Rich Bachelor, a liberal who doesn't want to admit it, had this to say about my weekend post about Rush Limbaugh's answer to one of his critics: "Kudos, buddy.", which leads me to my point today. Humor is bi-partisan. As is most entertainment.
Others seem to resent humorous comments if they disagree with the humorists political viewpoints.
I don't agree with many entertainers politics but I appreciate their talents. For example, I like Ellen Degeneres' and Rosie O'Donnel's comedy but I don't agree with their ideology. I like Lewis Black and The Dixie Chicks. I don't like Bruce Springsteen but that is just a matter of musical taste. I enjoy movies in which Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Robin Williams, etc. play roles. I like Al Franken's comedy when it isn't just mean spirited Bush and U.S. bashing. The list of comedians and actors and singers who I enjoy listening to goes on and on.
It is only when they becoming activists is when I don't like them much. Still, they all have the right to speak up and let themselves be heard. They also have the right to be wrong.
I guess the thing that causes me the most distress is when they resort to personal attacks and name calling to support what they believe. I've said all that before. If you don't have the facts to back up what you believe, then do some research and find them, before you go ballistic. Instead of going ballistic. I hate to tell you liberals this but hysterical diatribes with the absence of concrete facts to back them up have no validity. None.
Look, the point is: It is possible to enjoy humor and music and entertainment without dwelling on the fact that oftimes the performer doesn't agree with your ideology. And it's ok if you do. Really.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Sunday, July 10, 2005
I Got Tagged
Frenzied Feline tagged me, Tech tagged her. When will it end? Not with me. Originally, I was going to let it end here but I changed my mind, it occurs to me that I would be interested in knowing what some of my friends and fellow bloggers read. Here are the questions:
1. How many books do you own?
2. What is the last book you read?
3. What is the last book you purchased?
4. Name 5 fiction books that mean a lot to you.
5. Tag 5 more people
1. How many books do you own?
I own 5 books. When I moved here it was after splitting up with my wife and I didn't bring any with me. There is a library within walking distance from where I live so if I want to read a book, I borrow one.
They are: In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, The Pleasure of My Company by Steve Martin, Flyboys by James Bradley, Mystic River by Dennis Lehane, and The Truth about Hillary by Edward Klein.
2. Last book read?
The Truth about Hillary. It just hit the stands last week!
3. Last book purchased?
See Number 2
4. Name five fiction books that mean a lot to you.
I have to cheat here. The first is the one I am writing currently by blog, A Cutting Wind, because I am trying to write it myself, Slaughterhouse 5, Breakfast of Champions, Player Piano, God Bless You Mr. Rosewater.
Oh, and I am currently reading Slander, by Ann Coulter...ER gave me the idea to go find one of her books with a comment he left in my blog. (she's hard to read, too smart for me, I guess)
5. I tag Xena, Tug, Wordsmith, Daffy, and Francis Lynn
Tag. You're it.
Note: Does anyone know if Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham get along? They never seem to mention each other in their writings. I wonder if there is some rivalry involved.
Note 2: I went to the theater and saw War of the Worlds last week and just after I sat down, someone came up, pointed at the seat next to me, and asked, "Is this seat saved?" To which I replied, "Well, inasmuch as Aquinas reasoned that even animals have no souls, How much less chance does an inanimate object such as a chair have of achieving salvation?"
I am such a jerk.
1. How many books do you own?
2. What is the last book you read?
3. What is the last book you purchased?
4. Name 5 fiction books that mean a lot to you.
5. Tag 5 more people
1. How many books do you own?
I own 5 books. When I moved here it was after splitting up with my wife and I didn't bring any with me. There is a library within walking distance from where I live so if I want to read a book, I borrow one.
They are: In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, The Pleasure of My Company by Steve Martin, Flyboys by James Bradley, Mystic River by Dennis Lehane, and The Truth about Hillary by Edward Klein.
2. Last book read?
The Truth about Hillary. It just hit the stands last week!
3. Last book purchased?
See Number 2
4. Name five fiction books that mean a lot to you.
I have to cheat here. The first is the one I am writing currently by blog, A Cutting Wind, because I am trying to write it myself, Slaughterhouse 5, Breakfast of Champions, Player Piano, God Bless You Mr. Rosewater.
Oh, and I am currently reading Slander, by Ann Coulter...ER gave me the idea to go find one of her books with a comment he left in my blog. (she's hard to read, too smart for me, I guess)
5. I tag Xena, Tug, Wordsmith, Daffy, and Francis Lynn
Tag. You're it.
Note: Does anyone know if Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham get along? They never seem to mention each other in their writings. I wonder if there is some rivalry involved.
Note 2: I went to the theater and saw War of the Worlds last week and just after I sat down, someone came up, pointed at the seat next to me, and asked, "Is this seat saved?" To which I replied, "Well, inasmuch as Aquinas reasoned that even animals have no souls, How much less chance does an inanimate object such as a chair have of achieving salvation?"
I am such a jerk.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Heard On The Radio Yesterday
Usually, I don't listen to much Rush Limbaugh. When the Laura Ingraham program is over, I switch stations because between O'Reilly and Rush, I prefer Rush. But once I hear what his topic is, I usually stick in a cd and listen to music. Not that I don't like Rush. I just get tired of his self-aggrandizing, although he is usually right. But I digress.
Yesterday, He read a comment from a female blogger that was, as usual, talking about him. He seems to only pay attention to what others say if it concerns him. At any rate, the gist of the comment he read was this: She complained that he was selling t-shirts and caps and other clothing under the brand name, "Club Gitmo" these items had slogans printed on them such as, "I got my free Q'uran and prayer rug at Club Gitmo", an obvious reference to what Rush considers a vacation paradise in comparison with how Senator Duck Durbin describes the conditions at Gitmo. You know the story.
At the end of her essay, she posed the question to Rush, "What do you do with the money from the sales of these items, Rush?"
Then, he answered her on air: "Part of the money pays for the merchandise, part of it pays the shipping costs to the customer, some of it goes to pay various expenses, and the rest is profit, and that, I keep."
I am sure other motorists that may have observed me at that moment had to be asking themselves, "What is so darn funny to that guy in the Dodge?"
Yesterday, He read a comment from a female blogger that was, as usual, talking about him. He seems to only pay attention to what others say if it concerns him. At any rate, the gist of the comment he read was this: She complained that he was selling t-shirts and caps and other clothing under the brand name, "Club Gitmo" these items had slogans printed on them such as, "I got my free Q'uran and prayer rug at Club Gitmo", an obvious reference to what Rush considers a vacation paradise in comparison with how Senator Duck Durbin describes the conditions at Gitmo. You know the story.
At the end of her essay, she posed the question to Rush, "What do you do with the money from the sales of these items, Rush?"
Then, he answered her on air: "Part of the money pays for the merchandise, part of it pays the shipping costs to the customer, some of it goes to pay various expenses, and the rest is profit, and that, I keep."
I am sure other motorists that may have observed me at that moment had to be asking themselves, "What is so darn funny to that guy in the Dodge?"
Larry the Cable Guy on Freedom of Speech
Not many people read posts on the weekends, and I don't want to write a good post and have it basically ignored cause some people have a life, unlike myself, so I am copying and pasting this commentary from Larry the Cable Guy. It is old but it still applies. Enjoy.
What the hell is this, Russia? I've noticed something' about freedom of speech in this country the last few years other than ya get frowned on when pop out the f-word after stubbin' yer toe on a pew after the service. But I've noticed all these Hollywood peckerheads and P.C. pinkos' ridicule ya and try and silence ya when ya say somethin' they don't like. For Example: If I made a joke about a Christian feller or an NRA member or cracked out a Bush joke the PC crowd would laugh at it so hard that the late' they just swallowed down there emaciated tree huggin' commie pie hole would be commin' out there pierced noses! But if I did a joke about an animal righter or railed on Kerry or told a joke about Rosie O'Donnell gettin' kicked in the nuts these same sum-bitches'd be protestin' in the streets cryin' bigot and homophobe and cryin' like a Retard trippin' on marbles! I guess its ok for the P.C. ass-wipes in the country to make fun of things they disagree with but if ya make fun of things they agree with all of a sudden ya need to be stopped. Funny how it seems there's only freedom of speech in this country as long as ya don't step on the P.C. toes of the same people that preach freedom of speech. 2 things amaze me in this world. 1: The fact that Rich little still sells tickets and 2: P.C. people that have crowned themselves as rulers over what we say, think or do! Arnold the Governater used the term girly-man and was called a homophobe by the same group of people that call people names on a daily basis. Once again, its only freedom of speech as long as ya don't pick on certain individuals. Ya cant have it both ways like Ricky Martin, is it freedom of speech or isn't it. And no ya shouldn't be allowed to say the f-word at church after stubbin' yer toe, thats just manners! Like a deacon said after stubbin' his toe at church, "F##K!
The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of your humble uneducated friend and blogger.
What the hell is this, Russia? I've noticed something' about freedom of speech in this country the last few years other than ya get frowned on when pop out the f-word after stubbin' yer toe on a pew after the service. But I've noticed all these Hollywood peckerheads and P.C. pinkos' ridicule ya and try and silence ya when ya say somethin' they don't like. For Example: If I made a joke about a Christian feller or an NRA member or cracked out a Bush joke the PC crowd would laugh at it so hard that the late' they just swallowed down there emaciated tree huggin' commie pie hole would be commin' out there pierced noses! But if I did a joke about an animal righter or railed on Kerry or told a joke about Rosie O'Donnell gettin' kicked in the nuts these same sum-bitches'd be protestin' in the streets cryin' bigot and homophobe and cryin' like a Retard trippin' on marbles! I guess its ok for the P.C. ass-wipes in the country to make fun of things they disagree with but if ya make fun of things they agree with all of a sudden ya need to be stopped. Funny how it seems there's only freedom of speech in this country as long as ya don't step on the P.C. toes of the same people that preach freedom of speech. 2 things amaze me in this world. 1: The fact that Rich little still sells tickets and 2: P.C. people that have crowned themselves as rulers over what we say, think or do! Arnold the Governater used the term girly-man and was called a homophobe by the same group of people that call people names on a daily basis. Once again, its only freedom of speech as long as ya don't pick on certain individuals. Ya cant have it both ways like Ricky Martin, is it freedom of speech or isn't it. And no ya shouldn't be allowed to say the f-word at church after stubbin' yer toe, thats just manners! Like a deacon said after stubbin' his toe at church, "F##K!
The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of your humble uneducated friend and blogger.
Friday, July 08, 2005
An Al-Qaida Meeting
The scene is a small room somewhere in the Middle East, probably Iraq or Afghanistan. There is a bank of television screens almost covering one wall, with news programs from all over the world showing on every screen. Achmed Hassan is monitoring the world news broadcasts as Abdul Mohammed enters.
Abdul: All praise Allah, and Mohammed, his prophet, what is the news today, my brother?
Achmed: Allah be praised, Our holy Jihadist brothers in England have scored a great victory for Allah and our leader, Osama.
Abdul: Praise Allah, that is good news indeed. How many of the infidel dogs have we purified this day?
Achmed: the count is still not final, but it is close to 50 so far. With Allah's help it is hopeful the numbers will go over 100, Allah be praised.
Abdul: Yes, Praise Allah. And how is the propaganda effort going in the Nation of the infidels? Are the Government leaders there still fighting among themselves?
Achmed: Yes, Allah in his infinite wisdom has planted the seeds of insurrection into the liberal wing of the party of the Democrats. The infidels, Durbin, Kennedy, Reid, Biden, Pelosi, Dean, Byrd, and the others are fulfilling their destiny and Allah is pleased.
Abdul: Then they are succeeding in setting the Infidels of their Nation against each other?
Achmed: Praise be to Allah, Their speeches, wherein they blame their own leader for our purification procedures are strengthening our resolve, and has been a source of great encouragement for our soldiers of Allah.
Abdul: Perhaps, by Allah's great wisdom, he will prevail upon them to convert. They would be mighty warriors for our cause.
Achmed: Alas, Allah has said that those who turn against their own people and join with their enemies cannot be trusted. We have the Americans on their knees now, and when we are victorious, and Bush is defeated, we will kill them, as Allah has commanded. No infidel can be permitted to live, Praise Allah!
Abdul: But what of Bush? He has been unwavering.
Achmed: True, he has indeed been the hindrance to Allah's success, the one reason we have not already won this great Jihad against the Great Satan. But we have hope that the Democrats will win the majority in the next election and then our victory will come to fruition, by Allah's grace.
Abdul: That is Allah's will. How can we lose?
Abdul and Achmed together: All praise to Allah, and to Mohammed, the only true prophet of Allah!
The preceding scenario is, of course, fiction. A figment of your humble, uneducated, friend and narrator's twisted imagination.
Or is it?
Abdul: All praise Allah, and Mohammed, his prophet, what is the news today, my brother?
Achmed: Allah be praised, Our holy Jihadist brothers in England have scored a great victory for Allah and our leader, Osama.
Abdul: Praise Allah, that is good news indeed. How many of the infidel dogs have we purified this day?
Achmed: the count is still not final, but it is close to 50 so far. With Allah's help it is hopeful the numbers will go over 100, Allah be praised.
Abdul: Yes, Praise Allah. And how is the propaganda effort going in the Nation of the infidels? Are the Government leaders there still fighting among themselves?
Achmed: Yes, Allah in his infinite wisdom has planted the seeds of insurrection into the liberal wing of the party of the Democrats. The infidels, Durbin, Kennedy, Reid, Biden, Pelosi, Dean, Byrd, and the others are fulfilling their destiny and Allah is pleased.
Abdul: Then they are succeeding in setting the Infidels of their Nation against each other?
Achmed: Praise be to Allah, Their speeches, wherein they blame their own leader for our purification procedures are strengthening our resolve, and has been a source of great encouragement for our soldiers of Allah.
Abdul: Perhaps, by Allah's great wisdom, he will prevail upon them to convert. They would be mighty warriors for our cause.
Achmed: Alas, Allah has said that those who turn against their own people and join with their enemies cannot be trusted. We have the Americans on their knees now, and when we are victorious, and Bush is defeated, we will kill them, as Allah has commanded. No infidel can be permitted to live, Praise Allah!
Abdul: But what of Bush? He has been unwavering.
Achmed: True, he has indeed been the hindrance to Allah's success, the one reason we have not already won this great Jihad against the Great Satan. But we have hope that the Democrats will win the majority in the next election and then our victory will come to fruition, by Allah's grace.
Abdul: That is Allah's will. How can we lose?
Abdul and Achmed together: All praise to Allah, and to Mohammed, the only true prophet of Allah!
The preceding scenario is, of course, fiction. A figment of your humble, uneducated, friend and narrator's twisted imagination.
Or is it?
Thursday, July 07, 2005
How Do We Deal With Bullies?
When I was in Jr. High school, (that's what middle school used to be called) I was unusually small for my age. This school had 7-9th grades. Even as a 9th grader, I was still one of the shortest kids in school, and that made me a target for those bigger kids, we sometimes refer to as "bullies". Often they would accost me in the hallways, or in the restroom, and pick me up, I suppose, to demonstrate their physical strength, although picking up a 65 pound kid doesn't require great strength. But it's the only reason I can think of to explain that behavior. I hated that picking up thing. But I suffered it because I was afraid if I resisted I would be "beat up". This fear only served to encourage the bully treatment.
One day, an older boy named James Wilder, who was at least a foot taller than me, approached me in the restroom, with the intention of practicing the most popular humiliation technique upon me that others like me had suffered before, that is, forcing my head into a toilet bowl. Bad idea on his part.
My parents had always taught me that fighting was never the preferred option, but sometimes the only one.
I was grabbed and dragged kicking and struggling to the nearest stall. I knew what he intended to do. At this point, I had some choices.
1. I could let it happen, and hold my wet head in my hands crying and feeling sorry for myself.
2. I could let it happen and, as soon as I could, run to the principals office and report him.
3. I could fight and maybe spare myself from the ultimate humiliation.
I chose to fight. And I beat the crap out if him. And my head stayed dry. But more importantly, I was never bullied again. By anyone.
London, England was attacked by terrorists today. Incidently, this is another reason why I believe what I write about in my blog. Now Great Britain has some choices. These same choices are the ones that the United States faced after 9/11. What will England do? I know what I would do. Do you?
One day, an older boy named James Wilder, who was at least a foot taller than me, approached me in the restroom, with the intention of practicing the most popular humiliation technique upon me that others like me had suffered before, that is, forcing my head into a toilet bowl. Bad idea on his part.
My parents had always taught me that fighting was never the preferred option, but sometimes the only one.
I was grabbed and dragged kicking and struggling to the nearest stall. I knew what he intended to do. At this point, I had some choices.
1. I could let it happen, and hold my wet head in my hands crying and feeling sorry for myself.
2. I could let it happen and, as soon as I could, run to the principals office and report him.
3. I could fight and maybe spare myself from the ultimate humiliation.
I chose to fight. And I beat the crap out if him. And my head stayed dry. But more importantly, I was never bullied again. By anyone.
London, England was attacked by terrorists today. Incidently, this is another reason why I believe what I write about in my blog. Now Great Britain has some choices. These same choices are the ones that the United States faced after 9/11. What will England do? I know what I would do. Do you?
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Democrats Spoiling for a Fight
Well, just as I predicted back in May, The Democrats have tipped their hand and my prediction is on the verge of coming true. Chuckie Schumer (D) New York, was caught talking on a cell phone yesterday plotting to filibuster President Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court. This came from The Drudge Report:
Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cellphone aboard a Washington, DC-New York Amtrak -- plotting Democrat strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.
Schumer promised a fight over whoever the President's nominee was: "It's not about an individual judge, It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court."
The chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!
Schumer proudly declared: "We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this."
Schumer went on to say how hard it was to predict how a Supreme Court justice would turn out: "Even William Rehnquist is more moderate than they expected. The only ones that resulted how they predicted were [Antonin] Scalia and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. So most of the time they've gotten their picks wrong, and that's what we want to do to them again."
Schumer later went on to mock the "Gang of 14" judicial filibuster deal and said it wasn't relevant in the Supreme Court debate.
"A Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court."
Sadly, this is just as I predicted. The Democrats have every intention to filibuster the next Judicial appointment. It makes no difference who The President chooses. This has gone beyond mere political wrangling. This reveals the political agenda of the left, as most of their previous opposing arguments have done, but this one is so blatantly obvious, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Liberals to explain it away with any credibility at all. They simply oppose Bush, regardless of ideology or political stance, and whatever he does, They will oppose it. That is troubling to say the least, and potentially dangerous at most.
Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cellphone aboard a Washington, DC-New York Amtrak -- plotting Democrat strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.
Schumer promised a fight over whoever the President's nominee was: "It's not about an individual judge, It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court."
The chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!
Schumer proudly declared: "We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this."
Schumer went on to say how hard it was to predict how a Supreme Court justice would turn out: "Even William Rehnquist is more moderate than they expected. The only ones that resulted how they predicted were [Antonin] Scalia and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. So most of the time they've gotten their picks wrong, and that's what we want to do to them again."
Schumer later went on to mock the "Gang of 14" judicial filibuster deal and said it wasn't relevant in the Supreme Court debate.
"A Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court."
Sadly, this is just as I predicted. The Democrats have every intention to filibuster the next Judicial appointment. It makes no difference who The President chooses. This has gone beyond mere political wrangling. This reveals the political agenda of the left, as most of their previous opposing arguments have done, but this one is so blatantly obvious, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Liberals to explain it away with any credibility at all. They simply oppose Bush, regardless of ideology or political stance, and whatever he does, They will oppose it. That is troubling to say the least, and potentially dangerous at most.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
America, a Christian Nation
In a comment made on one of my friends blogs, an assertion was made that America was not founded as a christian nation. In it, the commentator made this statement: "No where does the Constitution mention "Separation of Church and State", but it also never mentions the word gun or guns, does that mean since it's not there that we will just allow you to literally pull up your sleeves and bare your arms for protection, but make guns illegal? Your logic would suggest this very principle.
Also he says this:
The Constitution also never mentions the word God, Bible, Protestant, Christian, Christianity, or Jesus, thus trying to justify that this nation was founded on Christianity is ridiculous.
I would point out one glaring mistake first: The wording is "the right to BEAR arms", not "BARE" arms. I don't think I have to define the difference here. So you think America was not founded as a christian nation, eh? Why don't we do some research and maybe we'll get an idea of what the founding fathers had in mind. Let's start with Ben Franklin, who was possibly the most non religious of all the founders.
Franklin said this:
" In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered... Have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this proof: that God governs the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I therefore beg leave to move that , henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing upon our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed with business." Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787
How about Patrick Henry? Was he wrong?
" It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not to be religionist but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Patrick Henry
Maybe John Adams will support your case, Mr. Commentator:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were...The general principles of Christianity....I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson
Oh, I guess not. Want more? I have more, but I don't want my post to be too long. If these quotes are not enough to convince you that we are a Christian nation(or were once), I have more. Stay tuned.
Also he says this:
The Constitution also never mentions the word God, Bible, Protestant, Christian, Christianity, or Jesus, thus trying to justify that this nation was founded on Christianity is ridiculous.
I would point out one glaring mistake first: The wording is "the right to BEAR arms", not "BARE" arms. I don't think I have to define the difference here. So you think America was not founded as a christian nation, eh? Why don't we do some research and maybe we'll get an idea of what the founding fathers had in mind. Let's start with Ben Franklin, who was possibly the most non religious of all the founders.
Franklin said this:
" In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered... Have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this proof: that God governs the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I therefore beg leave to move that , henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing upon our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed with business." Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787
How about Patrick Henry? Was he wrong?
" It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not to be religionist but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Patrick Henry
Maybe John Adams will support your case, Mr. Commentator:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were...The general principles of Christianity....I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson
Oh, I guess not. Want more? I have more, but I don't want my post to be too long. If these quotes are not enough to convince you that we are a Christian nation(or were once), I have more. Stay tuned.
Monday, July 04, 2005
The History of Independence Day
I don't like to post more than 2 posts at the most in one day because people have the tendency to only read one or two posts at one sitting, however, after I posted two of them, I received this by e-mail and I couldn't let it go without sharing. I also want to do a little self promoting. I think my July 2nd post is my best ever, and I didn't copy and paste any of it. It is all from my own brain. I welcome whatever comments you have, so please read that one if nothing else.
The History of Independence Day
Independence Day is the national holiday of the United States of America commemorating the signing of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
At the time of the signing the US consisted of 13 colonies under the rule of England's King George III. Leading up to the signing, there had been growing unrest in the colonies surrounding the taxes that colonists were required to pay to England. The major objection was "Taxation without Representation" -- the colonists had no say in the decisions of English Parliament.
Rather than negotiating, King George sent extra troops to the colonies to help control any rebellion that might be arising. The following timeline will give you a crash course in the history that lead to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and America's break from British rule.
1774 - The 13 colonies send delegates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to form the First Continental Congress. While unrest was brewing, the colonies were far from ready to declare war.
April 1775 -- King George's troops advance on Concord, Massachusetts, prompting Paul Revere's midnight ride that sounded the alarm "The British are coming, the British are coming."
The subsequent battle of Concord, famous for being the "shot heard round the world," would mark the unofficial beginning of the American Revolution.
May 1776 -- After nearly a year of trying to work our their differences with England, the colonies again send delegates to the Second Continental Congress.
June 1776 -- Admitting that their efforts were hopeless, a committee was formed to compose the formal Declaration of Iindependence. Headed by Thomas Jefferson, the committee also included John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Philip Livingston and Roger Sherman.
June 28, 1776 -- Jefferson presents the first draft of the declaration to congress.
July 4, 1776 -- After various changes to Jefferson's original draft, a vote was taken late in the afternoon of July 4th. Of the 13 colonies, 9 voted in favor of the Declaration; 2, Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted No; Delaware was undecided and New York abstained.
John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. It is said that he signed his name "with a great flourish" so "King George can read that without spectacles!"
July 6, 1776 -- The Pennsylvania Evening Post is the first newspaper to print the Declaration of Independence.
July 8, 1776 -- The first public reading of the declaration takes place in Philadelphia's Independence Square. The bell in Independence Hall, then known as the "Province Bell" would later be renamed the "Liberty Bell" after its inscription - "Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants Thereof."
August 1776 - The task begun on July 4, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, was not actually completed until August. Nonetheless, the 4th of July has been accepted as the official anniversary of United States independence from Britain.
July 4, 1777 -- The first Independence Day celebration takes place. It's interesting to speculate what those first 4th festivities were like. By the early 1800s the traditions of parades, picnics, and fireworks were firmly established as part of American Independence Day culture
The Star Spangled Banner
The National Anthem of the United States of America, written by Francis Scott Key, is a song that stirs emotion in many a citizen. It can be an uplifting experience to be at a public event and join in the singing of this proud anthem.
But believe it or not, some people don't know all the words to the song. They may know how to fake it, lipsynching and mumbling during the opening festivities at Ball Games. But the fact remains, they do not know the words to the National Anthem!
Friends, don't let this happen to you. Before you head out for 4th of July festivities, take a moment to memorize the lyrics to the nation's most important song.
For the purposes of the average public celebration, knowing the first verse of the anthem is plenty to get you by. True purists, however, will want to know all four verses.
The Star Spangled Banner
By Francis Scott Key
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
The History of Independence Day
Independence Day is the national holiday of the United States of America commemorating the signing of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
At the time of the signing the US consisted of 13 colonies under the rule of England's King George III. Leading up to the signing, there had been growing unrest in the colonies surrounding the taxes that colonists were required to pay to England. The major objection was "Taxation without Representation" -- the colonists had no say in the decisions of English Parliament.
Rather than negotiating, King George sent extra troops to the colonies to help control any rebellion that might be arising. The following timeline will give you a crash course in the history that lead to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and America's break from British rule.
1774 - The 13 colonies send delegates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to form the First Continental Congress. While unrest was brewing, the colonies were far from ready to declare war.
April 1775 -- King George's troops advance on Concord, Massachusetts, prompting Paul Revere's midnight ride that sounded the alarm "The British are coming, the British are coming."
The subsequent battle of Concord, famous for being the "shot heard round the world," would mark the unofficial beginning of the American Revolution.
May 1776 -- After nearly a year of trying to work our their differences with England, the colonies again send delegates to the Second Continental Congress.
June 1776 -- Admitting that their efforts were hopeless, a committee was formed to compose the formal Declaration of Iindependence. Headed by Thomas Jefferson, the committee also included John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Philip Livingston and Roger Sherman.
June 28, 1776 -- Jefferson presents the first draft of the declaration to congress.
July 4, 1776 -- After various changes to Jefferson's original draft, a vote was taken late in the afternoon of July 4th. Of the 13 colonies, 9 voted in favor of the Declaration; 2, Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted No; Delaware was undecided and New York abstained.
John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. It is said that he signed his name "with a great flourish" so "King George can read that without spectacles!"
July 6, 1776 -- The Pennsylvania Evening Post is the first newspaper to print the Declaration of Independence.
July 8, 1776 -- The first public reading of the declaration takes place in Philadelphia's Independence Square. The bell in Independence Hall, then known as the "Province Bell" would later be renamed the "Liberty Bell" after its inscription - "Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants Thereof."
August 1776 - The task begun on July 4, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, was not actually completed until August. Nonetheless, the 4th of July has been accepted as the official anniversary of United States independence from Britain.
July 4, 1777 -- The first Independence Day celebration takes place. It's interesting to speculate what those first 4th festivities were like. By the early 1800s the traditions of parades, picnics, and fireworks were firmly established as part of American Independence Day culture
The Star Spangled Banner
The National Anthem of the United States of America, written by Francis Scott Key, is a song that stirs emotion in many a citizen. It can be an uplifting experience to be at a public event and join in the singing of this proud anthem.
But believe it or not, some people don't know all the words to the song. They may know how to fake it, lipsynching and mumbling during the opening festivities at Ball Games. But the fact remains, they do not know the words to the National Anthem!
Friends, don't let this happen to you. Before you head out for 4th of July festivities, take a moment to memorize the lyrics to the nation's most important song.
For the purposes of the average public celebration, knowing the first verse of the anthem is plenty to get you by. True purists, however, will want to know all four verses.
The Star Spangled Banner
By Francis Scott Key
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Happy Independence Day
I put an audio post in this spot of Ray Charles' version of "America the Beautiful" but the sound quality was horrible, so I deleted it. Go get a copy of that song and play it while you read this post and you'll have the effect I wanted. This is what he sang:
Oh beautiful for heroes proved,
In liberating strife,
Who more than self, our country loved,
And mercy more than life,
America, America may God thy gold refine,
Til all success be nobleness
And every gain devined.
And you know when I was in school,
We used to sing it something like this, listen here:
Oh beautiful, for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties,
Above the fruited plain,
But now wait a minute, I'm talking about
America, sweet America
You know, God done shed his grace on thee,
He crowned thy good, yes he did, in brotherhood,
From sea to shining sea.
You know, I wish I had somebody to help me sing this
(America, America, God shed his grace on thee)
America, I love you America, you see,
My God he done shed his grace on thee,
And you oughta love him for it,
Cause he, he, he ,he crowned thy good,
He told me he would, with brotherhood,
(From sea to shining Sea).
Oh lord, oh lord, I thank you Lord
(Shining sea).
Happy Independence Day, and may God bless you.
Oh beautiful for heroes proved,
In liberating strife,
Who more than self, our country loved,
And mercy more than life,
America, America may God thy gold refine,
Til all success be nobleness
And every gain devined.
And you know when I was in school,
We used to sing it something like this, listen here:
Oh beautiful, for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties,
Above the fruited plain,
But now wait a minute, I'm talking about
America, sweet America
You know, God done shed his grace on thee,
He crowned thy good, yes he did, in brotherhood,
From sea to shining sea.
You know, I wish I had somebody to help me sing this
(America, America, God shed his grace on thee)
America, I love you America, you see,
My God he done shed his grace on thee,
And you oughta love him for it,
Cause he, he, he ,he crowned thy good,
He told me he would, with brotherhood,
(From sea to shining Sea).
Oh lord, oh lord, I thank you Lord
(Shining sea).
Happy Independence Day, and may God bless you.
A message from Ben Stein
For many years Ben Stein has written a biweekly column called "Monday Night At Morton's." (Morton's is a famous chain of Steakhouses known to be frequented by movie stars and famous people from around the globe.) Now, Ben is terminating the column to move on to other things in his life. Reading his final column is worth a few minutes of your time.
Ben Stein's Last Column...
How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury
Be a Star in Today's World?
As I begin to write this, I "slug" it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is "eonlineFINAL," and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.
It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it. On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.
Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.
How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails.
They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.
A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.
A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.
The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.
We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.
I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.
There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament...the policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.
Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero.
I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters. This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put it another way. Years ago, I realized I could never be as great an actor as Olivier or as good a comic as Steve Martin...or Martin Mull or Fred Willard--or as good an economist as Samuelson or Friedman or as good a writer as Fitzgerald. Or even remotely close to any of them.
But I could be a devoted father to my son, husband to my wife and, above all, a good son to the parents who had done so much for me. This came to be my main task in life. I did it moderately well with my son, pretty well with my wife and well indeed with my parents (with my sister's help). I cared for and paid attention to them in their declining years. I stayed with my father as he got sick, went into extremis and then into a coma and then entered immortality with my sister and me reading him the Psalms.
This was the only point at which my life touched the lives of the soldiers in Iraq or the firefighters in New York. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters and that it is my duty, in return for the lavish life God has devolved upon me, to help others He has placed in my path. This is my highest and best use as a human.
Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will.
By Ben Stein
I don't need to add anything to this, do I?
Ben Stein's Last Column...
How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury
Be a Star in Today's World?
As I begin to write this, I "slug" it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is "eonlineFINAL," and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.
It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it. On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.
Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.
How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails.
They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.
A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.
A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.
The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.
We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.
I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.
There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament...the policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.
Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero.
I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters. This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put it another way. Years ago, I realized I could never be as great an actor as Olivier or as good a comic as Steve Martin...or Martin Mull or Fred Willard--or as good an economist as Samuelson or Friedman or as good a writer as Fitzgerald. Or even remotely close to any of them.
But I could be a devoted father to my son, husband to my wife and, above all, a good son to the parents who had done so much for me. This came to be my main task in life. I did it moderately well with my son, pretty well with my wife and well indeed with my parents (with my sister's help). I cared for and paid attention to them in their declining years. I stayed with my father as he got sick, went into extremis and then into a coma and then entered immortality with my sister and me reading him the Psalms.
This was the only point at which my life touched the lives of the soldiers in Iraq or the firefighters in New York. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters and that it is my duty, in return for the lavish life God has devolved upon me, to help others He has placed in my path. This is my highest and best use as a human.
Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will.
By Ben Stein
I don't need to add anything to this, do I?
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Missing Girl Found
I copied this off of AOL news, although I could have found it anywhere:
More than six weeks after she disappeared from a home where family members were bludgeoned to death, an 8-year-old girl was found safe Saturday, sharing a meal with a registered sex offender at a Denny's restaurant in her hometown.
Shasta Groene was reunited with her father, but her 9-year-old brother, Dylan, remained missing and was feared dead, Kootenai County Sheriff's Capt. Ben Wolfinger said.
Joseph Edward Duncan III, a registered sex offender from Fargo, N.D., was arrested and charged with kidnapping. He was being held without bond, and Wolfinger said more charges were possible.
Undoubtedly the Radio talk show hosts and bloggers, etc, will be back on the usual "keep them out of my neighborhood" line. The comment I want to make here, is one I've made before. While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, there are two major flaws. 1. Sex offenders, like everyone else, have the ability to get into a car and drive. It makes no difference where they live. You cannot protect your children by simply making the sex offender move to another neighborhood. 2. Often, they don't inform the authorities when or where they move so that the authorities don't know where they are, as in this case.
There are two things that we, as concerned parents can do to help prevent the kinds of scenarios like the one unfolding before us now. One is lobby our government to keep this scum in jail. Permanently. Or, at least until they are too old and/or infirmed to be a threat.
The other thing is more immediate. Keep a vilgilant watch on your kids. Make sure you always know where they are. Educate your kids. Teach them what to do if accosted.
Of course, there is never any guarantee that a child is ever completely out of danger. When I was living in Kansas City, a 10 year old girl was snatched literally off the sidewalk in full view of her friends and neighbors and parent in broad daylight. A neighbor gave chase, but lost sight of the suspect some blocks away. This happened only a few blocks from where I and my children lived. The body of Pamela Butler, 10, was found a few days later, after the suspect was captured. He had raped and tortured her before he killed her. He did not live in her neighborhood. He lived across town. A town of 400,000 people. Also, there is no way that we can prevent people who haven't been caught yet from striking in our neighborhoods.
The best thing we can do is watch our kids, and pray that God will keep them safe, for, when it comes right down to it, He is the only One that can.
More than six weeks after she disappeared from a home where family members were bludgeoned to death, an 8-year-old girl was found safe Saturday, sharing a meal with a registered sex offender at a Denny's restaurant in her hometown.
Shasta Groene was reunited with her father, but her 9-year-old brother, Dylan, remained missing and was feared dead, Kootenai County Sheriff's Capt. Ben Wolfinger said.
Joseph Edward Duncan III, a registered sex offender from Fargo, N.D., was arrested and charged with kidnapping. He was being held without bond, and Wolfinger said more charges were possible.
Undoubtedly the Radio talk show hosts and bloggers, etc, will be back on the usual "keep them out of my neighborhood" line. The comment I want to make here, is one I've made before. While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, there are two major flaws. 1. Sex offenders, like everyone else, have the ability to get into a car and drive. It makes no difference where they live. You cannot protect your children by simply making the sex offender move to another neighborhood. 2. Often, they don't inform the authorities when or where they move so that the authorities don't know where they are, as in this case.
There are two things that we, as concerned parents can do to help prevent the kinds of scenarios like the one unfolding before us now. One is lobby our government to keep this scum in jail. Permanently. Or, at least until they are too old and/or infirmed to be a threat.
The other thing is more immediate. Keep a vilgilant watch on your kids. Make sure you always know where they are. Educate your kids. Teach them what to do if accosted.
Of course, there is never any guarantee that a child is ever completely out of danger. When I was living in Kansas City, a 10 year old girl was snatched literally off the sidewalk in full view of her friends and neighbors and parent in broad daylight. A neighbor gave chase, but lost sight of the suspect some blocks away. This happened only a few blocks from where I and my children lived. The body of Pamela Butler, 10, was found a few days later, after the suspect was captured. He had raped and tortured her before he killed her. He did not live in her neighborhood. He lived across town. A town of 400,000 people. Also, there is no way that we can prevent people who haven't been caught yet from striking in our neighborhoods.
The best thing we can do is watch our kids, and pray that God will keep them safe, for, when it comes right down to it, He is the only One that can.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
A Question
Someone asked me today, "Do you really believe all the things you write about in your blog?" I had to stop and give it some thought.
So, I thought back, to a 7th grade classroom and the intercom crackling to life with the news that the President had just been shot. The ultimate disrespect for the office of President.
Then I thought back 5 years later and the bullets of the false revenge struck again. Twice.
And I think about all the rights that we were supposed to be guaranteed to us by the constitution, the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And how they are being continually and methodically stripped away.
A court case decided that a woman has the right to kill her baby. It was called Roe vs. Wade.
I remember how my belief in the integrity of the senate was drowned in the murky waters of Chappaquidick.
And the images of soldiers returning from Viet Nam being spat upon and called "baby killers" by the people with whom I had once identified. And the way they were reviled by the very government that should have thanked them for their service.
Murderers and child molesters being freed by technicalities and "race cards". And innocent people being persecuted for their faith in a God whom the founders of our country based our system of government on.
I can think of cases where children are being suspended and expelled from public schools for writing essays on Jesus, the Bible, or their personal belief in God. And being sent home for wearing T shirts that proclaim "Jesus loves you" while other students are allowed to wear T shirts with the images of Marilyn Manson,Godsmack, and other "death metal, Satanic Bands, and pentagrams.
I remember Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his commitment to legalize murder of the elderly and infirmed.
I think of how the Supreme Court keeps ordering the removal of the ten commandments, the very rule of law our system of justice is based on.
Hate speech by politicians, news media organizations, and radical associations.
Then I remember the pain and anger I felt when terrorists flew jet airliners into the world trade center towers and pentagon. And then there were people who blamed the attacks on our own government and those who support it.
Muslim extremists terrorists sawing off the heads of innocent civilians, some of who were in their country to help them.
Then there was the starving to death of a young comatose woman in Florida, not just a mercy killing, but a long agonizing death, and the numbers of people that think it is ok to do that to someone.
And now, My President is being called a liar and a loser and a murderer by politicians and news media who want to undermine him and his efforts to create a better world for our children
And on, and on, and on, and on.
So, Whenever someone asks me, "Do you really believe the things you write about in your blog?" I smile, and wink, and say, "Hell no, but the money's good."
For what else could I say to such a question?
So, I thought back, to a 7th grade classroom and the intercom crackling to life with the news that the President had just been shot. The ultimate disrespect for the office of President.
Then I thought back 5 years later and the bullets of the false revenge struck again. Twice.
And I think about all the rights that we were supposed to be guaranteed to us by the constitution, the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And how they are being continually and methodically stripped away.
A court case decided that a woman has the right to kill her baby. It was called Roe vs. Wade.
I remember how my belief in the integrity of the senate was drowned in the murky waters of Chappaquidick.
And the images of soldiers returning from Viet Nam being spat upon and called "baby killers" by the people with whom I had once identified. And the way they were reviled by the very government that should have thanked them for their service.
Murderers and child molesters being freed by technicalities and "race cards". And innocent people being persecuted for their faith in a God whom the founders of our country based our system of government on.
I can think of cases where children are being suspended and expelled from public schools for writing essays on Jesus, the Bible, or their personal belief in God. And being sent home for wearing T shirts that proclaim "Jesus loves you" while other students are allowed to wear T shirts with the images of Marilyn Manson,Godsmack, and other "death metal, Satanic Bands, and pentagrams.
I remember Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his commitment to legalize murder of the elderly and infirmed.
I think of how the Supreme Court keeps ordering the removal of the ten commandments, the very rule of law our system of justice is based on.
Hate speech by politicians, news media organizations, and radical associations.
Then I remember the pain and anger I felt when terrorists flew jet airliners into the world trade center towers and pentagon. And then there were people who blamed the attacks on our own government and those who support it.
Muslim extremists terrorists sawing off the heads of innocent civilians, some of who were in their country to help them.
Then there was the starving to death of a young comatose woman in Florida, not just a mercy killing, but a long agonizing death, and the numbers of people that think it is ok to do that to someone.
And now, My President is being called a liar and a loser and a murderer by politicians and news media who want to undermine him and his efforts to create a better world for our children
And on, and on, and on, and on.
So, Whenever someone asks me, "Do you really believe the things you write about in your blog?" I smile, and wink, and say, "Hell no, but the money's good."
For what else could I say to such a question?
Friday, July 01, 2005
Sandra Day-O'Connor steps down
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day-O'Connor tendered her resignation to the president today. While this is no longer news to most people who stay on top of the issues, it has prompted me to wonder who President Bush will choose to replace her. And, following that, I also wonder what "extraordinary circumstances" the Democrats will site to filibuster the nomination of who ever he appoints, for it is as sure as the grass is green and night follows day, they will do just that. That was the intention of the now infamous gang of 14 from the beginning.
You have to give the Democrats credit for having the foresight to expect an opening to come up in the Supreme Court, and for somehow convincing some gullible Republican senators to cross party lines and agree to the compromise on judicial appointments. Now we will see the results of that compromise. If you scroll back in my archives you will find the post where I made the prediction that the Democrats will most assuredly use this so-called compromise against anyone the President chooses to appoint.
I had heard, through other sources, that Ted Kennedy was already objecting to Bush's next judicial appointment, so I went to Google and attempted to find the exact quote. I couldn't find it. I had heard the quote repeated on talk radio but I don't recall exactly what he said. However, I will say this: What little I heard didn't convince me that Kennedy was objecting to any appointment before the fact. I think some right wingers are reading more into his statements than what he intended. But since I don't remember what I heard, I could be wrong. I'm not saying he won't object to whoever Bush chooses, in fact, I am reasonably sure that he will object, and strenuously.
In any case, I will go on record now as saying, (and mark my words): There will be a filibuster of whoever the President nominates. Unless he nominates a left wing liberal. And we all know that won't happen.
Addendum: I have just thought of the perfect choice to replace Ms. O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Zell Miller. Why? He is conservative, but he is a Democrat. This is a perfect choice, because the Democrats have demonstrated that they don't see a difference between Democrats and Liberals. (The speech by Karl Rove, when he talked about liberals and the Democrats got offended, proves that they don't differentiate between the two.) So, appointing Zell Miller to the court will meet with little or no opposition from the Democrats and thus a conservative will be confirmed.
You have to give the Democrats credit for having the foresight to expect an opening to come up in the Supreme Court, and for somehow convincing some gullible Republican senators to cross party lines and agree to the compromise on judicial appointments. Now we will see the results of that compromise. If you scroll back in my archives you will find the post where I made the prediction that the Democrats will most assuredly use this so-called compromise against anyone the President chooses to appoint.
I had heard, through other sources, that Ted Kennedy was already objecting to Bush's next judicial appointment, so I went to Google and attempted to find the exact quote. I couldn't find it. I had heard the quote repeated on talk radio but I don't recall exactly what he said. However, I will say this: What little I heard didn't convince me that Kennedy was objecting to any appointment before the fact. I think some right wingers are reading more into his statements than what he intended. But since I don't remember what I heard, I could be wrong. I'm not saying he won't object to whoever Bush chooses, in fact, I am reasonably sure that he will object, and strenuously.
In any case, I will go on record now as saying, (and mark my words): There will be a filibuster of whoever the President nominates. Unless he nominates a left wing liberal. And we all know that won't happen.
Addendum: I have just thought of the perfect choice to replace Ms. O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Zell Miller. Why? He is conservative, but he is a Democrat. This is a perfect choice, because the Democrats have demonstrated that they don't see a difference between Democrats and Liberals. (The speech by Karl Rove, when he talked about liberals and the Democrats got offended, proves that they don't differentiate between the two.) So, appointing Zell Miller to the court will meet with little or no opposition from the Democrats and thus a conservative will be confirmed.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Time to lighten up
I am getting too intense. I am frustrated with the whole politics thing. Republicans vs Democrats, Liberals, vs Conservatives. So today I am just going to post the words to an old Scottish folk song that my girlfriend, Jeannie, loves. Here it is:
Dumbarton's Drums
Traditional
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
Across the hills o' burning heather
Dumbarton tolls the hour of pleasure
A song of love that has no measure
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
It's she alone who can delight me
As gracefully she doth invite me
And when her tender arms enfold me
The blackest night can turn and flee
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and kisses me
In addition to that, my son, John, who is 16 years of age is a skateboarder, and a pretty good one, too. Some time back, before I had any readers on this thing, I allowed him to post an essay on my blog.
There is, for those of you who don't know, a professional skateboarder named Bam Margera, who has a television series on MTV. In it, he plays Jackass style pranks on his parents and others. The teenage skateboarder generation think he is God. My son, ever the rebellious, free thinker type, has his own opinion. Here is his essay reprinted here:
"I hate Bam Margera, usually I am okay with money-hungry jerks and the other 5% of the entertainment industry (after all, it's only their job), but Bam Margera does kinda bother me... Like some parents said, he promotes a negative image of skateboarding to kids and to the adults who chase skateboarders out of the spots. He is saying it's okay to cause trouble and to be a moron.
Have you seen the latest video games? The commercials promote stealing and vandalism and all sorts of immature, elementary habits. Why would anyone be grateful to a person who tarnishes their sport like that? He is a horrible role model and only a half-decent skateboarder.
Tony Hawk was ok. He was a revolutionary vert skateboarder and a great role model for kids. He promoted a good image and made the skateboarding industry way more money then Bam Margera ever will...but now he's seen slashing tires in the Tony Hawk's Underground video game commercial. Skateboarders in the limelight have sunk to an all time low, trying to attract kids by luring them in with disrespect. The skateboarding industry is becoming what all of those store shop keepers and men in suits always thought it was...some cheap hobby for kids who think they're punks"
not too bad for a 15 year old kid eh?
Dumbarton's Drums
Traditional
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
Across the hills o' burning heather
Dumbarton tolls the hour of pleasure
A song of love that has no measure
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
It's she alone who can delight me
As gracefully she doth invite me
And when her tender arms enfold me
The blackest night can turn and flee
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and kisses me
In addition to that, my son, John, who is 16 years of age is a skateboarder, and a pretty good one, too. Some time back, before I had any readers on this thing, I allowed him to post an essay on my blog.
There is, for those of you who don't know, a professional skateboarder named Bam Margera, who has a television series on MTV. In it, he plays Jackass style pranks on his parents and others. The teenage skateboarder generation think he is God. My son, ever the rebellious, free thinker type, has his own opinion. Here is his essay reprinted here:
"I hate Bam Margera, usually I am okay with money-hungry jerks and the other 5% of the entertainment industry (after all, it's only their job), but Bam Margera does kinda bother me... Like some parents said, he promotes a negative image of skateboarding to kids and to the adults who chase skateboarders out of the spots. He is saying it's okay to cause trouble and to be a moron.
Have you seen the latest video games? The commercials promote stealing and vandalism and all sorts of immature, elementary habits. Why would anyone be grateful to a person who tarnishes their sport like that? He is a horrible role model and only a half-decent skateboarder.
Tony Hawk was ok. He was a revolutionary vert skateboarder and a great role model for kids. He promoted a good image and made the skateboarding industry way more money then Bam Margera ever will...but now he's seen slashing tires in the Tony Hawk's Underground video game commercial. Skateboarders in the limelight have sunk to an all time low, trying to attract kids by luring them in with disrespect. The skateboarding industry is becoming what all of those store shop keepers and men in suits always thought it was...some cheap hobby for kids who think they're punks"
not too bad for a 15 year old kid eh?
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Discrimination?
I have made two posts today, and yesterday, so be sure to scroll on down after reading the first one.
AOL reports:
"Minorities Empathize After Boutique Rebuffs Oprah
By ERIN TEXEIRA, AP
Oprah says she will no longer be shopping in Hermes stores, even though she has often plugged their products in the past.
(June 28) - Whether Oprah Winfrey was turned away from a bit of after-hours shopping in Paris because of a racist employee or a special event, news of the confrontation outside a luxury store has evoked empathy and anger from many American minorities.
In living rooms and Internet chat rooms, the Winfrey case has sparked discussion of what many see as a chronic problem for minorities: poor treatment and sometimes outright suspicion of minority shoppers no matter how well-educated or rich they are - particularly in high-end stores."
Oh, Please! This isn't about discrimination at all! This is about elitism in a most blatant form. The facts are: Oprah arrived at the store 15 minutes AFTER the store was closed, and expected them to re-open just because she wanted them to, apparently believing because she is wealthy, that she deserves "special" treatment.
Does anyone really think that if she had arrived when the store was open, that they would have refused her entrance? This is simply a matter of store employees who are finished with their day, wanting to go home and enjoy their time off, and not wanting the hassle of having to re-open the cash registers and possibly tolerate a difficult customer. I know I'm jumping to conclusions about whether Oprah is difficult, but come on, if she is raising a discrimination beef over not being let in after the store is closed, she is being difficult.
If she had arrived on time, this wouldn't even be a topic for conversation. Oprah needs to apologize, not the store.
AOL reports:
"Minorities Empathize After Boutique Rebuffs Oprah
By ERIN TEXEIRA, AP
Oprah says she will no longer be shopping in Hermes stores, even though she has often plugged their products in the past.
(June 28) - Whether Oprah Winfrey was turned away from a bit of after-hours shopping in Paris because of a racist employee or a special event, news of the confrontation outside a luxury store has evoked empathy and anger from many American minorities.
In living rooms and Internet chat rooms, the Winfrey case has sparked discussion of what many see as a chronic problem for minorities: poor treatment and sometimes outright suspicion of minority shoppers no matter how well-educated or rich they are - particularly in high-end stores."
Oh, Please! This isn't about discrimination at all! This is about elitism in a most blatant form. The facts are: Oprah arrived at the store 15 minutes AFTER the store was closed, and expected them to re-open just because she wanted them to, apparently believing because she is wealthy, that she deserves "special" treatment.
Does anyone really think that if she had arrived when the store was open, that they would have refused her entrance? This is simply a matter of store employees who are finished with their day, wanting to go home and enjoy their time off, and not wanting the hassle of having to re-open the cash registers and possibly tolerate a difficult customer. I know I'm jumping to conclusions about whether Oprah is difficult, but come on, if she is raising a discrimination beef over not being let in after the store is closed, she is being difficult.
If she had arrived on time, this wouldn't even be a topic for conversation. Oprah needs to apologize, not the store.
I oppose the war
Listening to President Bush's speech last night, it occurred to me that I have been lying to myself. I have been saying I support the war in Iraq, but I don't. I oppose it. Vehemently. I oppose the war in Iraq. I also oppose the war in Afghanistan. And the war on terror worldwide. In fact, I oppose all war. War is never the preferred option. It is a last resort.
I'm not saying that I don't support President Bush and his decision to go to war. Unfortunately, war is a necessary evil that has to be waged in order to free enslaved, oppressed people when negotiation fails.
There are those who say that Bush fabricated a reason to go to war. I would hesitate to believe that of even the most reprehensible of politicians. How depraved must one be to "make up" a reason to go to war? I don't think anyone would intentionally send young men into a foreign land to die without a reason, unless that person is a madman. Do the Libs think Bush is a madman?
I suppose, in the Liberal's utopia, there is never a reason to go to war, and negotiation always solves all differences. Yes, and in this wonderful, fantasy world, men like Dennis Rader, otherwise known, back in my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, as BTK, would not have murdered ten people. And nobody would ever get sick and die horrible painful deaths. And health care would be free to all, although, in this world no one gets sick. And steak and gas prices would be affordable. And Saddam and Bin Laden would be nice reasonable men that would be willing to compromise in the interest of peace. I dearly wish that were true in the real world. But this is not Utopia.
I no longer care why we are fighting in Iraq. Does it make a difference that Saddam possibly had nothing to do with the attack on the World trade Center? Does it matter that Saddam refused to allow inspectors into Iraq in direct violation of the UN resolutions? Does it matter that his refusal was the real reason we invaded his country? Does it really matter?
The only thing I want to know now is, when can we get out? The President and Donald Rumsfeld says we will leave Iraq when we accomplish the task. What is the task now? I know it was originally to oust Saddam Hussein and to help set up a democratic form of government, governed by the Iraqis themselves. We have accomplished those tasks. Now we are training Iraqi soldiers and policemen to defend their own country. We need to do that, also, I suppose.
The Democrats are asking Bush to set a timeline for when we can get out of Iraq. I think that is a good idea. Bush says that is not a good thing for it undermines our efforts to rid Iraq of insurgents. But that is predicated on a timeline that is made public. Why can't he have a timeline in mind that will go unannounced to the world? I think maybe he does. He just isn't tipping off our enemies.
But what do I know? I'm just a simple, uneducated blogger that see's a wrong, and is powerless to right it. I am just sick of the political in-fighting and the insinuations that my President is a liar and a murderer. I just want closure. Or answers.
I'm not saying that I don't support President Bush and his decision to go to war. Unfortunately, war is a necessary evil that has to be waged in order to free enslaved, oppressed people when negotiation fails.
There are those who say that Bush fabricated a reason to go to war. I would hesitate to believe that of even the most reprehensible of politicians. How depraved must one be to "make up" a reason to go to war? I don't think anyone would intentionally send young men into a foreign land to die without a reason, unless that person is a madman. Do the Libs think Bush is a madman?
I suppose, in the Liberal's utopia, there is never a reason to go to war, and negotiation always solves all differences. Yes, and in this wonderful, fantasy world, men like Dennis Rader, otherwise known, back in my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, as BTK, would not have murdered ten people. And nobody would ever get sick and die horrible painful deaths. And health care would be free to all, although, in this world no one gets sick. And steak and gas prices would be affordable. And Saddam and Bin Laden would be nice reasonable men that would be willing to compromise in the interest of peace. I dearly wish that were true in the real world. But this is not Utopia.
I no longer care why we are fighting in Iraq. Does it make a difference that Saddam possibly had nothing to do with the attack on the World trade Center? Does it matter that Saddam refused to allow inspectors into Iraq in direct violation of the UN resolutions? Does it matter that his refusal was the real reason we invaded his country? Does it really matter?
The only thing I want to know now is, when can we get out? The President and Donald Rumsfeld says we will leave Iraq when we accomplish the task. What is the task now? I know it was originally to oust Saddam Hussein and to help set up a democratic form of government, governed by the Iraqis themselves. We have accomplished those tasks. Now we are training Iraqi soldiers and policemen to defend their own country. We need to do that, also, I suppose.
The Democrats are asking Bush to set a timeline for when we can get out of Iraq. I think that is a good idea. Bush says that is not a good thing for it undermines our efforts to rid Iraq of insurgents. But that is predicated on a timeline that is made public. Why can't he have a timeline in mind that will go unannounced to the world? I think maybe he does. He just isn't tipping off our enemies.
But what do I know? I'm just a simple, uneducated blogger that see's a wrong, and is powerless to right it. I am just sick of the political in-fighting and the insinuations that my President is a liar and a murderer. I just want closure. Or answers.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Truth is funnier than fiction
I ran across this news item while surfing the blogwaves. Ahhh, revenge is a dish best served cold. If this works, We can hit the remaining Justices who abused their power.
Will Smith Urges Rappers to Be Role Models
Will Smith has won my respect. Read this from Yahoo news:
Will Smith has one big introduction to make at Tuesday night's BET Awards: Gangster rappers, meet the rest of the world. Smith told The Associated Press he hopes to impress the global significance of U.S. black culture on the show's audience and artists.
"The kids that are making these trends, making these songs, don't understand the level of effect that black Americans have around the world," he said in an interview. " ... Black Americans are so elevated, it's almost worship."
Smith, co-host of the show (8 p.m. EDT) at Hollywood's Kodak Theater with wife Jada Pinkett-Smith, said he witnessed the phenomenon recently while in Africa. Touring a village in Mozambique, he came across a shack on which someone had scrawled the name of slain rapper Tupac Shakur.
"I was asking the kids: What is it about Tupac? Why is that there? I kept asking why. They were saying we want to dress like you dress, wear all the things you wear, talk how you talk."
"The impression is that black Americans are the dragon slayers. Here we are 13 percent minority in a foreign land, and yet we can make laws, change laws. If Jesse Jackson shows up at Coca-Cola, something changes."
Smith, who won the first rap Grammy in 1988 for his squeaky-clean "Parents Just Don't Understand," said he wants hip-hop artists to recognize their importance and shift away from thuggish themes.
"It's real important to have balance of the imagery. Yes, there are people who fire guns in the street, but there's also doctors who go to work in those areas to feed their children."
The gangster lifestyle is celebrated in black communities for its strength, Smith said. "That's the image of survivors. The dude that sells the drugs or has the guns or is most willing to kill somebody is the dude that has the greatest potential for survival, or at least that's the perception. So that's what people strive for.
"What I'm trying to present and what a lot of other artists are presenting is a different approach to survival and a more sound approach to survival. It's a more long-term approach based on intellect and skills that can't be taken away from you: The smartest dude survives the best."
Smith picks out Common and Mos Def as other artists "that really have something to say that don't necessarily fit on the `106th & Park' top 10."
Now more well-known as a movie star ("Men in Black," "Bad Boys," "Independence Day") than rapper, the 36-year-old Smith maintains on his latest album "Lost And Found" that his nice guy image has worked against him.
"Black radio, they won't play me though," he raps in one song. "Guess they think that Will ain't hard enough. Maybe I should just have a shootout ... just ignorant, attacking, acting rough. I mean then, will I be black enough?"
Though his current single "Switch" is a top 40 hit, the man once known as the Fresh Prince said he no longer worries about album sales.
"I'm an entertainer. I make it and close my eyes," he said. "Sometimes it sells 14 million, sometimes it sells 300,000. For me it's about just doing what I do, and hoping that my artistry makes a difference."
Ordinarily, I couldn't care less what those Hollywood people think, but in this case, I think Mr. Smith shows a remarkable understanding of the influence Hollywood culture has on our youth. Thanks for "keeping it real", Will. I think that's the first time I ever understood what that means.
___
Will Smith has one big introduction to make at Tuesday night's BET Awards: Gangster rappers, meet the rest of the world. Smith told The Associated Press he hopes to impress the global significance of U.S. black culture on the show's audience and artists.
"The kids that are making these trends, making these songs, don't understand the level of effect that black Americans have around the world," he said in an interview. " ... Black Americans are so elevated, it's almost worship."
Smith, co-host of the show (8 p.m. EDT) at Hollywood's Kodak Theater with wife Jada Pinkett-Smith, said he witnessed the phenomenon recently while in Africa. Touring a village in Mozambique, he came across a shack on which someone had scrawled the name of slain rapper Tupac Shakur.
"I was asking the kids: What is it about Tupac? Why is that there? I kept asking why. They were saying we want to dress like you dress, wear all the things you wear, talk how you talk."
"The impression is that black Americans are the dragon slayers. Here we are 13 percent minority in a foreign land, and yet we can make laws, change laws. If Jesse Jackson shows up at Coca-Cola, something changes."
Smith, who won the first rap Grammy in 1988 for his squeaky-clean "Parents Just Don't Understand," said he wants hip-hop artists to recognize their importance and shift away from thuggish themes.
"It's real important to have balance of the imagery. Yes, there are people who fire guns in the street, but there's also doctors who go to work in those areas to feed their children."
The gangster lifestyle is celebrated in black communities for its strength, Smith said. "That's the image of survivors. The dude that sells the drugs or has the guns or is most willing to kill somebody is the dude that has the greatest potential for survival, or at least that's the perception. So that's what people strive for.
"What I'm trying to present and what a lot of other artists are presenting is a different approach to survival and a more sound approach to survival. It's a more long-term approach based on intellect and skills that can't be taken away from you: The smartest dude survives the best."
Smith picks out Common and Mos Def as other artists "that really have something to say that don't necessarily fit on the `106th & Park' top 10."
Now more well-known as a movie star ("Men in Black," "Bad Boys," "Independence Day") than rapper, the 36-year-old Smith maintains on his latest album "Lost And Found" that his nice guy image has worked against him.
"Black radio, they won't play me though," he raps in one song. "Guess they think that Will ain't hard enough. Maybe I should just have a shootout ... just ignorant, attacking, acting rough. I mean then, will I be black enough?"
Though his current single "Switch" is a top 40 hit, the man once known as the Fresh Prince said he no longer worries about album sales.
"I'm an entertainer. I make it and close my eyes," he said. "Sometimes it sells 14 million, sometimes it sells 300,000. For me it's about just doing what I do, and hoping that my artistry makes a difference."
Ordinarily, I couldn't care less what those Hollywood people think, but in this case, I think Mr. Smith shows a remarkable understanding of the influence Hollywood culture has on our youth. Thanks for "keeping it real", Will. I think that's the first time I ever understood what that means.
___
Monday, June 27, 2005
Supreme court decisions
When the Supreme Court issued it's decision on the government seizure of private property for tax revenue purposes, I held my peace. I am a renter, and so, I have no choice in whether my home gets taken away, although I have to say, that if I were a home or business owner, I would be as outraged as everyone else. In fact, it is hard for me to fathom why anyone, regardless of political ideology, would support this obvious abuse of power now handed to the government. There is a good essay on this subject here.
But now, there is news of an even more outrageous mis-interpretation of the Constitution. Today, by a vote of 5-4, our esteemed Supreme Court has struck down our first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the first amendment, I will submit it for your perusal:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I suppose the argument can be made that since the Supreme Court is not Congress, they can get away with this. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought the Supreme Courts job was to INTERPRET the Constitution, not to CHANGE it! And I think the first amendment is pretty self explanatory. This goes directly to the line, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Removing the Ten Commandments from anything is a violation of the first amendment, period. No one said if you are not Judeo/Christian, that you have to abide by them, although, if you don't there is a strong possibility that you are breaking some civil law. Why? Because United States law is BASED on the Ten Commandments!
I think it's about time we avail ourselves of the latter part of the First amendment: To petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is speculation that at least one of the Justices will announce retirement this week, possibly even as early as today. Both Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Sandra Day-O'Connor may step down. Then, President Bush will have to appoint replacements. We know any sitting president will always appoint judges who support his own ideology, indeed, we thought a couple of the Justices that voted against the First amendment in this case, were supposedly conservative appointees. It will be interesting to see who Bush will select, and for what reason the Democrats will decide he or she meets the criteria for another judicial filibuster.
You know? I don't really care if it's a conservative or a liberal judge who is chosen to replace any justices stepping down, as long as they do what they are supposed to do, that is, interpret the Constitution rather than change it according to his/her own ideologies.
But now, there is news of an even more outrageous mis-interpretation of the Constitution. Today, by a vote of 5-4, our esteemed Supreme Court has struck down our first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the first amendment, I will submit it for your perusal:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I suppose the argument can be made that since the Supreme Court is not Congress, they can get away with this. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought the Supreme Courts job was to INTERPRET the Constitution, not to CHANGE it! And I think the first amendment is pretty self explanatory. This goes directly to the line, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Removing the Ten Commandments from anything is a violation of the first amendment, period. No one said if you are not Judeo/Christian, that you have to abide by them, although, if you don't there is a strong possibility that you are breaking some civil law. Why? Because United States law is BASED on the Ten Commandments!
I think it's about time we avail ourselves of the latter part of the First amendment: To petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is speculation that at least one of the Justices will announce retirement this week, possibly even as early as today. Both Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Sandra Day-O'Connor may step down. Then, President Bush will have to appoint replacements. We know any sitting president will always appoint judges who support his own ideology, indeed, we thought a couple of the Justices that voted against the First amendment in this case, were supposedly conservative appointees. It will be interesting to see who Bush will select, and for what reason the Democrats will decide he or she meets the criteria for another judicial filibuster.
You know? I don't really care if it's a conservative or a liberal judge who is chosen to replace any justices stepping down, as long as they do what they are supposed to do, that is, interpret the Constitution rather than change it according to his/her own ideologies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
