many opportunities." That speaks volumes in itself.
Then, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political, it's not just public. I see what's happening...We have to reverse it."
Reverse?
Reverse??
She wants to undo all the progress the Republicans have accomplished? Does she want to return America to the days of high unemployment, recession, and high taxes? How about returning us to a pre-9/11 mindset, where we blissfully ignore the buildup of terrorist organizations, supremely confident that they would never have the audacity to actually attack us out of fear of this "paper tiger"? Does she want to return us to the days of desperation? Hopelessness?
No, that's not it at all.
Yes, she sees what's happening, alright. Shes losing! She needs to reverse that or she will not win the nomination, not to mention the Presidency. It seems to me that is very personal.
Very personal indeed.
And It's not about the election. It's about our country and our kids futures.
Please!
There the consummate socialist Liberal goes again. Trying to claw her way to power on the backs of "the children". The same old Liberal line. When all else fails, make it all about protecting our children. How pathetically transparent!
Another note, as an aside:
Has anyone noticed how she precedes almost every statement with the term, "as a woman..."?
Naw, she wouldn't stoop to playing the gender card now, would she?
This, according to Hillary, is about our country.
No, it's not.
It's about Hillary's lust for power. It's about her plans to make this country the United Socialist States of America. It's about making her the Commissar of America. It's about destroying America as we know it, and creating a proletariat cooperative with Hillary as "President for life".
Like Castro.
On the plus side, I believe this obvious ploy will backfire on her. Sooner or later, even the most gullible Liberal voter (and believe me, nothing describes Liberals better than the term, "gullible") will begin to see through this sham. And I believe that time is right around the corner.
Update:
The Liberally biased media agrees with me, Hillary is using emotion to attract voters, as I said. See here.
The big difference is the media sees this as a good thing. I see it as bad. Very bad.
OK. Every one's talking about this, so I guess I'll have to add my take. Hillary in tears? Hardly. Hillary is simply doing what Liberals do. Attempting to win the sympathy vote. She finds herself losing ground against Obama, so she's playing the sympathy card. She's either learned from Bill or she is being coached by the same person or persons who taught Bill how to cry on cue. Remember the funeral of Ron Brown? Here's a video to remind you:
The only difference is she hasn't yet learned how to manufacture real tears.
As Rush often says, "Liberals feel. Conservatives think".
Yes, the whole thing is phony. A transparent display of false emotion expressly intended to buoy up a sinking campaign.
Give Hillary's handlers credit, though. They know how to manipulate the Liberal base by using emotion.
But note this: We are often told that it's important to listen as much to how it's said as to what is said. In this instance we need to pay attention to what was said here.
Watch the video, and pay close attention to what she says:
The first red flag goes up when the question is asked. Is this another of Hillary's planted questioners?
Next, listen to her answer. "I have so many opportunities for this country. I just don't want to see us fall backward." What the heck is she talking about? Fall backward? From where? We have a strong thriving economy. We have the lowest unemployment in decades. We have low taxes. Thanks to the surge, which Liberal Defeatocrats like Hillary have opposed vehemently, we are winning the war in Iraq.
And by the way, notice she said "I have so many opportunities...", rather than "I see so many opportunities." That speaks volumes in itself.
Then, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political, it's not just public. I see what's happening...We have to reverse it."
Reverse?
Reverse??
She wants to undo all the progress the Republicans have accomplished? Does she want to return America to the days of high unemployment, recession, and high taxes? How about returning us to a pre-9/11 mindset, where we blissfully ignore the buildup of terrorist organizations, supremely confident that they would never have the audacity to actually attack us out of fear of this "paper tiger"? Does she want to return us to the days of desperation? Hopelessness?
No, that's not it at all.
Yes, she sees what's happening, alright. Shes losing! She needs to reverse that or she will not win the nomination, not to mention the Presidency. It seems to me that is very personal.
Very personal indeed.
And It's not about the election. It's about our country and our kids futures.
Please!
There the consummate socialist Liberal goes again. Trying to claw her way to power on the backs of "the children". The same old Liberal line. When all else fails, make it all about protecting our children. How pathetically transparent!
Another note, as an aside:
Has anyone noticed how she precedes almost every statement with the term, "as a woman..."?
Naw, she wouldn't stoop to playing the gender card now, would she?
This, according to Hillary, is about our country.
No, it's not.
It's about Hillary's lust for power. It's about her plans to make this country the United Socialist States of America. It's about making her the Commissar of America. It's about destroying America as we know it, and creating a proletariat cooperative with Hillary as "President for life".
Like Castro.
On the plus side, I believe this obvious ploy will backfire on her. Sooner or later, even the most gullible Liberal voter (and believe me, nothing describes Liberals better than the term, "gullible") will begin to see through this sham. And I believe that time is right around the corner.
Update:
The Liberally biased media agrees with me, Hillary is using emotion to attract voters, as I said. See here.
The big difference is the media sees this as a good thing. I see it as bad. Very bad.
Monday, January 07, 2008
The Wussification Of America
"The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race." ~ Don Marquis
I found this in my e-mail this morning. It is too true:
SCHOOL 1967 VS 2007
Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1967 - Vice principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, the FBI is called, Jack is hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors are called in to assist traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1967 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2007 - Police are called, SWAT team arrives and arrests Johnny and Mark. They are charged with assault and both are expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario: Jeffrey won't sit still in class, disrupts other students.
1967 - Jeffrey is sent to the principals office and given a good paddling. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra state funding because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1967 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some Aspirin to school .
1967 - Mark shares Aspirin with the school principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - Police are called and Mark is expelled from School for drug violations. His car is searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario: Pedro fails high-school English.
1967 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by local human rights group. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that making English a requirement for graduation is racist. American Civil Liberties Union files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover Independence Day firecrackers, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up an anthill.
1967 - Ants die.
2007 - Homeland Security and the FBI are called and Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. Teams investigate parents, siblings are removed from the home, computers are confiscated, and Johnny's dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario: Johnny falls during recess and scrapes his knee. His teacher, Mary, finds him crying, and gives him a hug to comfort him.
1967 - Johnny soon feels better and goes back to playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in federal prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.
End of e-mail.
The following is my own observation:
I've been concerned with what I call the wussification of America for quite a long time. It's getting worse.
It's long past ridiculous.
If things keep going the way they are currently, and at the current pace, the terrorists nations won't have to set off any bombs in this country. We will have effectively destroyed our own survival instinct, and they will be able to just waltz right in and force us into whatever level of servitude they wish.
Who will be able to stop them?
I found this in my e-mail this morning. It is too true:
SCHOOL 1967 VS 2007
Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1967 - Vice principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, the FBI is called, Jack is hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors are called in to assist traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1967 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2007 - Police are called, SWAT team arrives and arrests Johnny and Mark. They are charged with assault and both are expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario: Jeffrey won't sit still in class, disrupts other students.
1967 - Jeffrey is sent to the principals office and given a good paddling. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra state funding because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1967 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some Aspirin to school .
1967 - Mark shares Aspirin with the school principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - Police are called and Mark is expelled from School for drug violations. His car is searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario: Pedro fails high-school English.
1967 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by local human rights group. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that making English a requirement for graduation is racist. American Civil Liberties Union files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover Independence Day firecrackers, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up an anthill.
1967 - Ants die.
2007 - Homeland Security and the FBI are called and Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. Teams investigate parents, siblings are removed from the home, computers are confiscated, and Johnny's dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario: Johnny falls during recess and scrapes his knee. His teacher, Mary, finds him crying, and gives him a hug to comfort him.
1967 - Johnny soon feels better and goes back to playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in federal prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.
End of e-mail.
The following is my own observation:
I've been concerned with what I call the wussification of America for quite a long time. It's getting worse.
It's long past ridiculous.
If things keep going the way they are currently, and at the current pace, the terrorists nations won't have to set off any bombs in this country. We will have effectively destroyed our own survival instinct, and they will be able to just waltz right in and force us into whatever level of servitude they wish.
Who will be able to stop them?
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Still Unoriginal
"When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." ~ Bernard Bailey
Disclaimer: This post is intended to poke a little fun at myself. It is not intended to be taken seriously, so if the reader feels inclined to chastise me because I appear to be feeling sorry for myself, I have only one thing to say: Don't.
Over at Eric's place, Eric coined a new term, "Hyper-Cyberia". He said he googled his new term and found no references to it anywhere on the internet, which inspired me to do a similar search for a term I thought I coined a few years ago. My term is "Techno-moron".
So, I googled "Techno-moron" and the results humbled me. There are thousands of websites that have the term embedded somewhere within their pages. Snopes.com mentioned a humorous but false letter of resignation (which is posted numerous times itself in Google) with the term "techno-moron" in it started circulating around the world wide web in September of 2001. I didn't have access to the internet until sometime after that date, so now I know.
Once again, I am not original. Alas. Woe is me.
The first entry of the term posted by myself on Google is on page 15, where I told Marshall Art that I am a techno-moron. I have used the term many other times before and besides that, but it is now clear that my usage of the term was apparently not my invention.
The interesting thing to me is that the myriad other uses of the term listed by Google show that all those others who use the term are substantially more technically savvy than me, which should, paradoxically, give me the singular distinction of being the most techo-moronic of them all.
I don't know whether to gloat or keep that to myself. It is rather a dubious distinction, is it not?
I suppose it doesn't make any difference that I had never heard or read the term before I used it the first time. The fact that it is original to me does not mean it originated with me.
So, my own self important attitude again takes a hit. The more I try to prove I'm not just one of the crowd, not just "your average Joe", the more I prove that I am exactly that.
Oh well, at least I have not proven myself below average. Yet.
Then again, I have ER and others to do that for me.
Disclaimer: This post is intended to poke a little fun at myself. It is not intended to be taken seriously, so if the reader feels inclined to chastise me because I appear to be feeling sorry for myself, I have only one thing to say: Don't.
Over at Eric's place, Eric coined a new term, "Hyper-Cyberia". He said he googled his new term and found no references to it anywhere on the internet, which inspired me to do a similar search for a term I thought I coined a few years ago. My term is "Techno-moron".
So, I googled "Techno-moron" and the results humbled me. There are thousands of websites that have the term embedded somewhere within their pages. Snopes.com mentioned a humorous but false letter of resignation (which is posted numerous times itself in Google) with the term "techno-moron" in it started circulating around the world wide web in September of 2001. I didn't have access to the internet until sometime after that date, so now I know.
Once again, I am not original. Alas. Woe is me.
The first entry of the term posted by myself on Google is on page 15, where I told Marshall Art that I am a techno-moron. I have used the term many other times before and besides that, but it is now clear that my usage of the term was apparently not my invention.
The interesting thing to me is that the myriad other uses of the term listed by Google show that all those others who use the term are substantially more technically savvy than me, which should, paradoxically, give me the singular distinction of being the most techo-moronic of them all.
I don't know whether to gloat or keep that to myself. It is rather a dubious distinction, is it not?
I suppose it doesn't make any difference that I had never heard or read the term before I used it the first time. The fact that it is original to me does not mean it originated with me.
So, my own self important attitude again takes a hit. The more I try to prove I'm not just one of the crowd, not just "your average Joe", the more I prove that I am exactly that.
Oh well, at least I have not proven myself below average. Yet.
Then again, I have ER and others to do that for me.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Do We Know Anything Yet?
"Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary." ~ Robert Louis Stevenson
The results of the Iowa caucus are in, and Mike Huckabee has won on the Republican side. Mitt Romney finished a distant second and Fred Thompson a distant third. What happened to Rudy? Are Republicans starting to see through his pretense of Conservatism?
On the Democrat side, Barack Obama has won and John Edwards and Hillary finished second and third respectively. I don't think any of those three could win against any Republican, but then, my faith in the intelligence of the American people has been proven misguided before.
Democrats Biden and Dodd have dropped out of the race. Apparently they think their Democratic constituents are too dumb to vote for experience.
When will Ron Paul, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter (the best choice for President) drop out, and who will they ultimately endorse?
Rarely has the winner of the Iowa caucus won the eventual Presidential election. So, does the outcome have any significance?
The results of the Iowa caucus are in, and Mike Huckabee has won on the Republican side. Mitt Romney finished a distant second and Fred Thompson a distant third. What happened to Rudy? Are Republicans starting to see through his pretense of Conservatism?
On the Democrat side, Barack Obama has won and John Edwards and Hillary finished second and third respectively. I don't think any of those three could win against any Republican, but then, my faith in the intelligence of the American people has been proven misguided before.
Democrats Biden and Dodd have dropped out of the race. Apparently they think their Democratic constituents are too dumb to vote for experience.
When will Ron Paul, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter (the best choice for President) drop out, and who will they ultimately endorse?
Rarely has the winner of the Iowa caucus won the eventual Presidential election. So, does the outcome have any significance?
Thursday, January 03, 2008
More Legislation Against Stupidity
"For every action there is an equal and opposite government program." ~ Bob Wells
This Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star article informs us of yet another egregious but typically Democratic abuse of power by another Democrat lawmaker. This time, they are trying to outlaw our private use of text messaging on our cell phones while driving.
In Virginia, Democrat Delegate James M. Scott has introduced legislation to ban text messaging while driving. The legislation would include text messaging while operating bikes and motorcycles as well.
Admittedly text messaging while driving is a stupid, dangerous thing to do, but it is nevertheless a fundamental human right:
The right to be stupid.
This legislation is another example of how the government uses extortion to force it's will on the people, in spite of the people's wishes. Forcing us to wear seat belts, buy auto insurance, and add unwanted accessories to our vehicles engines in the interests of our own safety under penalty of law is the textbook definition of extortion.
The reasoning behind Democrat lawmakers continual introduction of legislation which infringes on our personal private rights to be stupid is this:
Since we are not smart enough to take care of ourselves, the government must take care of us for us. We cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions that will affect our own lives, so the government must make those important decisions for us.
Often the government is right. Some people are too stupid to take care of themselves.
But that is our right.
We have the right to do stupid things without requiring government assistance.
And, because all people have a fundamental right to be stupid, it isn't surprising that Democrat legislators so frequently exercise that right, by introducing legislation that is all but impossible to enforce. Such as outlawing text messaging while driving. How do they propose to enforce this?
Democrats are always squealing about Government invasion of privacy when the government is trying to protect heterosexual law abiding citizens from unwanted homosexual advances and from being blown up by bomb wielding terrorists, etc, but strangely, they seem to have no qualms about preventing us from being stupid.
They want to allow pornographers to assault our sensibilities with offensive pictures, writing, and music lyrics, but they don't want us to be allowed to keep and bear arms, which is our constitutional right.
They want to outlaw smoking, as long as its not pot, but they insist we have a right to destroy our livers and endanger other people by letting us drink until we drown in a puddle of our own vomit.
They want to lower the sexual age of consent to twelve and allow underage girls to get abortions and birth control without knowledge or permission from their parents, but woe to us who want to opt our children out of school classes that teach evolution and global warming as fact instead of theory.
The examples of hypocrisy by Democrat legislators are legion. There isn't enough space here to list them all.
My question is this:
If freedom to be morally stupid is so important to Democrats, why isn't freedom to be intellectually stupid?
This Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star article informs us of yet another egregious but typically Democratic abuse of power by another Democrat lawmaker. This time, they are trying to outlaw our private use of text messaging on our cell phones while driving.
In Virginia, Democrat Delegate James M. Scott has introduced legislation to ban text messaging while driving. The legislation would include text messaging while operating bikes and motorcycles as well.
Admittedly text messaging while driving is a stupid, dangerous thing to do, but it is nevertheless a fundamental human right:
The right to be stupid.
This legislation is another example of how the government uses extortion to force it's will on the people, in spite of the people's wishes. Forcing us to wear seat belts, buy auto insurance, and add unwanted accessories to our vehicles engines in the interests of our own safety under penalty of law is the textbook definition of extortion.
The reasoning behind Democrat lawmakers continual introduction of legislation which infringes on our personal private rights to be stupid is this:
Since we are not smart enough to take care of ourselves, the government must take care of us for us. We cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions that will affect our own lives, so the government must make those important decisions for us.
Often the government is right. Some people are too stupid to take care of themselves.
But that is our right.
We have the right to do stupid things without requiring government assistance.
And, because all people have a fundamental right to be stupid, it isn't surprising that Democrat legislators so frequently exercise that right, by introducing legislation that is all but impossible to enforce. Such as outlawing text messaging while driving. How do they propose to enforce this?
Democrats are always squealing about Government invasion of privacy when the government is trying to protect heterosexual law abiding citizens from unwanted homosexual advances and from being blown up by bomb wielding terrorists, etc, but strangely, they seem to have no qualms about preventing us from being stupid.
They want to allow pornographers to assault our sensibilities with offensive pictures, writing, and music lyrics, but they don't want us to be allowed to keep and bear arms, which is our constitutional right.
They want to outlaw smoking, as long as its not pot, but they insist we have a right to destroy our livers and endanger other people by letting us drink until we drown in a puddle of our own vomit.
They want to lower the sexual age of consent to twelve and allow underage girls to get abortions and birth control without knowledge or permission from their parents, but woe to us who want to opt our children out of school classes that teach evolution and global warming as fact instead of theory.
The examples of hypocrisy by Democrat legislators are legion. There isn't enough space here to list them all.
My question is this:
If freedom to be morally stupid is so important to Democrats, why isn't freedom to be intellectually stupid?
Monday, December 31, 2007
You're The Reason God Made Oklahoma
"Here the city lights outshine the moon" ~ From "You're the Reason God Made Oklahoma" by David Frizzell and Shelly West
I found this video while searching for clips from the film, "On Borrowed Time". I have always liked this song. It's one of those songs that, once you hear it, kind of sticks in your head for days.
I found this video while searching for clips from the film, "On Borrowed Time". I have always liked this song. It's one of those songs that, once you hear it, kind of sticks in your head for days.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
The Spirit Of Christmas
"Christmas is not a time or a season but a state of mind. To cherish peace and good will, to be plenteous in mercy, is to have the real spirit of Christmas. If we think on these things, there will be born in us a Savior and over us will shine a star sending its gleam of hope to the world." ~ Calvin Coolidge
Here is a Thanksgiving story which could just as well be a Christmas story:
When I was living in Kansas City, I was in the midst of a long drawn out (and what I considered unnecessary) process of taking custody of my only daughter from my previous marriage. She had been moved out of her mother's home in another town, and temporarily placed in a group home for girls in my town, while the authorities struggled through mounds of red tape, attempting to ascertain whether I would be a fit parent for my own child.
This enabled me to visit her and even take her for day trips while the custodial determination process was processing. A long and tedious process.
We had to go to her group home to visit and pick her up. Most of the other girls, who were between 10 and 15 years of age, were there for other, primarily legal reasons. Many were runaways, and many had been removed from dysfunctional homes. Some had been arrested or had other kinds of legal trouble. Some had been abused physically, mentally, and sexually, by their parents or other family members.
Practically all were lonely, frightened, apprehensive, and suspicious of authority.
One day, shortly before Thanksgiving, my wife and I arrived to take Crystal out to spend a day with us, I noticed several of the other girls looking at us with what can only be described as envy. One of the girls boldly approached me and said, in the most heart rendering voice, "Can I go with you?"
It was at that moment that my heart went out to these girls, almost all of whom rarely had any visits or interaction with their own families, if any at all.
On Thanksgiving day, instead of spending the day with family, eating a sumptuous meal and watching football, My family showed up at the girls home with a complete Thanksgiving dinner, and every girl in the home was presented a small inexpensive gift. Needless to say, the girls were overwhelmed with gratitude. We enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving day with a whole house full of grateful, happy young ladies, who, at least for that one day, experienced true Christian charity and love.
It was the most wonderful and rewarding holiday I ever experienced.
Incidentally, some of the ladies in our church continued with weekly visits after I won full custody of my daughter, and the last I heard, the ministry is still thriving.
Sometimes, we get so involved in shopping, travel plans, cooking, and cleaning for the Holidays that we forget what's really important about Christmas. It isn't so much what we give to others at Christmas time, but that we simply give. Give our time. Give our love. Give ourselves.
It is the spirit of Christmas. It is the meaning of Christmas.
Today, while you celebrate the birth of Christ, take a few minutes to ponder the significance of it all, and enjoy Christmas.
And now, as my gift to all who happen to visit my humble blog, some videos:
MERRY CHRISTMAS, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Here is a Thanksgiving story which could just as well be a Christmas story:
When I was living in Kansas City, I was in the midst of a long drawn out (and what I considered unnecessary) process of taking custody of my only daughter from my previous marriage. She had been moved out of her mother's home in another town, and temporarily placed in a group home for girls in my town, while the authorities struggled through mounds of red tape, attempting to ascertain whether I would be a fit parent for my own child.
This enabled me to visit her and even take her for day trips while the custodial determination process was processing. A long and tedious process.
We had to go to her group home to visit and pick her up. Most of the other girls, who were between 10 and 15 years of age, were there for other, primarily legal reasons. Many were runaways, and many had been removed from dysfunctional homes. Some had been arrested or had other kinds of legal trouble. Some had been abused physically, mentally, and sexually, by their parents or other family members.
Practically all were lonely, frightened, apprehensive, and suspicious of authority.
One day, shortly before Thanksgiving, my wife and I arrived to take Crystal out to spend a day with us, I noticed several of the other girls looking at us with what can only be described as envy. One of the girls boldly approached me and said, in the most heart rendering voice, "Can I go with you?"
It was at that moment that my heart went out to these girls, almost all of whom rarely had any visits or interaction with their own families, if any at all.
On Thanksgiving day, instead of spending the day with family, eating a sumptuous meal and watching football, My family showed up at the girls home with a complete Thanksgiving dinner, and every girl in the home was presented a small inexpensive gift. Needless to say, the girls were overwhelmed with gratitude. We enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving day with a whole house full of grateful, happy young ladies, who, at least for that one day, experienced true Christian charity and love.
It was the most wonderful and rewarding holiday I ever experienced.
Incidentally, some of the ladies in our church continued with weekly visits after I won full custody of my daughter, and the last I heard, the ministry is still thriving.
Sometimes, we get so involved in shopping, travel plans, cooking, and cleaning for the Holidays that we forget what's really important about Christmas. It isn't so much what we give to others at Christmas time, but that we simply give. Give our time. Give our love. Give ourselves.
It is the spirit of Christmas. It is the meaning of Christmas.
Today, while you celebrate the birth of Christ, take a few minutes to ponder the significance of it all, and enjoy Christmas.
And now, as my gift to all who happen to visit my humble blog, some videos:
MERRY CHRISTMAS, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Monday, December 24, 2007
Theology By Emo
"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
Emo Phillips is one of my favorite comedians. I love his succinct reasoning about Intelligent Design:
By the way. I am not a heretic,according to Emo.
Emo Phillips is one of my favorite comedians. I love his succinct reasoning about Intelligent Design:
By the way. I am not a heretic,according to Emo.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
A Christmas Meme.
"Bark us all Bow-Wows of folly" ~ Walt Kelly
It's been a while since I posted a meme, But Abouna has tagged me for a Christmas meme, so here goes:
1. Wrapping or gift bags?
Gift bags. I am lazy.
2. Real or artificial tree?
Artificial. I hate pine needles all over everything.
3. When do you put up the tree?
After my birthday, which is December 5. One "holiday" at a time.
4. When do you take down the tree?
After New Years day, or when I feel like doing the work.
5. Do you like eggnog?
I love egg nog, but it is extremely high in calories so I have to take it a little at a time. Left to my own, I would drink a whole half gallon in an hour, easily.
6. Favorite gift received as a child?
My parents bought my brother and I a bicycle that we had to share. First bicycle either of us ever had. I can't remember if my brother (2 years older than me) already knew how to ride a bike but I had to be taught. Oh, the memories of bruised everything!
7. Do you have a nativity scene?
Yes. It represents the true meaning of Christmas, so it is in the front yard, lit up by a spotlight, and prominently displayed front and center.
8. Worst Christmas gift you ever received?
Two Christmases ago, I received one western style shirt from my mom and nothing else from anyone. I don't wear western shirts.
9. Mail or email Christmas cards?
Both.
10. Favorite Christmas movie?
"The Cheaters" Little known film, and I never see it anymore, anywhere, but I'll never forget it. Second Place is "It's A Wonderful Life" and third would have to be the Musical version of "Scrooge". (starring Albert Finney to distinguish it from the thousands of others)
11. When do you start shopping for Christmas?
About two to three days before Christmas usually, not that I like doing it that way, it just happens.
12. Favorite thing to eat for Christmas?
I always have turkey and/or ham, and all the trimmings, but truth be told, I would be happy with a burrito from Taco Bell. (and I don't really like Taco Bell very much)
3. Clear lights or colored on the tree?
Colored.
14. Favorite Christmas song?
"O Holy Night"
15. Travel at Christmas or stay at home?
I love to travel anytime, but usually there's a never a good time due to finances.
16. Can you name all of Santa’s reindeer?
Um, Is it Slasher, Flasher, Pansy and Bitchin', Vomit and Stupid and Bummer and Nixon? Oh, and Rudolph, the Disco reindeer.
17. Angel on the tree top or star?
Always an angel.
18. Open gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning?
Christmas morning for me. As soon as I buy then for the kids.
9. Most annoying thing about this time of year?
Navigating through rude Christmas shoppers and trying to find a parking place somewhere within a mile of the store entrance.
20. Do you decorate your tree in any specific theme or color scheme?
No.
21. What do you leave for Santa?
Nothing. I can't remember ever believing there was a Santa.
22. Least favorite holiday song?
"Jingle Bells" It's not a Christmas song, and it annoys me that it is the most played of all, because it's a Winter song.
23. Favorite ornament?
Hmm. That would have to be the fiber optic angel on the top of the tree.
Paying it forward, I tag:
I don't know who to tag, really. If any reader would like to participate, leave your answers in my comments.
Rules:
1. Link to the person who tagged you, and post the rules on your blog.
2. Share Christmas facts about yourself.
3. Tag random people at the end of your post and include links to their blogs.
4. Let each person know that they have been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
It's been a while since I posted a meme, But Abouna has tagged me for a Christmas meme, so here goes:
1. Wrapping or gift bags?
Gift bags. I am lazy.
2. Real or artificial tree?
Artificial. I hate pine needles all over everything.
3. When do you put up the tree?
After my birthday, which is December 5. One "holiday" at a time.
4. When do you take down the tree?
After New Years day, or when I feel like doing the work.
5. Do you like eggnog?
I love egg nog, but it is extremely high in calories so I have to take it a little at a time. Left to my own, I would drink a whole half gallon in an hour, easily.
6. Favorite gift received as a child?
My parents bought my brother and I a bicycle that we had to share. First bicycle either of us ever had. I can't remember if my brother (2 years older than me) already knew how to ride a bike but I had to be taught. Oh, the memories of bruised everything!
7. Do you have a nativity scene?
Yes. It represents the true meaning of Christmas, so it is in the front yard, lit up by a spotlight, and prominently displayed front and center.
8. Worst Christmas gift you ever received?
Two Christmases ago, I received one western style shirt from my mom and nothing else from anyone. I don't wear western shirts.
9. Mail or email Christmas cards?
Both.
10. Favorite Christmas movie?
"The Cheaters" Little known film, and I never see it anymore, anywhere, but I'll never forget it. Second Place is "It's A Wonderful Life" and third would have to be the Musical version of "Scrooge". (starring Albert Finney to distinguish it from the thousands of others)
11. When do you start shopping for Christmas?
About two to three days before Christmas usually, not that I like doing it that way, it just happens.
12. Favorite thing to eat for Christmas?
I always have turkey and/or ham, and all the trimmings, but truth be told, I would be happy with a burrito from Taco Bell. (and I don't really like Taco Bell very much)
3. Clear lights or colored on the tree?
Colored.
14. Favorite Christmas song?
"O Holy Night"
15. Travel at Christmas or stay at home?
I love to travel anytime, but usually there's a never a good time due to finances.
16. Can you name all of Santa’s reindeer?
Um, Is it Slasher, Flasher, Pansy and Bitchin', Vomit and Stupid and Bummer and Nixon? Oh, and Rudolph, the Disco reindeer.
17. Angel on the tree top or star?
Always an angel.
18. Open gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning?
Christmas morning for me. As soon as I buy then for the kids.
9. Most annoying thing about this time of year?
Navigating through rude Christmas shoppers and trying to find a parking place somewhere within a mile of the store entrance.
20. Do you decorate your tree in any specific theme or color scheme?
No.
21. What do you leave for Santa?
Nothing. I can't remember ever believing there was a Santa.
22. Least favorite holiday song?
"Jingle Bells" It's not a Christmas song, and it annoys me that it is the most played of all, because it's a Winter song.
23. Favorite ornament?
Hmm. That would have to be the fiber optic angel on the top of the tree.
Paying it forward, I tag:
I don't know who to tag, really. If any reader would like to participate, leave your answers in my comments.
Rules:
1. Link to the person who tagged you, and post the rules on your blog.
2. Share Christmas facts about yourself.
3. Tag random people at the end of your post and include links to their blogs.
4. Let each person know that they have been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
NBC Supports The Troops....NOT!
"Breathes there a man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself has said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there be, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power and pelf,
The wretch, concentrated all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair reknown,
And doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonoured and unsung." ~ Sir Walter Scott
I received this in an e-mail this morning from blogger buddy Poison Pero:
Everyone says they support the troops, because saying otherwise would make them look like complete SOB's........But we all know there are many who not only don't support our military missions, they also don't support our troops.
Personally, I'd have more respect for people to come out and say they hate the troops......It would be refreshing to hear them speak the truth for a change.
That said, NBC has decided it can't run a few ads. Go to the links below (Note: You don't have to go to the links Pero provided because I have embedded the videos) to see the "horrific" ads which were turned down by NBC.......And then ask yourself if NBC "supports the troops."
WARNING: These ads are very controversial and hateful!!
Ad #1:
Ad #2:
If it is true that NBC is refusing to run these ads, perhaps we should contact NBC and ask them why they seemingly do not support the troops.
If enough Americans send messages to them, perhaps NBC will relent and run the ads. I already contacted NBC to express my feelings. I urge all patriotic Americans to do the same.
Who never to himself has said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there be, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power and pelf,
The wretch, concentrated all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair reknown,
And doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonoured and unsung." ~ Sir Walter Scott
I received this in an e-mail this morning from blogger buddy Poison Pero:
Everyone says they support the troops, because saying otherwise would make them look like complete SOB's........But we all know there are many who not only don't support our military missions, they also don't support our troops.
Personally, I'd have more respect for people to come out and say they hate the troops......It would be refreshing to hear them speak the truth for a change.
That said, NBC has decided it can't run a few ads. Go to the links below (Note: You don't have to go to the links Pero provided because I have embedded the videos) to see the "horrific" ads which were turned down by NBC.......And then ask yourself if NBC "supports the troops."
WARNING: These ads are very controversial and hateful!!
Ad #1:
Ad #2:
If it is true that NBC is refusing to run these ads, perhaps we should contact NBC and ask them why they seemingly do not support the troops.
If enough Americans send messages to them, perhaps NBC will relent and run the ads. I already contacted NBC to express my feelings. I urge all patriotic Americans to do the same.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Dont Drop The Soap
"The more things change, the more they remain the same" ~ Alphonse Karr
The above quotation (which I thought I had coined myself many years ago, but as it turns out, was coined by Mr. Karr first) is often used as a truism, but apparently, isn't always true, to wit:
While I was driving my son to school this morning (after he missed the bus for the umpteenth time this year), I questioned him about a startling revelation I had received a couple of weeks ago in a conference with his school counselor. The counselor told me the boys in the school don't take showers in P.E.
I don't know how the kids can stand going to the rest of their classes smelling of perspiration.
Well, maybe I can see that, but how can the other students stand them?
I then wondered aloud why the kids don't shower after all that physical activity, and my son said the idea of showering in gym was "gross".
"Not", I replied, "as gross as going to the rest of your classes stinking".
Then, after I dropped him off, I reflected on why they stopped showering, and also if other schools across the country have the same non-policy.
Do they? Does anyone reading this know? And if so, why?
I have my own uneducated, unresearched, and uninformed hypothesis:
Could it be the ever increasing acceptance of the gay lifestyle in our schools perhaps?
Think about it for a minute. Society, the schools, and public opinion have come together in the last 30 years or so to make all of us more sensitive to the plight of the poor, persecuted gay minority in this country. We have, for the most part, as a people, accepted the fact that gays live among us, and have successfully assimilated themselves into polite, moral society. So much so, in fact, that now, we who consider the lifestyle abhorrent have been forced to sit on the sidelines and pretend to approve.
Oh, sure, there is still some unrepentant and unabashed gay bigotry around. There always will be, I suspect.
As for myself, although I believe the lifestyle is perversion, I nevertheless treat any gay I meet as an equal. It is not, after all, the sole indication of their character. I can honestly say I have never known a homosexual, male or female, that I didn't personally like.
But has the gay lobby and activists been as successful at removing the stigma as we think?
I suggest they haven't. It would seem to me that the army's policy of "don't ask, don't tell" might work to lessen the amount of open discrimination against gays, but it does little to erase the bigotry that is still very much prevalent, particularly among high school boys.
I'm not suggesting that bigotry isn't somewhat deserved. After all, most right thinking people still consider homosexuality an abomination, as God pronounced it in Leviticus. There are those, (me included) who believe homosexuality is a choice, and not genetic.
But I digress.
When I was in high school, we took showers. We didn't want to attend the rest of the days classes stinking of perspiration. If we suspected any boy in our gym class was a "sissy", we took pains to not let that particular student see us naked, and, Heaven forbid, don't drop the soap in front of him.
Perhaps that attitude was ignorant but it was, nevertheless, the way we felt.
I know I wouldn't want some homo ogling me while I shower.
If any student ever got an accidental erection while showering with the other boys, his reputation within the school was effectively ruined for as long as students memories lasted.
So, to tie this all together, could it be that in their efforts to assure gay students are not discriminated against in high schools, the school administrators believe it necessary to ban showering in the boys locker room in gym class? Could they be merely protecting straight students against gay sexual harassment?
Is not taking showers in gym class a voluntary inaction by the students themselves or is it school policy? Are high school students more modest than students in my day?
Considering the breakdown in morals in the last 30 years, I find that scenario extremely unlikely. If anything, students would be more likely to parade around naked in the halls during school hours than to dive into lockers to hide their shame.
And the school administrators would be less likely to hand out any significant punishment for that singular behavior than they would have 30 years ago.
Ah, probably the only reason they don't take showers anymore is time constraints.
The above quotation (which I thought I had coined myself many years ago, but as it turns out, was coined by Mr. Karr first) is often used as a truism, but apparently, isn't always true, to wit:
While I was driving my son to school this morning (after he missed the bus for the umpteenth time this year), I questioned him about a startling revelation I had received a couple of weeks ago in a conference with his school counselor. The counselor told me the boys in the school don't take showers in P.E.
I don't know how the kids can stand going to the rest of their classes smelling of perspiration.
Well, maybe I can see that, but how can the other students stand them?
I then wondered aloud why the kids don't shower after all that physical activity, and my son said the idea of showering in gym was "gross".
"Not", I replied, "as gross as going to the rest of your classes stinking".
Then, after I dropped him off, I reflected on why they stopped showering, and also if other schools across the country have the same non-policy.
Do they? Does anyone reading this know? And if so, why?
I have my own uneducated, unresearched, and uninformed hypothesis:
Could it be the ever increasing acceptance of the gay lifestyle in our schools perhaps?
Think about it for a minute. Society, the schools, and public opinion have come together in the last 30 years or so to make all of us more sensitive to the plight of the poor, persecuted gay minority in this country. We have, for the most part, as a people, accepted the fact that gays live among us, and have successfully assimilated themselves into polite, moral society. So much so, in fact, that now, we who consider the lifestyle abhorrent have been forced to sit on the sidelines and pretend to approve.
Oh, sure, there is still some unrepentant and unabashed gay bigotry around. There always will be, I suspect.
As for myself, although I believe the lifestyle is perversion, I nevertheless treat any gay I meet as an equal. It is not, after all, the sole indication of their character. I can honestly say I have never known a homosexual, male or female, that I didn't personally like.
But has the gay lobby and activists been as successful at removing the stigma as we think?
I suggest they haven't. It would seem to me that the army's policy of "don't ask, don't tell" might work to lessen the amount of open discrimination against gays, but it does little to erase the bigotry that is still very much prevalent, particularly among high school boys.
I'm not suggesting that bigotry isn't somewhat deserved. After all, most right thinking people still consider homosexuality an abomination, as God pronounced it in Leviticus. There are those, (me included) who believe homosexuality is a choice, and not genetic.
But I digress.
When I was in high school, we took showers. We didn't want to attend the rest of the days classes stinking of perspiration. If we suspected any boy in our gym class was a "sissy", we took pains to not let that particular student see us naked, and, Heaven forbid, don't drop the soap in front of him.
Perhaps that attitude was ignorant but it was, nevertheless, the way we felt.
I know I wouldn't want some homo ogling me while I shower.
If any student ever got an accidental erection while showering with the other boys, his reputation within the school was effectively ruined for as long as students memories lasted.
So, to tie this all together, could it be that in their efforts to assure gay students are not discriminated against in high schools, the school administrators believe it necessary to ban showering in the boys locker room in gym class? Could they be merely protecting straight students against gay sexual harassment?
Is not taking showers in gym class a voluntary inaction by the students themselves or is it school policy? Are high school students more modest than students in my day?
Considering the breakdown in morals in the last 30 years, I find that scenario extremely unlikely. If anything, students would be more likely to parade around naked in the halls during school hours than to dive into lockers to hide their shame.
And the school administrators would be less likely to hand out any significant punishment for that singular behavior than they would have 30 years ago.
Ah, probably the only reason they don't take showers anymore is time constraints.
Friday, December 14, 2007
More On The Myth
"[P]olitics overrides calm rational scientific debate and if that fails the personal attacks begin, and if that fails they invoke the Precautionary Principle, "Shouldn't we act anyway?" Yes, if you want to waste money, ignore other real issues and scare people." ~ Dr. Timothy Ball PhD, Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg
So Dan says, "No One says Global warming is a myth".
I say, "I do".
And so do a lot of other people, including actual climatologists, geologists, and meteorologists.
Many scientists concur with my common sense conviction that Global Warming is a myth. The following videos (which I, the only living global warming denier, according to Dan, didn't create) demonstrates this fact:
Then there's this one:
And then, this:
And, if you have time and/or are so inclined, click on the videos and you will be directed to the youtube pages on which they are found, and there you will find several links to web sites with further information from real actual scientists who agree that Global Warming is indeed a myth.
Just for starters, though, check out this interview with Dr. Timothy Ball.
One video I watched referenced a petition that was signed by 19,000 scientists who all agree Global Warming is a myth. That's a little more than the 928 scientists or so AlGore claims agree with Global Warming.
As I say. Global Warming is a myth.
So Dan says, "No One says Global warming is a myth".
I say, "I do".
And so do a lot of other people, including actual climatologists, geologists, and meteorologists.
Many scientists concur with my common sense conviction that Global Warming is a myth. The following videos (which I, the only living global warming denier, according to Dan, didn't create) demonstrates this fact:
Then there's this one:
And then, this:
And, if you have time and/or are so inclined, click on the videos and you will be directed to the youtube pages on which they are found, and there you will find several links to web sites with further information from real actual scientists who agree that Global Warming is indeed a myth.
Just for starters, though, check out this interview with Dr. Timothy Ball.
One video I watched referenced a petition that was signed by 19,000 scientists who all agree Global Warming is a myth. That's a little more than the 928 scientists or so AlGore claims agree with Global Warming.
As I say. Global Warming is a myth.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
The Myth Of Global Warming
"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Today, I was going to create a post debunking the theory of Global warming, but Lone Ranger beat me to it, by posting a youtube video of actual objective scientists explaining why AlGore and that illustrious consensus of Global Warming so-called scientists are not telling us the truth.
Here is the video, for those who are unwilling to visit LR's blog:
The scientists in his video made two of the points I was going to bring up. One, the fact that the rise in temperature causes the rise in CO2 levels, not the opposite, as AlGore states.
The graph ALGore uses in his film, "An Inconvenient Truth" , to provide positive evidence of our impending demise via Global Warming, actually shows just the opposite. Using the same graph, the scientist in LR's video pointed out that CO2 levels followed, not preceded, the rise in Global temperature by as many as 800 years. If the CO2 levels don't rise before the temperature levels, it stands to reason that CO2 emissions are not the cause of Global warming.
Incidentally, a previous post by Lone Ranger explains that CO2 is an essential element to life on this planet. Humans breathe in oxygen, and expel carbon dioxide. Plants breathe in Carbon Dioxide and expel oxygen.
I suppose if the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere was significantly higher than the amount we need to maintain life on this planet, it might create a serious problem, but remember, there are many more trees, plants, flowers, weeds and blades of grass on this planet than there are humans.
As Lone Ranger eloquently puts it, "It's a perfect symbiosis, brought about by the totally random effects of the Big Bang."
Heh heh heh.
As I always say, the myth of Global Warming can be easily debunked by the use of simple common sense and logic.
The other point is the lie that water levels will rise by 20 feet if the polar ice caps melt. The scientists in the aforementioned video say the oceans water level would rise by no more than 23 inches.
The point I was going to make was this:
Fill a glass with water and ice and measure the water level before the ice melts and then again after it melts. The water level in the glass would remain virtually unchanged.
Then, calculate how much water levels would actually rise if the polar ice caps did indeed melt. Considering the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers make up 2/3 of the world, and the ocean is miles deep, the possibility that melting ice caps would raise the collective water level of the earth's waters significantly defies logic and common sense.
And yet, ALGore and friends insist the water levels would rise 20 feet or more. Where does AlGore say all this excess water will come from?
As it happens, it was a point I didn't need to make as the scientists in the video more than adequately make the point for me.
Here is a point I was going to make that wasn't made in the video:
AlGore's consensus of Scientists say that the average mean Global temperature year round, has risen 7/10 of 1 percent in the last century. That means if the average temperature was 65 degrees in 1907, it would be 65.7 degrees now in 2007. (I don't know exactly what it is, that's an example)
For all you Global warming believers out there, here is a little mathematical exercise for you:
Calculate for me, please, how long it will take for the average mean temperature on the planet to get so hot that it seriously endangers man's existence on this planet. Be sure to take into account that the average temperature on the polar ice caps is around 30-40 degrees below zero year round (the lowest recorded temperature of Antarctica is -126 degree F), and humans can withstand temperatures of over 90 degrees indefinitely, even without air conditioning. You may even include ALGore's position that the water level will rise 20 feet if the polar ice caps melt if that will help you skew your results better.
Then explain to me again how Climate Change is a more imminent threat to us than international terrorism.
Today, I was going to create a post debunking the theory of Global warming, but Lone Ranger beat me to it, by posting a youtube video of actual objective scientists explaining why AlGore and that illustrious consensus of Global Warming so-called scientists are not telling us the truth.
Here is the video, for those who are unwilling to visit LR's blog:
The scientists in his video made two of the points I was going to bring up. One, the fact that the rise in temperature causes the rise in CO2 levels, not the opposite, as AlGore states.
The graph ALGore uses in his film, "An Inconvenient Truth" , to provide positive evidence of our impending demise via Global Warming, actually shows just the opposite. Using the same graph, the scientist in LR's video pointed out that CO2 levels followed, not preceded, the rise in Global temperature by as many as 800 years. If the CO2 levels don't rise before the temperature levels, it stands to reason that CO2 emissions are not the cause of Global warming.
Incidentally, a previous post by Lone Ranger explains that CO2 is an essential element to life on this planet. Humans breathe in oxygen, and expel carbon dioxide. Plants breathe in Carbon Dioxide and expel oxygen.
I suppose if the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere was significantly higher than the amount we need to maintain life on this planet, it might create a serious problem, but remember, there are many more trees, plants, flowers, weeds and blades of grass on this planet than there are humans.
As Lone Ranger eloquently puts it, "It's a perfect symbiosis, brought about by the totally random effects of the Big Bang."
Heh heh heh.
As I always say, the myth of Global Warming can be easily debunked by the use of simple common sense and logic.
The other point is the lie that water levels will rise by 20 feet if the polar ice caps melt. The scientists in the aforementioned video say the oceans water level would rise by no more than 23 inches.
The point I was going to make was this:
Fill a glass with water and ice and measure the water level before the ice melts and then again after it melts. The water level in the glass would remain virtually unchanged.
Then, calculate how much water levels would actually rise if the polar ice caps did indeed melt. Considering the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers make up 2/3 of the world, and the ocean is miles deep, the possibility that melting ice caps would raise the collective water level of the earth's waters significantly defies logic and common sense.
And yet, ALGore and friends insist the water levels would rise 20 feet or more. Where does AlGore say all this excess water will come from?
As it happens, it was a point I didn't need to make as the scientists in the video more than adequately make the point for me.
Here is a point I was going to make that wasn't made in the video:
AlGore's consensus of Scientists say that the average mean Global temperature year round, has risen 7/10 of 1 percent in the last century. That means if the average temperature was 65 degrees in 1907, it would be 65.7 degrees now in 2007. (I don't know exactly what it is, that's an example)
For all you Global warming believers out there, here is a little mathematical exercise for you:
Calculate for me, please, how long it will take for the average mean temperature on the planet to get so hot that it seriously endangers man's existence on this planet. Be sure to take into account that the average temperature on the polar ice caps is around 30-40 degrees below zero year round (the lowest recorded temperature of Antarctica is -126 degree F), and humans can withstand temperatures of over 90 degrees indefinitely, even without air conditioning. You may even include ALGore's position that the water level will rise 20 feet if the polar ice caps melt if that will help you skew your results better.
Then explain to me again how Climate Change is a more imminent threat to us than international terrorism.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
What? Again?
"Young sir, I have just realized that we are both fools, But mine is the greater folly for I am an old fool." ~ Cyrano de Bergerac
It is approximately 7:05 AM. At this precise moment fifty-six years ago, I was making my mother scream for drugs.
Gad.
I hate getting old.
On the plus side, there's gifts.
And cake.
This happens this same time every year. It's no big deal. If it didn't happen, it would be a big deal. At least for me.
It is approximately 7:05 AM. At this precise moment fifty-six years ago, I was making my mother scream for drugs.
Gad.
I hate getting old.
On the plus side, there's gifts.
And cake.
This happens this same time every year. It's no big deal. If it didn't happen, it would be a big deal. At least for me.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
My Favorite Artist
"I've been a wizard since my childhood, and I've earned some respect for my art." ~ David Bromberg
I discovered David Bromberg way back in 1970 or 71 at a concert in Wichita, Kansas, at Henry Levitt arena on the WSU campus. He was one of the opening acts for a mega show starring the Earl Scruggs Review and The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. (Known as simply "The Dirt Band" now) The featured artists gave predictably great performances, but in my mind Bromberg stole the show.
Incidentally, the other opening act was an obscure, unknown comedian billed as "Banjo Funny Man Steve Martin". Yes, the same Steve Martin who is now a super star comedian, actor and director. And yes, he was hilarious then, too.
Bromberg is one of the best guitarists I've ever heard. He has a horrible voice, but somehow it lends itself well to ballads. At the time of the concert, he had one song that actually made it to the top forty charts, a rock and roll song of sorts called "Sharon".
His music can't be categorized as country or rock or blues or jazz or bluegrass, because frankly, he does them all and he does them well.
Anyway, after the show, I went right out and bought my first David Bromberg album. There was is an amazing solo acoustic guitar piece on it, a medley of Irish fiddle tunes.
I discovered David Bromberg way back in 1970 or 71 at a concert in Wichita, Kansas, at Henry Levitt arena on the WSU campus. He was one of the opening acts for a mega show starring the Earl Scruggs Review and The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. (Known as simply "The Dirt Band" now) The featured artists gave predictably great performances, but in my mind Bromberg stole the show.
Incidentally, the other opening act was an obscure, unknown comedian billed as "Banjo Funny Man Steve Martin". Yes, the same Steve Martin who is now a super star comedian, actor and director. And yes, he was hilarious then, too.
Bromberg is one of the best guitarists I've ever heard. He has a horrible voice, but somehow it lends itself well to ballads. At the time of the concert, he had one song that actually made it to the top forty charts, a rock and roll song of sorts called "Sharon".
His music can't be categorized as country or rock or blues or jazz or bluegrass, because frankly, he does them all and he does them well.
Anyway, after the show, I went right out and bought my first David Bromberg album. There was is an amazing solo acoustic guitar piece on it, a medley of Irish fiddle tunes.
" Demon in Disguise" The album
Bromberg rarely performs anymore. He lives is Wilmington Delaware where he owns a Violin store, but sometimes he travels to some music festival someplace where he often gets together with more famous musicians, such as Arlo Guthrie, Jerry Jeff Walker, and John B. Sebastian.
Somewhere within the last 30+ years, I lost the album, and was never able to find a copy of that medley since. Until last weekend, when I ordered a CD of the same album online. Apparently, the only way to hear the medley is to get the CD.
The Title of the CD is "Demon In Disguise" and the following Youtube video is the title cut, from a performance at Iowa State in 1985, which has a pretty darn good solo guitar piece in it as well:
In case you hadn't noticed, John Sebastian plays harmonica in this clip.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Monkey Business As Usual At MSNBC
"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." ~ Abraham Lincoln (attributed)
If anyone has any doubt that MSNBC is Liberally biased, this video should erase any such doubts:
Someone should be fired, but I'm not saying who.
If anyone has any doubt that MSNBC is Liberally biased, this video should erase any such doubts:
Someone should be fired, but I'm not saying who.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The End Is Not So Near
"If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." ~ Winston Churchill (attributed)
Yesterday's local newspaper featured a front page story entitled, "12 year old plans to be President".
According to the article:
"When Bobby Washington was 10, his mother found him asleep in his room with a 1,008-page autobiography of former President Bill Clinton on his chest.
Bobby, now 12, has policy positions on the environment and the war. He's pushing for battery-operated cars, and he wants the war in Iraq to end."
This story should send a signal to Conservatives that the hoped for end to liberalism by selective breeding, is not so near. By selective breeding, I mean abortion. See, most Liberals are pro-abortion, and most Conservatives are pro-life, so it stands to reason that eventually, Liberals will more or less breed themselves into a minority.
Or, more accurately, UN-breed.
Obviously, even if Liberals stopped procreating, there are still negative Liberal influences out there that will turn our children into mind numbed robots of Liberalism.
We still, unfortunately, have public schools.
And now, we see why Liberals hate the idea of school choice so much, don't we?
Yesterday's local newspaper featured a front page story entitled, "12 year old plans to be President".
According to the article:
"When Bobby Washington was 10, his mother found him asleep in his room with a 1,008-page autobiography of former President Bill Clinton on his chest.
Bobby, now 12, has policy positions on the environment and the war. He's pushing for battery-operated cars, and he wants the war in Iraq to end."
This story should send a signal to Conservatives that the hoped for end to liberalism by selective breeding, is not so near. By selective breeding, I mean abortion. See, most Liberals are pro-abortion, and most Conservatives are pro-life, so it stands to reason that eventually, Liberals will more or less breed themselves into a minority.
Or, more accurately, UN-breed.
Obviously, even if Liberals stopped procreating, there are still negative Liberal influences out there that will turn our children into mind numbed robots of Liberalism.
We still, unfortunately, have public schools.
And now, we see why Liberals hate the idea of school choice so much, don't we?
Saturday, November 24, 2007
A Fortuitous Turn Of Events
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." ~ William Shakespeare
Black Friday. Oh yes. Let me tell you of my "Black Friday" adventure:
Best Buy's circular advertised an E-machine desktop computer for the unbelievable price of $199.97. Regular price was $619.97. It comes complete with a printer!
There were only 15 of them in stock in each Best Buy store, and no rain checks would be issued. The circular informed readers the way to procure this computer was to arrive at the store by 3:00 AM (that's AM!) and wait in line, (assuming there would be a line, of course) and the first 15 people who were there for the computer would be issued a ticket for the particular item they came to purchase.
First come, first served.
When the store opened at 5:00 customers would then be allowed to enter and purchase their item of interest.
My own desktop computer recently broke, and I have been wanting a replacement for quite some time, so I conceived a plan whereby I could procure this computer. There wasn't a lot of information on the specifications, but I reasoned beggars can't be choosers.
My last computer was an e-machines, too, and it was, at the time, the absolute cheapest I could find. Ideally, the next desktop would include the new Windows Vista, a CD/DVD player writer, more memory and power.
This is the Desktop advertised, below:
Black Friday. Oh yes. Let me tell you of my "Black Friday" adventure:
Best Buy's circular advertised an E-machine desktop computer for the unbelievable price of $199.97. Regular price was $619.97. It comes complete with a printer!
There were only 15 of them in stock in each Best Buy store, and no rain checks would be issued. The circular informed readers the way to procure this computer was to arrive at the store by 3:00 AM (that's AM!) and wait in line, (assuming there would be a line, of course) and the first 15 people who were there for the computer would be issued a ticket for the particular item they came to purchase.
First come, first served.
When the store opened at 5:00 customers would then be allowed to enter and purchase their item of interest.
My own desktop computer recently broke, and I have been wanting a replacement for quite some time, so I conceived a plan whereby I could procure this computer. There wasn't a lot of information on the specifications, but I reasoned beggars can't be choosers.
My last computer was an e-machines, too, and it was, at the time, the absolute cheapest I could find. Ideally, the next desktop would include the new Windows Vista, a CD/DVD player writer, more memory and power.
This is the Desktop advertised, below:
I figured even if the new one didn't meet my qualifications, I could always sell it on E-Bay and make enough profit (remember: regular price is $619.97) to get one more to my liking.
I considered arriving at the store around midnight, to insure a good place in line, but the night was the coldest of the year so far, and I had no one to go with me in case I needed someone to stand in my place if I needed to answer natures relentless call. So, instead, I drove to the store, timing my arrival for about 10 minutes before 3:00.
When I drove into the parking lot, I realized I made the wrong plans. There was a line beginning at the store entrance and snaking around the corner all the way to the back of the store, and more were arriving. Many people were in tents and sleeping bags. And I only had on a leather jacket and gloves. Even if only a small percentage of the 100+ people already there were planning on purchasing the computer, there were still many more computer buyers than 15 in line.
So, I continued through the parking lot and drove off to Walmart, to buy some Diet Mountain Dew. Then I went home and went to bed.
But the adventure doesn't stop here.
Later in the day, my fiancee informed me that she desperately needed $150.00 immediately, so I deposited that into her bank account.
Now, it was clear that if I had purchased that computer, and then deposited the money in her account, it would have put a serious strain on my already meager bank account.
And I have a habit of making bad economical decisions.
I considered that Someone was looking out for me.
But that still isn't the end of the story.
Later that afternoon, I received a call from my boss, who offered to give me a desktop. He had recently sold a successful business and had a couple of office computers left over, which he was going to donate, but then he had remembered I had mentioned a while back that my computer broke.
He will bring the computer to the office on Monday.
I haven't seen the computer, and I don't yet know if it has Vista, or a CD/DVD writer, etc, and I didn't ask. What kind of person would I be if I looked the proverbial gift horse in the mouth?
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thanksgiving Madness
"What hath God wrought?" ~ Samuel F. B. Morse
Well, Thanksgiving is over and today I am reminded why I'm thankful Thanksgiving comes only once a year. I never work so hard in one day (excepting maybe Christmas) as I do on Thanksgiving day. Between cooking and cleaning, eating, then cleaning up afterwards, I wonder why we continually put up with the headaches year after year.
All for one, albeit, sumptuous meal.
Why was yesterday a frenzy of activity, punctuated with arguments over who was doing the most work and whether whatever each of us did was helping the others?
Why do we put ourselves through so much suffering only to enjoy a 30 minute dinner, during which we stuff ourselves so full of a variety of foods that we feel bloated and uncomfortable for the rest of the day?
And why must we have two meat courses, four or five vegetable courses, and several choices for dessert? And why do we feel we must sample every one of those choices, especially since I am not supposed to be eating anything with sugar?
Why, on this one day, do we feel the necessity to try to commit suicide by gluttony?
Considering the work and frustration we put into it, I wonder why we bother.
Because it gives us a fleeting opportunity to spend quality time with family and friends, and reminds us that we have much to be thankful for, regardless of the tribulations of everyday existence.
Taking all these things under consideration, one realizes that the prize is worth the pain.
And now, we have--Black Friday.
Well, Thanksgiving is over and today I am reminded why I'm thankful Thanksgiving comes only once a year. I never work so hard in one day (excepting maybe Christmas) as I do on Thanksgiving day. Between cooking and cleaning, eating, then cleaning up afterwards, I wonder why we continually put up with the headaches year after year.
All for one, albeit, sumptuous meal.
Why was yesterday a frenzy of activity, punctuated with arguments over who was doing the most work and whether whatever each of us did was helping the others?
Why do we put ourselves through so much suffering only to enjoy a 30 minute dinner, during which we stuff ourselves so full of a variety of foods that we feel bloated and uncomfortable for the rest of the day?
And why must we have two meat courses, four or five vegetable courses, and several choices for dessert? And why do we feel we must sample every one of those choices, especially since I am not supposed to be eating anything with sugar?
Why, on this one day, do we feel the necessity to try to commit suicide by gluttony?
Considering the work and frustration we put into it, I wonder why we bother.
Because it gives us a fleeting opportunity to spend quality time with family and friends, and reminds us that we have much to be thankful for, regardless of the tribulations of everyday existence.
Taking all these things under consideration, one realizes that the prize is worth the pain.
And now, we have--Black Friday.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Voices Of The Angels
"When griping grief the heart doth wound,
and doleful dumps the mind opresses,
then music, with her silver sound,
with speedy help doth lend redress."
William Shakespeare
When I was searching Youtube for examples of Scottish folk music for my last post, I stumbled across this video, and I was literally amazed. The group is called "Celtic Woman".
These women sing with the voices of angels.
It is a song often heard around Christmas time, but I just couldn't wait until Christmas to share this beautiful music:
Incidentally, when I was sharing this with a friend, I pronounced the name of the group, "Seltic woman", and was immediately corrected. The correct pronunciation, I was told, is "Keltic woman"
I said, "Not in Boston".
and doleful dumps the mind opresses,
then music, with her silver sound,
with speedy help doth lend redress."
William Shakespeare
When I was searching Youtube for examples of Scottish folk music for my last post, I stumbled across this video, and I was literally amazed. The group is called "Celtic Woman".
These women sing with the voices of angels.
It is a song often heard around Christmas time, but I just couldn't wait until Christmas to share this beautiful music:
Incidentally, when I was sharing this with a friend, I pronounced the name of the group, "Seltic woman", and was immediately corrected. The correct pronunciation, I was told, is "Keltic woman"
I said, "Not in Boston".
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
We'll Fight For What Is Right...
"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." ~ From the Scottish Declaration of Independence, signed at Arbroath Abbey, April 6, 1320
I've mentioned before I once traced my family tree to 17th century North Carolina. I know my early ancestor immigrated to America from Scotland, but that is where my search ended, not because there are no more records of my family history, but because being of Scottish ancestry, I have retained the traits of a true Scotsman--I am thrifty.(translation: Cheap)Any further research requires a fee, so I couldn't (or wouldn't) dig any more.
But what I discovered furnished me with enough information that I was able to ascertain my family origin. I am likely descended from a sept of the Clan Gunn, one of the Highland Clans of Northern Scotland. Specifically the Clan Gunn's roots spread out from the town of Caithness, in the Scottish Highlands, to SW Sutherland. The word, "sept" basically means "extended family". Hence, my surname is one of many cousins to the Gunn's.
Here is the Gunn Clan tartan plaid:
And here is the Gunn Crest:
The Latin phrase translates to "Either Peace or War".
I've mentioned all this and more before, but since I learned how to post videos on here, I can now share a couple of my favorite Scottish folk songs. Here is one that makes mention of the history, customs, industry, and even common plants (thistle)and animals (Badger and Fox), of Scotland, and also promotes the Scots stubborn independence.
It's called "Dawning of the Day", by the famous Scottish folk duo, The Corries:
This one is a song penned by the famous Scottish poet, Robert Burns,(known as "Rabbie" to Scots) and sung by Eddie Reader. The name is "Charlie is my Darling":
Most of Scotlands folk songs tell of a long history of fighting fierce battles for independence. Scots are a proud and stubborn people. They simply will not allow themselves to be enslaved, and will fight against overwhelming odds to that end. Their history is a beacon for freedom loving people everywhere.
I am proud to be a Scotsman.
I've mentioned before I once traced my family tree to 17th century North Carolina. I know my early ancestor immigrated to America from Scotland, but that is where my search ended, not because there are no more records of my family history, but because being of Scottish ancestry, I have retained the traits of a true Scotsman--I am thrifty.(translation: Cheap)Any further research requires a fee, so I couldn't (or wouldn't) dig any more.
But what I discovered furnished me with enough information that I was able to ascertain my family origin. I am likely descended from a sept of the Clan Gunn, one of the Highland Clans of Northern Scotland. Specifically the Clan Gunn's roots spread out from the town of Caithness, in the Scottish Highlands, to SW Sutherland. The word, "sept" basically means "extended family". Hence, my surname is one of many cousins to the Gunn's.
Here is the Gunn Clan tartan plaid:
And here is the Gunn Crest:
The Latin phrase translates to "Either Peace or War".
I've mentioned all this and more before, but since I learned how to post videos on here, I can now share a couple of my favorite Scottish folk songs. Here is one that makes mention of the history, customs, industry, and even common plants (thistle)and animals (Badger and Fox), of Scotland, and also promotes the Scots stubborn independence.
It's called "Dawning of the Day", by the famous Scottish folk duo, The Corries:
This one is a song penned by the famous Scottish poet, Robert Burns,(known as "Rabbie" to Scots) and sung by Eddie Reader. The name is "Charlie is my Darling":
Most of Scotlands folk songs tell of a long history of fighting fierce battles for independence. Scots are a proud and stubborn people. They simply will not allow themselves to be enslaved, and will fight against overwhelming odds to that end. Their history is a beacon for freedom loving people everywhere.
I am proud to be a Scotsman.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Possible Hypocrisy--Maybe?
"Hypocrisy: Prejudice with a halo" ~ Ambrose Bierce
Yesterday, when I posted my blog entry, I got a little carried away and strayed from my original subject, and ended up making two posts in one. If you didn't see it, I am not going to explain.
Anyway, I am rectifying that today, by separating the two subjects into two separate posts, to wit:
I realize it may appear I am picking on ER specifically, but it just happened that I visited his blog shortly after he posted a humour piece, that could nevertheless be construed as unflattering about our Vice President, Dick Cheney.
Other than how he mispronounces his own last name, I know of nothing Cheney has done that warrants such denigration.
Be that as it may, ER posted two pictures, one of actor Lionel Barrymore (now deceased) in his famous role of the curmudgeonly wicked old man Potter, from the movie "What a Wonderful Life". The other picture was of Vice President Dick Cheney (he pronounces it Chaney). Then ER pointed out a physical similarity between the two, and implied the two shared a similar personality.
(Incidentally, my favorite Barrymore film is an obscure little picture in which Barrymore, who plays a curmudgeonly old man confined to a wheelchair, magically traps Death, played by Sir Cedric Hardwicke, in an apple tree. Oh! The name of the movie is "On Borrowed Time")
I have no doubt that ER intended the piece to be humorous, and indeed it is.
But it reminded me of a post I created back in April, 2006 in which I posted pictures of Democratic representative Cynthia McKinney and Rocket J. Squirrel in order to point out the similarities in their physical appearance.
I made no implications that the two are similar in any other way. In fact, The gist of that particular post was a defense of Ms. McKinney, a fact that was apparently lost on ER, as his first comment on the post was:
"You're just being mean. Who wants to comment on that? Quit being a jerk."
I'm still trying to figure out how I am a jerk when I post pictures that suggest a physical comparison between a fictional character and a real human being and ER is just being funny.
Once again, as I pointed out in yesterday's post:
It does make one wonder if Libs are somewhat hypocritical, does it not?
Yesterday, when I posted my blog entry, I got a little carried away and strayed from my original subject, and ended up making two posts in one. If you didn't see it, I am not going to explain.
Anyway, I am rectifying that today, by separating the two subjects into two separate posts, to wit:
I realize it may appear I am picking on ER specifically, but it just happened that I visited his blog shortly after he posted a humour piece, that could nevertheless be construed as unflattering about our Vice President, Dick Cheney.
Other than how he mispronounces his own last name, I know of nothing Cheney has done that warrants such denigration.
Be that as it may, ER posted two pictures, one of actor Lionel Barrymore (now deceased) in his famous role of the curmudgeonly wicked old man Potter, from the movie "What a Wonderful Life". The other picture was of Vice President Dick Cheney (he pronounces it Chaney). Then ER pointed out a physical similarity between the two, and implied the two shared a similar personality.
(Incidentally, my favorite Barrymore film is an obscure little picture in which Barrymore, who plays a curmudgeonly old man confined to a wheelchair, magically traps Death, played by Sir Cedric Hardwicke, in an apple tree. Oh! The name of the movie is "On Borrowed Time")
I have no doubt that ER intended the piece to be humorous, and indeed it is.
But it reminded me of a post I created back in April, 2006 in which I posted pictures of Democratic representative Cynthia McKinney and Rocket J. Squirrel in order to point out the similarities in their physical appearance.
I made no implications that the two are similar in any other way. In fact, The gist of that particular post was a defense of Ms. McKinney, a fact that was apparently lost on ER, as his first comment on the post was:
"You're just being mean. Who wants to comment on that? Quit being a jerk."
I'm still trying to figure out how I am a jerk when I post pictures that suggest a physical comparison between a fictional character and a real human being and ER is just being funny.
Once again, as I pointed out in yesterday's post:
It does make one wonder if Libs are somewhat hypocritical, does it not?
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
How The Left Honors Our Veterans
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” ~ Ambrose Bierce
We are forever hearing our Liberal and Democrat and Liberal Democrat friends sanctimoniously insist that they support the troops. We are told we are being unpatriotic if we suggest that Libs are treasonous when they use language that undermines the United State's military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Liberals get offended when we Conservatives suggest they are not themselves patriotic because they constantly denigrate our troops and George W. Bush, the current Commander-in-Chief of those same armed forces they claim to support.
With the preceding statements in mind, I decided, on a whim, to visit a few Liberal blog sites just to see how they honor the veterans of our armed forces this past Veteran's Day, both the traditional holiday on November 11th, and the "official" day, this year celebrated on November 12th.
Since I have only one Liberal blog on my blogroll, ER's blog was the first I visited. And, because I don't have the url's of any other Liberal blogs, I clicked the links to other blogs on ER's blogroll to access a variety of Liberal blogs.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered, much to my chagrin, that none of the Liberal blogs I visited had any mention at all of any veterans. So, it goes without saying there were no tributes to our veterans nor even any acknowledgement that a Veterans day even exists in the Liberal world.
None.
As in zero, zilch, nada, diddley squat.
This is not to say they don't honor veterans, but it does tend to make one suspect a little bit of hypocrisy on the Libs part.
A lack of acknowledgement of Veterans Day nor even a cursory nod to veterans in general is not necessarily indicative of any disrespect to our veterans and members of our current armed forces. Some Conservative blogs made no mention of Veterans day, either. Does that mean they aren't supportive of our troops?
I think the general overall attitude of the whole of the various blogs, rather than one or two days posts is the litmus test of whether they truly support our troops or not. Of course, I see no indication of support from reading the rest of their posts, either.
But it does make one wonder, does it not?
We are forever hearing our Liberal and Democrat and Liberal Democrat friends sanctimoniously insist that they support the troops. We are told we are being unpatriotic if we suggest that Libs are treasonous when they use language that undermines the United State's military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Liberals get offended when we Conservatives suggest they are not themselves patriotic because they constantly denigrate our troops and George W. Bush, the current Commander-in-Chief of those same armed forces they claim to support.
With the preceding statements in mind, I decided, on a whim, to visit a few Liberal blog sites just to see how they honor the veterans of our armed forces this past Veteran's Day, both the traditional holiday on November 11th, and the "official" day, this year celebrated on November 12th.
Since I have only one Liberal blog on my blogroll, ER's blog was the first I visited. And, because I don't have the url's of any other Liberal blogs, I clicked the links to other blogs on ER's blogroll to access a variety of Liberal blogs.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered, much to my chagrin, that none of the Liberal blogs I visited had any mention at all of any veterans. So, it goes without saying there were no tributes to our veterans nor even any acknowledgement that a Veterans day even exists in the Liberal world.
None.
As in zero, zilch, nada, diddley squat.
This is not to say they don't honor veterans, but it does tend to make one suspect a little bit of hypocrisy on the Libs part.
A lack of acknowledgement of Veterans Day nor even a cursory nod to veterans in general is not necessarily indicative of any disrespect to our veterans and members of our current armed forces. Some Conservative blogs made no mention of Veterans day, either. Does that mean they aren't supportive of our troops?
I think the general overall attitude of the whole of the various blogs, rather than one or two days posts is the litmus test of whether they truly support our troops or not. Of course, I see no indication of support from reading the rest of their posts, either.
But it does make one wonder, does it not?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Veterans Day 2007
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." – Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
To all Veterans, who were prepared to face death for our freedom, Thank you for your service, and God bless you.
To all Veterans, who were prepared to face death for our freedom, Thank you for your service, and God bless you.
Friday, November 09, 2007
A Reduction Of Civility
"For every action there is an equal and opposite government program." ~ Bob Wells
I am going to need Tug's help on this one. Perhaps Tug will correct me if I'm wrong.
As someone who has to drive to make a living, I have become increasingly aware of a shift in the attitudes of professional truck drivers. They used to be courteous and polite. They were the drivers one could depend upon to help out in emergency situations on the highways. They were quick to back off and let aggressive drivers bully their way between vehicles in search of that added two or three car lengths for the sake of every other driver's safety.
Not anymore. Today, they are the aggressive drivers. They are the bullies. What has happened?
I am not a truck driver so I am unfamiliar with the ICC regulations, but I am fairly sure the growing problem of aggressive truck driving is directly linked to over regulation of the trucking industry.
In this morning's Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, a report of a singular aggressive driving incident has illuminated this problem.
Here is a snippet:
"Sgt. F.L. Tyler of the state police said the driver, Van Kimball Lewis, 35, was charged with driving under the influence of drugs, namely PCP, after he fought rescue workers and police officers who tried to get him out of the cab, where he was pinned in the overturned truck.
He was also charged with possession of a controlled substance, three counts of assault on a police officer and one count of aggressive driving."
I have been offered some encapsulated insights from some drivers as to what is causing this phenomena in America. I was told this trend is a direct result of the regulation of the truck driving industry. Truck drivers are now required to rest after a set period of time driving, whether they are tired or not. At the same time, trucking companies are becoming more and more insistent that drivers reach their destinations in time.
This forces truck drivers to exceed the speed limits in order to drop their loads on time. Trucking companies are having to impose strict time frames on their drivers in order to stay competitive in the marketplace. The aggressive driving is a direct consequence of the drivers doing whatever they have to do to complete their runs to the satisfaction of their bosses.
Just last night, I was driving interstate 95 myself. I was driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit, which is as fast as I dare to drive. After over 35 years driving, one thing I have realized. If I ever even unknowingly accidentally creep more than 5 miles per hour over the limit, I will be caught. Every time.
But I digress. As I was speeding along the interstate, a semi-trailer truck rolled up behind me probably going at least 15 miles an hour more than I was, and proceeded to almost park his cab on top of my back bumper. This was, of course, because other traffic prevented him from passing me at that time. Maybe I am just a scaredy-cat, but this kind of driving frightens me. What happens if my car suddenly blows a tire or drops it's drive shaft, or a deer darts out in front of me at this speed? Will the aggressive truck driver who is tailgating me be able to stop before he creams me?
Of course not. He knows that but yet, his fear of losing his job outweighs his fear of killing another motorist. And I fear my self preservation instincts will not help me one bit in that sort of situation.
This is yet another example of how Government over regulation and meddling into the rights of businesses for the sake of traffic safety has had the opposite effect. It hasn't created less traffic fatalities and less accidents. It has created more.
Maybe I'm all wrong about this, but I remember when truck drivers were the courteous and polite drivers.
All three entities are culpable for the reduction of civility on our nations highways. The Government, the Trucking companies, and the individual drivers.
Government regulations notwithstanding, I think it goes without saying that truck drivers are directly responsible for any actions that cause injury and death on our nations highways. I am not saying truck drivers are justified in abdicating their own culpability and responsibility in causing these accidents.
Whatever the law requires, they are nevertheless responsible for their own actions, but I believe there should be some sort of investigation into the responsibility of the trucking companies and the government.
I am going to need Tug's help on this one. Perhaps Tug will correct me if I'm wrong.
As someone who has to drive to make a living, I have become increasingly aware of a shift in the attitudes of professional truck drivers. They used to be courteous and polite. They were the drivers one could depend upon to help out in emergency situations on the highways. They were quick to back off and let aggressive drivers bully their way between vehicles in search of that added two or three car lengths for the sake of every other driver's safety.
Not anymore. Today, they are the aggressive drivers. They are the bullies. What has happened?
I am not a truck driver so I am unfamiliar with the ICC regulations, but I am fairly sure the growing problem of aggressive truck driving is directly linked to over regulation of the trucking industry.
In this morning's Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, a report of a singular aggressive driving incident has illuminated this problem.
Here is a snippet:
"Sgt. F.L. Tyler of the state police said the driver, Van Kimball Lewis, 35, was charged with driving under the influence of drugs, namely PCP, after he fought rescue workers and police officers who tried to get him out of the cab, where he was pinned in the overturned truck.
He was also charged with possession of a controlled substance, three counts of assault on a police officer and one count of aggressive driving."
I have been offered some encapsulated insights from some drivers as to what is causing this phenomena in America. I was told this trend is a direct result of the regulation of the truck driving industry. Truck drivers are now required to rest after a set period of time driving, whether they are tired or not. At the same time, trucking companies are becoming more and more insistent that drivers reach their destinations in time.
This forces truck drivers to exceed the speed limits in order to drop their loads on time. Trucking companies are having to impose strict time frames on their drivers in order to stay competitive in the marketplace. The aggressive driving is a direct consequence of the drivers doing whatever they have to do to complete their runs to the satisfaction of their bosses.
Just last night, I was driving interstate 95 myself. I was driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit, which is as fast as I dare to drive. After over 35 years driving, one thing I have realized. If I ever even unknowingly accidentally creep more than 5 miles per hour over the limit, I will be caught. Every time.
But I digress. As I was speeding along the interstate, a semi-trailer truck rolled up behind me probably going at least 15 miles an hour more than I was, and proceeded to almost park his cab on top of my back bumper. This was, of course, because other traffic prevented him from passing me at that time. Maybe I am just a scaredy-cat, but this kind of driving frightens me. What happens if my car suddenly blows a tire or drops it's drive shaft, or a deer darts out in front of me at this speed? Will the aggressive truck driver who is tailgating me be able to stop before he creams me?
Of course not. He knows that but yet, his fear of losing his job outweighs his fear of killing another motorist. And I fear my self preservation instincts will not help me one bit in that sort of situation.
This is yet another example of how Government over regulation and meddling into the rights of businesses for the sake of traffic safety has had the opposite effect. It hasn't created less traffic fatalities and less accidents. It has created more.
Maybe I'm all wrong about this, but I remember when truck drivers were the courteous and polite drivers.
All three entities are culpable for the reduction of civility on our nations highways. The Government, the Trucking companies, and the individual drivers.
Government regulations notwithstanding, I think it goes without saying that truck drivers are directly responsible for any actions that cause injury and death on our nations highways. I am not saying truck drivers are justified in abdicating their own culpability and responsibility in causing these accidents.
Whatever the law requires, they are nevertheless responsible for their own actions, but I believe there should be some sort of investigation into the responsibility of the trucking companies and the government.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Back To Outrage
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." ~ Ronald Reagan
OK. I am outraged again, but not about anything the Libs are doing or saying, although they continually do and say outrageous things. The fact is, Libs are so outrageous so often that they have ceased to outrage me--at least for the time being. Usually they are just comical. Actually, I think they do us all a service by keeping us laughing about the stupid things they say and do continually.
No, this time I am outraged (actually not really outraged so much as mildly chagrined) over "Reverend" Pat Robertson endorsing Rudolph Guiliani for President. I put "Reverend" in quotes because, frankly, I believe he is a phony.
This guy represents himself as a Conservative Christian leader and yet he endorses a man who openly supports gay marriages and abortion? Not only is that not Conservative it's not even representative of most Christian's viewpoints.
Actually, I'm OK with gay marriage. It's not gay marriage that concerns me as much as the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle that bugs me. And if you allow gays to marry you are basically saying the lifestyle is a legitimate, normal, and acceptable way to live.
It isn't.
But if gays want to marry each other they do the rest of us normal people a favor by keeping perversion within their own community. As long as they aren't allowed to adopt and raise children I am OK with gay marriage.
Allowing gay people to raise children is child abuse.
And then there's abortion.
What kind of Conservative Christian would ever, ever endorse a pro-abortion candidate for dog catcher, let alone President? What is Robertson thinking?
I'll tell you what I believe he is thinking. There is money in this for him somewhere. Pat Robertson is all about money. Watch his broadcast sometime, if you can get through it without gagging. 90% of what he talks about is money. He is obsessed with money.
I suspect Rudy bribed him to obtain his endorsement. And that is giving Robertson the benefit of the doubt. He may really be in favor of gay marriage and abortion himself but won't admit it, as it would most certainly destroy any credibility that remains after his money obsession becomes publicly known.
Oh yes, I am aware many Conservative leaders are throwing their support behind Rudy. Sean Hannity claims he likes all the Republican candidates for President, but if you spend any time listening to his radio broadcast, it is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that he is a "Rudy man".
So what about Sean's argument that Rudy has promised that if elected he will appoint strict constructionist Justices in the model of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts?
If you believe that, I know a fellow in Florida with some prime real estate to sell you cheap.
Why would a pro abortion President appoint pro-life Justices? That just doesn't make sense. If he appointed any pro-life Justices it would be because they agreed with him about other issues, and abortion would be simply a fortunate coincidence. In other words, just because he says he will appoint strict constructionist judges, it doesn't mean he will appoint pro-life justices.
Obviously, if a Justice is a true constructionist, he would not be able to find a right to abortion in the Constitution, but as we have seen, that doesn't necessarily mean he would judge accordingly. As Laura Ingraham points out in her book, "Power to the People", sometimes Justices change their judicial philosophy once they occupy the bench. They stop being constructionist Justices and become activist Justices.
Think Souter and Kennedy.
No, I don't trust Guiliani, and I certainly don't trust Robertson. And if Robertson endorses him, he might as well tell me personally, "Don't vote for Guiliani".
But let me be clear. If Guiliani is chosen by the Republican party to be our Presidential candidate in '08, I will vote for him. Why? Because even the very worst Republican is better than the very best Democrat.
And Sam Brownback endorses John McCain? Sheeeeeeeeesh! Say it aint so, Sam!
It's no wonder many Conservatives say the Republican Party has lost it's way.
May God and Duncan Hunter save us.
OK. I am outraged again, but not about anything the Libs are doing or saying, although they continually do and say outrageous things. The fact is, Libs are so outrageous so often that they have ceased to outrage me--at least for the time being. Usually they are just comical. Actually, I think they do us all a service by keeping us laughing about the stupid things they say and do continually.
No, this time I am outraged (actually not really outraged so much as mildly chagrined) over "Reverend" Pat Robertson endorsing Rudolph Guiliani for President. I put "Reverend" in quotes because, frankly, I believe he is a phony.
This guy represents himself as a Conservative Christian leader and yet he endorses a man who openly supports gay marriages and abortion? Not only is that not Conservative it's not even representative of most Christian's viewpoints.
Actually, I'm OK with gay marriage. It's not gay marriage that concerns me as much as the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle that bugs me. And if you allow gays to marry you are basically saying the lifestyle is a legitimate, normal, and acceptable way to live.
It isn't.
But if gays want to marry each other they do the rest of us normal people a favor by keeping perversion within their own community. As long as they aren't allowed to adopt and raise children I am OK with gay marriage.
Allowing gay people to raise children is child abuse.
And then there's abortion.
What kind of Conservative Christian would ever, ever endorse a pro-abortion candidate for dog catcher, let alone President? What is Robertson thinking?
I'll tell you what I believe he is thinking. There is money in this for him somewhere. Pat Robertson is all about money. Watch his broadcast sometime, if you can get through it without gagging. 90% of what he talks about is money. He is obsessed with money.
I suspect Rudy bribed him to obtain his endorsement. And that is giving Robertson the benefit of the doubt. He may really be in favor of gay marriage and abortion himself but won't admit it, as it would most certainly destroy any credibility that remains after his money obsession becomes publicly known.
Oh yes, I am aware many Conservative leaders are throwing their support behind Rudy. Sean Hannity claims he likes all the Republican candidates for President, but if you spend any time listening to his radio broadcast, it is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that he is a "Rudy man".
So what about Sean's argument that Rudy has promised that if elected he will appoint strict constructionist Justices in the model of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts?
If you believe that, I know a fellow in Florida with some prime real estate to sell you cheap.
Why would a pro abortion President appoint pro-life Justices? That just doesn't make sense. If he appointed any pro-life Justices it would be because they agreed with him about other issues, and abortion would be simply a fortunate coincidence. In other words, just because he says he will appoint strict constructionist judges, it doesn't mean he will appoint pro-life justices.
Obviously, if a Justice is a true constructionist, he would not be able to find a right to abortion in the Constitution, but as we have seen, that doesn't necessarily mean he would judge accordingly. As Laura Ingraham points out in her book, "Power to the People", sometimes Justices change their judicial philosophy once they occupy the bench. They stop being constructionist Justices and become activist Justices.
Think Souter and Kennedy.
No, I don't trust Guiliani, and I certainly don't trust Robertson. And if Robertson endorses him, he might as well tell me personally, "Don't vote for Guiliani".
But let me be clear. If Guiliani is chosen by the Republican party to be our Presidential candidate in '08, I will vote for him. Why? Because even the very worst Republican is better than the very best Democrat.
And Sam Brownback endorses John McCain? Sheeeeeeeeesh! Say it aint so, Sam!
It's no wonder many Conservatives say the Republican Party has lost it's way.
May God and Duncan Hunter save us.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Tired Of Being Outraged
"I'm sick and tired of waking up sick and tired" ~ Waylon Jennings
As I expressed previously in comments, I am tired of being outraged, and yet, there is little to be positive about lately.
Yesterday, here in Virginia, local and state elections were held. I voted Republican for the most part. I had some information on a couple of independents that are actually more Conservative than the Republicans they ran against, so I voted for them. I believe most of the candidates won, although the one I was most hoping to win didn't. Chris Yakabouski, Republican, ran for State Senate on a platform that promised to prevent special benefits for illegal aliens. The number of illegal aliens in Virginia is a serious problem, costing us taxpayers millions of dollars that could be better spent protecting, rather than endangering America's security.
But "Yak" lost. Illegal immigration has won. For the time being. The only solace I have is the knowledge that fortunately, Democrats usually do little of significance that they promise. I believe we are still safe. I hope.
That is just part of the reason I am feeling so anxious today. Another part of the equation has to do with the fact that I haven't posted any meaningful posts as of late. The fact is, I am simply tired of being outraged.
I am losing my mental faculties. This morning alone, I misplaced my car keys and had difficulty locating my shoes. And there have been many other similar episodes in the last few weeks. It worries me because this is totally unlike me. I don't lose things. I am not absent minded. At least I didn't used to be.
I am also starting to make mistakes. Not mistakes that are particularly dangerous, just silly little mistakes in my concentration. For instance, this morning I went to the grocery store and attempted to write a check for my purchase. The purchase was a mere $2.82, but I began to write my check for the amount of "two hundred...".
Next, although this isn't really anything I mistakenly did, but the check printer approval machine/computer wouldn't work and I stood for at least 15 minutes waiting for the cash register computer to unfreeze so they could process my check.
My right knee and ankle are mysteriously and suddenly causing me no small amount of pain. I don't know or understand why, because I haven't twisted, bumped or otherwise done anything that would create the pain. So, standing at the check out counter waiting for approval of a two dollar eighty-two cent check didn't help. I may soon have to acquiesce to the possibility that I'm getting old.
Maybe all this is a kind of Karmic ying/yang response to the things I do. Just before I wrote my check I helped an elderly woman unload some heavy items out of her cart onto the conveyor belt at the checkstand.
I drove into the 7-11 to get gas right behind a middle aged black woman who was limping into the parking lot on a flat tire. I offered to change her tire for her but she refused.
But I need to write. Something. Anything. Writing on this blog is a catharsis for me. I was in the throes of a full blown anxiety attack when I began this post, but already I feel much better. Just from writing.
I knew it would help.
I think my next post will be something expressing my outrage about something outrageous the Democrats or Libs (is that redundant?) are doing or saying or have done or said.
As I expressed previously in comments, I am tired of being outraged, and yet, there is little to be positive about lately.
Yesterday, here in Virginia, local and state elections were held. I voted Republican for the most part. I had some information on a couple of independents that are actually more Conservative than the Republicans they ran against, so I voted for them. I believe most of the candidates won, although the one I was most hoping to win didn't. Chris Yakabouski, Republican, ran for State Senate on a platform that promised to prevent special benefits for illegal aliens. The number of illegal aliens in Virginia is a serious problem, costing us taxpayers millions of dollars that could be better spent protecting, rather than endangering America's security.
But "Yak" lost. Illegal immigration has won. For the time being. The only solace I have is the knowledge that fortunately, Democrats usually do little of significance that they promise. I believe we are still safe. I hope.
That is just part of the reason I am feeling so anxious today. Another part of the equation has to do with the fact that I haven't posted any meaningful posts as of late. The fact is, I am simply tired of being outraged.
I am losing my mental faculties. This morning alone, I misplaced my car keys and had difficulty locating my shoes. And there have been many other similar episodes in the last few weeks. It worries me because this is totally unlike me. I don't lose things. I am not absent minded. At least I didn't used to be.
I am also starting to make mistakes. Not mistakes that are particularly dangerous, just silly little mistakes in my concentration. For instance, this morning I went to the grocery store and attempted to write a check for my purchase. The purchase was a mere $2.82, but I began to write my check for the amount of "two hundred...".
Next, although this isn't really anything I mistakenly did, but the check printer approval machine/computer wouldn't work and I stood for at least 15 minutes waiting for the cash register computer to unfreeze so they could process my check.
My right knee and ankle are mysteriously and suddenly causing me no small amount of pain. I don't know or understand why, because I haven't twisted, bumped or otherwise done anything that would create the pain. So, standing at the check out counter waiting for approval of a two dollar eighty-two cent check didn't help. I may soon have to acquiesce to the possibility that I'm getting old.
Maybe all this is a kind of Karmic ying/yang response to the things I do. Just before I wrote my check I helped an elderly woman unload some heavy items out of her cart onto the conveyor belt at the checkstand.
I drove into the 7-11 to get gas right behind a middle aged black woman who was limping into the parking lot on a flat tire. I offered to change her tire for her but she refused.
But I need to write. Something. Anything. Writing on this blog is a catharsis for me. I was in the throes of a full blown anxiety attack when I began this post, but already I feel much better. Just from writing.
I knew it would help.
I think my next post will be something expressing my outrage about something outrageous the Democrats or Libs (is that redundant?) are doing or saying or have done or said.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
