I Love This

"A crime which is the crime of many none avenge." ~ Lucan

A 70 year old "retired member of the U.S. military " proved crime doesn't pay recently in Costa Rica, according to this article from AOL news.

He killed a mugger with his bare hands and guess what? The Costa Rica Police let him back on the ship to continue his trip!

If this had happened in America, he would have been arrested, charged with murder, convicted, and then sued by the dead man's family. And he would have lost, especially if he was sued in one of our many Liberal courts.

America is still the greatest country in the world, political correctness notwithstanding, but this is one time that the crybaby sob sister Liberal whacko's in America would do well to sit up and take notice.

"Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap" Gal. 6:7.

The mugger had a criminal record as long as your arm, so he got what he deserved, in my opinion. Had he lived long enough, he might have even discovered something that Americans have long known:

Don't mess with a United States Military man!

We need guys like this on regular patrol on the streets of our cities.

I love this!

Anti-War, Pro-Victory

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." ~ John Stuart Mill

We had a snow and icestorm here in Virginia on Tuesday of last week and ever since, my son has been out of school and bored, so he has been spending a lot more time than usual surfing the internet.

On Thursday, I did something horrible to my car while trying to propel it up our driveway on the ice, which is on a slight incline up to the road. It makes a tremendous racket and the oil smokes. That is, if I can get it started. The engine died as I was limping it back home and I could only manage to let it coast into it's place in the driveway. Since then, it sits, silent, cold and still. It seems to be laughing at me. I don't know how much it will cost, because I don't know whether it is just a fouled plug or two, or if it has something much more serious wrong with it. I can't afford to find out just yet. Wish me luck.

Also, I finally got a job. Apparently my 13 years experience in marketing management outweighed the fact that I am over 40, white and male. Between the ice storm and actually having a job to go to, my time to post entries on this blog and comment on others has been severely reduced.

So for those of you who eagerly await digesting my pearls of wisdom everyday, I apologize.

In a recent comment thread, I made the statement that I am not so much pro-war as I am anti-defeat. More accurately, I would have to say I am mostly anti-war, but more pro-victory. I will be the first to say I hate war. I don't understand those who would opt to go to war before all other options are exhausted.

It bothers me when I hear people make comparisons between the number of casualties in this war versus casualties in Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, and WWI. Yes, there are significantly less deaths in this war than in the previous wars, but one death is nevertheless a tragedy. I think keeping score is abhorrent.

I will not indulge in that.

One of my Liberal commenter's insists there is a way to settle this conflict between Islamic terrorists and Judeo/Christians without resorting to war. And I agree that negotiation will almost always work under certain circumstances.

But those circumstances involve a pretty big "IF .

If the terrorists had the same Judeo/Christian values that we do. If they followed the teachings of Christ rather than the teachings of the false prophet Mohammad. If they didn't consider serving God as murdering innocents. If their idea of negotiation wasn't deciding among themselves whether to use bombs, rocket launchers, or airplanes to kill as many innocent Americans and Jews as they possibly can.

The leaders of the Islamic Jihadists have repeatedly said they will not negotiate. They are continually saying they will never stop waging Jihad until the "infidels" are wiped off the face of the earth.

They have one purpose and one purpose only. The complete eradication of anyone who does not agree completely with them. Buddhist temples have been targeted. Even other Muslims have been killed because their particular sect was not in complete agreement with the Jihadists. Peaceful Muslims are at as much risk of being attacked as we Americans and Jews. No one is safe while the Jihadists exist.

These are not reasonable people. They are vicious, cold blooded animals with a one track mind.

Genocide.

This war on terror is not the preferred method of dealing with enemies. It is the only method. It is a necessary evil. There is only one option:

Kill or be killed.

Any other option is a fantastic exercise in futility.

In Defense Of Mudkitty

"History is a voice forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity." ~ James A. Forude

In my previous entry, where I posted my thoughts regarding the field of Republican Presidential candidates, I had a commenter posting under the name Mudkitty. Mudkitty is apparently Democrat, or at least anti-Republican. And that's fine. Mudkitty is entitled to her/his opinion.

Mudkitty said, "Interesting that you like Newtie - a tree time divorce who prosecuted Clinton while having an adulterous affair with a staffer, whom he eventually dumped his second wife for. Clinton gets a bj, but stays with his wife, and you support impeachment. Newt has a full-blown affair, and is divorced twice, and he's presidential material to you guys. Well, logic and consistency has never been a republican virtue."

Mudkitty also said, "Makes you wonder, that when he speaks of protecting traditional marriage and family and which marriage of his, he wants to protect."

In addition, in reference to Rudy Guiliani, Mudkitty said, "So now the rightwingers are going to swallow their pride, and vote for someone who is pro-abortion, someone who is pro-gay, someone who placed the emergency command center in the World Trade Center, someone who sent 217 firemen up into the towers with non-working walkie talkies, so that they couldn't be recalled, someone who carried on a blatant affair with his mistress while in office. Someone who married his cousin. This is what you guys say you're going to do. Pardon me, if this confirms the lack of credibility in rightwing thinking, and the crass hypocrisy of rightwingers."

Then, Mudkitty said, "Rudy is the guy who carried on a flagrant affair with his mistress, whom he left his wife for. Rudy is the guy who supports gay rights and abortion. Rudy is the guy in business with Bernie Kerrik...Rudy is the guy who's first marriage was to his first cousin."

I don't know who Bernie Kerrik is, so I won't comment on that charge.

For the record, I never said I support either Newt or Rudy. My support is behind Duncan Hunter of California.

Be that as it may, Mudkitty, while attacking Republicans, has accidentally made a very good point.

I am unaware of any marital infidelities of Newt Gingrich, but if those allegations are true, I agree. He wouldn't necessarily be an authoritative voice for morality and Christian values. I know Rudy had an affair which ultimately led to his divorce, which would also go against Christian Conservative values. Because of that, he loses some support from that segment of the Republican base.

I also have a problem with a candidate that supports abortion and special rights for gays.

If we, as Conservative Republicans, settle for a candidate who demonstrates, through his actions, a lack of respect for Conservative Christian values, we cannot condemn former President Clinton for his indiscretions.

As I have said on numerous occasions, it is not the infidelity of Clinton that concerned me, so much as the fact that I would hope the leader of a country would have better self control over his wanton sexual desires. My conviction is if he can't even control that, how can we expect him to exercise good judgement when faced with an international crisis?

My point here is Mudkitty is right to be concerned about candidates with questionable family values.

I don't agree that the unfortunate decision (if it was indeed solely Rudy's) to set up a command center inside the twin towers on 9/11 and malfunctioning communications equipment necessarily disqualifies Rudy to be President.

Nor do I agree that because of some candidates indiscretions, it is an indictment of the whole Republican party. That is, of course, preposterous. By that logic, Republicans could say the same about Democrats. Do we really need to discuss Clinton and his dishonesty, affairs, sexual harassment, attempted rapes, and rapes?

I agree with Mudkitty that a Presidential candidate should be morally unblemished. How could we trust a President to properly lead this country if we can't trust him to control his own base emotions?

Introducing Duncan Hunter

"I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." ~ Charles De Gaulle

So far, I am unimpressed with the Republican candidates that have entered the Presidential race for 2008. I have looked at the popular candidates and I have found taints in all of them.



McCain is likable, and possiby electable (by virtue of the fact that so many Democrats like him), but he's just not Republican enough. He has gone against the party a few too many times. Maybe this means he thinks for himself, and not necessarily what the Republicans want him to think. That could be a good thing, except too often what he thinks is the way the Democrats think. That's scary.



Rudy is strong on crime and the war on Terrorism, and was a rock after the planes hit the towers, but he is soft on illegal immigration and too pro-choice. Many say he stands on his principles, which is a major knock against McCain, but I'm sorry. Standing for a mother's right to kill her baby is not a principle I want my Presidential candidate to stand on.



I like Newt Gingrich, but, like many others has suggested, I feel he carries with him too much baggage. The Democrats slime campaign against him when he was Speaker of the House, charges that were never proven, and probably completely false, has painted Gingrich as corrupt, and that is something that I feel he cannot overcome.



Mitt Romney seems like an excellent candidate, but let's be honest. He's a Mormon. Many people feel Mormonism is a cult, and that alone will prevent many Christian Conservatives from voting for him. I don't know of anything in the Mormon doctrine that would necessarily make him a bad President, but it's the "cult" thing that scares people off.



Some are attempting a "draft Condi" campaign but that, as I see it, is doomed from the start, mainly because she has insisted she has no intentions of running for President. I like her a lot, and I think if she ran, she might get a lot of crossover Democrat votes especially from women and minority voters. But she is pro-choice, and that is a main issue for me, personally.



Then there is my initial pick to run, Sam Brownback of Kansas. He is strong in his opposition to abortion, something I've already mentioned is important to me. But then he went and ruined it all by opposing President Bush's war strategy. I no longer support him.

For another look at the front runners and more information regarding them, check this post by Mark Levin out.

OK. So now you are all probably thinking that I don't like any of the GOP candidates for President in 2008. You would be wrong.

I like Duncan Hunter, Republican Congressman from California. Take a look at him and his qualifications here.


I agree with him on virtually every issue. I don't see a thing wrong with him. So far, there are apparently no skeletons in his closets, and his record reflects strong American Conservative Republican values. Of course, it's early yet. The only problem he has currently is lack of name recognition, but the election is still over a year and a half away, and in that time, I believe we can make him a household name with the right amount of grassroots support.

I don't know if my humble blog gets enough readers to make a difference, but if my readers research Hunter, and if they agree that he is an excellent choice for President, perhaps other blogs will join with me to create a groundswell of support to elect Duncan Hunter President of the United States in 2008.

Hillary's Agenda

"I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'." ~ William Shakespeare

I was going to post a comment on Eric's blogpost about Hillary's speech in which she talks about taking oil company profits, but for some reason, blogger would not allow me to post a comment, so I'm commenting here. For background, Here is what Hillary said:

"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working to try to push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence!"

Now, I'm not certain she really meant that she intends to just take the oil company's profits, or if she means she merely wants to tax them, (as if they aren't already being taxed) but, what happens when a company of any type somehow loses all their profits?

That's right. They go out of business.

If, as President, she did take oil company profits, the oil companies would go broke and have to close, throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work. Not just the oil company employees, but all the companies that deal in petroleum by products and accessories to oil products.

In effect, America would go out of business. Our whole country! In addition, all the countries that depend on America for economic aid would go bankrupt, also.

Now, we're talking about creating millions more poor people world wide than we already have.

That's just the start. Think of alternative fuels. The current leader in the alternative fuels field is ethanol, which is made from corn and other grains. Of course, it is far from being ready to step in and take over at providing fuel for most of the world, but that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Not only is ethanol not ready to be our primary source of fuel, it will drive the costs of corn and grain so high that only the rich will be able to afford any product made with corn and other grains.

I've also heard it said that it costs more to make ethanol than it does to refine oil for gasoline. Once again, more higher costs to "save" the planet from evil oil.

So let's break it down and make it simple enough for even Liberals to understand.

Hillary wants to be President. As President, Hillary wants to put oil companies and all other companies that use or manufacture anything remotely related to oil production completely out of business, thereby creating massive unemployment worse than anything we've ever had previously, including during the Great Depression.

In addition to massive unemployment, she wants to create inflation higher than anyone has ever imagined, so high in fact, that even her multi-millionaire friends like George Soros etc, will not even be able to afford bread.

So, in her efforts to steal "Big Oil" profits for the common good of common man, she will completely destroy America's economy.

And the common man will cease to be. But I guess that's what the Liberals say they want.

I guess in the end, the very very wealthy will be the only ones left.

Rush Is Right...Again

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~ George Bernard Shaw

After almost two years of blogging, I am beginning to figure out what issues tend to draw the most attention and generate the most comments from readers. My opinions (or, as Lone Ranger says, my convictions) on homosexuality, abortion, and environmentalism are generally the hottest topics here at my place.

And curiously, a mere mention of Rush Limbaugh appears to make the Liberals blood boil. I once wrote a post where I only mentioned Rush's name once and I received a veritable fountain of angry comments concerning him, and the post wasn't even about him.

Yesterday, I mentioned a recent study that determined Rush is right 97.4% of the time when he made predictions of what the left or the Democrats (not necessarily synonymous) would say or do.

In light of the recent claims by some "scientists" that human activity is definitely the cause of Global Warming, Rush has had quite a bit to say on the subject lately, and naturally, he doesn't agree.

Well, he's no scientist, so how would he know?

For the record, he doesn't say that there is no such thing as global warming. His position is that there is just no scientific evidence to support the theory.
Well today's post is concerning two of the above topics. Rush Limbaugh and Global Warming.

Rush has made the point that in order for there to be a determination of fact on any scientific discovery, first a theory has to be advanced based on observation, then it has to be tested and proven before it can be stated as scientific fact.

And Global warming has yet to be proven. In other words, there is no factual evidence that global warming exists, let alone caused by human activity.

Now, one commenter has suggested Rush doesn't know this is true, he just pulls these tidbits out of his nether regions and presents them as fact to his listeners. I believe the exact words used were, "Rush is a clown who simply blabs descriptions of what he is pulling out of his ass."

It would seem that some of my commenters deny that Rush has the capability to do research, even though he, as well as his staff, have the entire world wide web at their disposal.

Well, I've stumbled, accidentally, across a couple of articles that appear to prove that Rush is right again. And again, I will state, for the record, that neither Rush nor I deny that global warming exists, but rather, we doubt the evidence provided for it by the Liberals favorite global warming scientists, like...uh...you know...Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore.

Anyway, here are the articles. Read them:

"Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag"

Here is an excerpt:

"Not Bob Giegengack. He has described Al Gore’s documentary as “a political statement timed to present him as a presidential candidate in 2008.” And he added, “The glossy production is replete with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and appeals to public fear as shamelessly as any other political statement that hopes to unite the public behind a particular ideology.” This from a guy who voted for Gore in 2000 and says he’d probably vote for him again."

And, from the Canada Free Press.

Here is an excerpt from this one:

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets."

The one thing both reports have in common is they agree with Rush Limbaugh's conclusion that global warming is not a scientific fact, but rather an untested theory. And a poor theory at that, based on their own scientific analysis.

Again, I say, Read them!

I know it is a pain for the Liberals to admit, (so, of course, they won't) but again, Rush is right!

Limbaugh Nominated For Peace Prize

"A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." ~ Baltasar Gracian

Rush Limbaugh has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated by The Landmark Legal Foundation, headed by Conservative lawyer and author ("Men In Black")Mark Levin.

Not surprisingly, The New York Slimes has skewered this nomination by publishing their readers reaction to the announcement. Could it be that there is no such thing as a Conservative Slimes reader or does the Slimes simply refuse to print comments from Conservatives? I don't know, but after reading all I could stomach of readers comments on the nomination, one (or both) of those explanations certainly seems to be the case.

There are the obligatory comparisons to Nazi's and the predictable slurs claiming Rush is a crack addict and infidel. Also, a racist, woman hater, and gay basher.

Oh, and let's not leave out the comments that he is apparently not worthy of a Peace prize because he doesn't believe women or doctors have a right to kill babies. Does anyone else see a disconnect here?

Here are some of the comments here:

"Hilarious, a drug addict and former welfare recipient (i.e., Rush “Blowhard” Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize. This could be the basis of a new reality show."

Former welfare recipient? Just exactly how does that preclude him from being a Nobel Prize recipient? Or drug addict, for that matter? Any other time that would almost win the prize on it's own. I don't believe he was ever on welfare anyway. His Father was a Lawyer, fer Chrissake!

Here's another:

"Mr. Rush Limbaugh, a crack-addicted neo-nazi bigot who rants at every opportunity against Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, Muslims and non-European visitors to the United States. Mr. Limbuagh has openly and repeatedly advocated violence against both doctors that provide legal abortion to adult women in the U.S. and against Court Judges who fail to support the minimalist interpretation of rights provided under the U.S. Constitution. The sohistry and bigotry of the thrice divorced [due to his extra-marital affairs] Limbaugh would put a necrosmile on the face of the nazi Goebbels. Mr. Limbaugh has every right to be nominated for a Nobel Peace price as long as the Committee takes into consideration the fact that Mr. Limbaugh’s remains the unapologetic mouthpiece of the Hate-4-Faith wing of the U.S. official jingoists."

— Posted by Dr. Henry McDillan

This one is singular, because this commenter managed to include every negative thing he's ever heard about Limbaugh, apparently not pausing to check his facts, while taking a further swipe at Christians and patriots.

Also, take notice that the commenter signs his name with the the prefix Dr. Perhaps he is one of the nation's abortion providers who feel their livelihood is endangered by the possible, if not probable overturning of Roe vs Wade?

One more, and then I'll bring this rant to a close. You can read the rest if you have the inclination:

"He hates blacks, he hates Mexicans, he hates liberals, he loves our involvement in Iraq, doesn’t think 3000 dead soldiers is any problem. All this in the name of world peace."

Now, I listen to Rush often. Not everyday, but often enough that if he ever expressed hatred of any of these groups (including Liberals) I would certainly have heard it. It's interesting to me that those who seem to object to him the most are the ones that obviously don't listen to him.

I am not a big fan of Rush simply because I find him a little too arrogant and egotistic. That said, he is rarely wrong. I suppose that is the reason the Libs hate him with such vigor.

It is generally seen as something of a badge of honor to be hated by your opponents, particularly in the field of politics. He has earned that badge.

He won't win, of course. The Nobel Prize committee is overwhelmingly a Liberally biased organization.

It is, however, a significant slap in the face of Rush haters everywhere. And that is worth something, at least.

Just For Fun

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. I can't make any sense of it" ~ Groucho Marx

Recent commenters on my blog posts have caused me to start thinking about the difference in writing styles. I consider myself an adequate writer, but there are many that are much better. ER, ELAshley, Jason Bowden, and Wordsmith come to mind.

Coincidently, ELAshley has posted a great example of his writing over at his place this morning.

Some bloggers use words that I literally have to look up in a dictionary, and still others write simply. I would place myself somewhere in the middle concerning verbosity. Sometimes wording an essay simply works better to get the point across.

So, just for fun, I took a little children's song, and rewrote it with what some people call "4 dollar words". Uneducated blogger points to those who can figure out what children's song I changed. Additional points awarded to those of you who can re write it better. Here it is:

Repeatedly propel, through means of external manual propulsion mechanisms, your transport, designed and manufactured specifically to convey humanoid bipeds with maximum buoyancy and expediency, effortlessly along the current of the naturally occurring flowing transparent solution. Ecstatically multiplied fourfold, Human Existence is merely a surrealistic hallucination.

Have fun!

What Integrity Means To Me

"No man can purchase his virtue too dear, for it is the only thing whose value must ever increase with the price it has cost us. Our integrity is never worth so much as when we have parted with our all to keep it." ~ Charles Caleb Colton

Last night I received a call from a man who was returning a call I made to his company in answer to classified ad for a position as a loan officer at his company. He asked me to send him an e-mail with my resume attached and a "letter of integrity" .

Now, never have I been asked for a letter of integrity and I confessed to him that I wasn't exactly sure what he meant by that term. He said all he wanted was a few short paragraphs explaining what the word, "Integrity" means to me.

I slept on it, not because I am desperate to be a loan officer, but because integrity is not as simple a concept as one may think. So, I slept on it and pondered what I would write. After some time, I at last sat down to write out my thoughts on integrity. The following is the entire content of my letter minus the sign off:

Sir:

You asked me to write a few short paragraphs explaining what integrity means to me.

To begin with, Webster's Dictionary defines integrity as adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

While these definitions are indeed true, I think it is more than that. It is not a personal preference. It is instead a way of life, a world view. After all, what are morals? What is considered moral by one man may not be considered the same by another.

I do not believe that morals are transient. I believe they are set in stone. And I believe they were set in stone by the Creator of the Universe. Who are we to modify those rules to fit our own selfish world view?

I may be old fashioned in many ways, but my father taught me that our first moral obligation is to God, others, and yourself, in that order. I believe that. We are to behave in a way that is approved by God first and others second. After all, God is the ultimate moral authority, is He not? If we comport ourselves in that way, we must certainly be approved by ourselves.

Integrity in it's simplest form is embodied in what we call "The Golden Rule" . I paraphrase it thusly:

Treat other people the way that you would want to be treated yourself.

Attached is my resume per your request. If I decide to accept your offer of employment, you will be delighted with my performance.

Common Sense Economics

"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists." ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

OK. I am an economics moron, I admit. But I believe common sense is all that's necessary to determine whether raising the minimum raise in this country is a bad idea.

I know there have been many books published explaining the pro's and con's of minimum wage increases, and they have been written by economists with all kinds of college degrees and experiences in business and money management.

For me, trying to read and comprehend all those books and articles gives me a headache.

Interestingly enough, there seem to be as many economists against the minimum wage increases as there are for them.

It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose.

I am not an economist, and my math may be flawed, but here is some raw figures I have been working with to try to explain why I believe minimum wage causes inflation, and consequently, unemployment:

Working with round figures, let's say a small businessman makes and sells widgets at a cost of $1.00 a piece. At a 2.5% markup, the widgets sell for $1.02.5 a piece.

Consider that his 10 employees make a minimum wage of $5.00 an hour.

The manufacturer has to sell 10,000 widgets to make a measly $500.00 a week to meet his overhead expenses and feed his family, etc.

Now, suppose the government comes along and forces him to raise his employees salaries by $1.00 an hour. That's $400.00 a week more than he has been paying them. That leaves him with $100.00 a week to pay his overhead and feed his family.

That is if he doesn't raise the price on his widgets, of course. So, what will our fictitious manufacturer have to do to keep his family from starving?

Well, he has some choices:

1. He can sell about double the number of widgets than he did previously, but that is unlikely. If he could sell that many more he would have already been doing so.

2. He can raise the prices on his widgets, which could possibly cause some of his previous widget customers, (if not all) to look elsewhere for their widgets, or possibly just make them unaffordable to his lower wage customers, you know, the ones that have just had their wages raised so they can afford more.

If he loses customers, he will then have to raise the prices again to compensate for the loss in income, therefore making his widgets even more unaffordable than before.

3. He can lay off 1 worker and drop another employee to part time to lower his labor costs. That way he can avoid raising his prices but he will suffer a loss of production.

80% of his employees now make $40.00 a week more than they did, but one of them is now making nothing, and one of them is only making $120.00 a week.

Now more than 10% of his workforce has lost income!

Well, it looks like raising the minimum wage causes our widget manufacturer to raise prices and/or lay off employees!

That's inflation and higher unemployment.

Now multiply that scenario as many times as the number of small businesses there are in America and presto! We have inflation and unemployment problems!

I may not be an economist but I have common sense, and apparently the Democrats in the legislature don't. Or maybe they do but just don't care that minimum wage increases will hurt small business, and, consequently, the very people they claim they are helping.

The poor and middle class.

Who Says This Is Progress?

"For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three." ~ Alice Kahn

Would someone who knows how to work this new blogger please explain to me how to restore the things I've lost? And, In the words of Denzel Washington in "Philadelphia", Explain it to me like I'm a two year old.

OK. Where did my stat counter go and how do I get it back? I don't care about the adsense. I wasn't making anything off that, anyway.

UPDATE: OK. It looks like I am starting to understand it. But I'm not holding my breath.

P.S: How does it look so far?

P.S.S: I still don't know how to get my stat counter back. Why doesn't blogger provide an e-mail address so I can contact them and have them explain this stuff to me?

When Will The Democrats Learn?

"Never give a sucker an even break" ~ W. C. Fields

I just read an excerpt from Jim Webb's official Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Marie's blog.

This paragraph jumped out at me:

"Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos, but an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."

Well, at least he admits that it isn't a good idea to just cut and run.

But a "strong regionally based diplomacy"?

Is he mad? Are the Democrats mad? (by mad, I mean crazy) Have the Democrats lost all semblance of common sense?

How many times must the terrorists Muslim jihadists demonstrate that they cannot be negotiated with before that point is made? Does L.A. or New York or Washington DC have to disappear under a mushroom cloud for them to get the message?

You cannot talk these animals into stopping the killing.

In my little twisted brain, the following scenario is played out:

A group of Democratic lawmakers enter into a negotiation session with the leaders of al Queda, and after some intense discussion where both sides agree to give up some sanctions and tactics against each other, the Democrats rise from the table, shake hands with the terrorists, and turn their backs to leave, smiling in their satisfaction over a successful negotiation that will at last end the aggression in Iraq.

Before they can get out the door, however, the al Queda representatives suddenly fall on their guests and cut their heads off, videotaping the entire murder. Then, they turn and smile at the camera, and say, "Praise be it ever to Allah, the jihad is just beginning, and Allah has delivered the enemy into our hands. Furthermore, everything we have agreed to was a lie."

I challenge the Democrats to prove this scenario is not accurate. I suggest you send Teddy and San Fran Nan to begin with. And throw in Al Gore and Jimmy Carter just because they are the most annoying.

Diplomacy? Please. Give me a break.

UPDATE: Google has forced me to switch to the "new Blogger". I see little difference between this and the old blogger, except that I have had to remove comment moderation. Previously, comments have been re-directed to my e-mail address for me to make the decision to publish or reject before they get posted and, now when I hit "publish" I get an error message telling me the website I am trying to access does not exist. Therefore, I can no longer moderate comments until I can figure out how to contact Blogger to resolve this situation. In my opinion, Blogger has not become simpler, but more complicated. This is progress?

America Is Becoming Pelosi-Whipped

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." ~ Mark Twain

An excerpt from an AP story on San Fran Nan's first 100(25) hours as Speaker of the House:

"Pelosi, who is in her 10th House term, moved quickly to defuse the first potential controversy to beset her speakership: questions over whether the minimum wage bill gave preferential treatment to a company in her district. She instructed the bill's authors to make sure it did not."

She instructed the bill's authors to make sure it did not.

Oh. Then everything's alright now, isn't it?

God help us.

The Left's Idea Of Support For The Troops

For those of you who don't read Lone Ranger's or Mary's blogs, I am passing this along as asked: This was posted at Cathy's blog via Lone Ranger's:

The following is an email exchange between Sgt Hess, stationed in Iraq and an internet company called Discount-Mats.com.

To Whom it may concern:

Do you ship to APO addresses? I'm in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for who ships to APO first.

SGT Hess

the response--

SGT Hess,We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.

Bargain SuppliersDiscount-Mats.com

This correspondence took place on January 16. I checked Snopes.com and they have verified this to be true. Ah... yes... the libs showing their true colors.... "I support the troops, not their mission"--- Bullcrap! Liberals hate the military and hate what our men and women in uniform stand for! I'm so sick and tired of their pacifist butts.

For those dozen or so of you that read my blog, I urge you to please post something on your blog about this.... (let me know if you do) Not that I am in the market for a mat, but I want to make a point that Bargain Suppliers Discount Mats can take a stance... The good news is that the American Consumer can also take a stance...

One last thing... feel free to send a note to this company....


UPDATE: Discount Mats sight has been down for quite a while so feel free to give them a call or drop a note in the mail to them---

To reach them by phone, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. central time:
414-736-8394

mailing address:
Bargain Suppliers
3259 S.106th Street
West Allis, WI 53227

"If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq." ??

Right.


Also. You may or may not have noticed I have made a slight change to my sidebar. I have deleted the previous lengthy disclaimer in favor of one shorter and more to the point. Check it out. (It's the text in green.)

The Fairness Doctrine. Why Is It Needed?

"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half." ~ Gore Vidal

One current controversy is the push in Congress for revival of the "Fairness Doctrine".

According to Answers.com:

"The doctrine that imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so."

I see no problem with this, and indeed, I see potential benefits for Conservative and religious broadcasters. For instance, a Conservative broadcaster such as Rush Limbaugh could interview a conservative pundit like Robert Novak or Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter and then, for the opposing view, put on some airhead like Cindy Sheehan or Al Franken for the counter point. He could even pull an average American war protestor off the street for his "balanced" interview.

Oh, what fun that would be!

On the other hand, Liberals could do the same. Wait a minute.

They already do that.

Think of the last time you saw a Liberally biased TV program or radio program do a point/counterpoint feature. They stack the left side with 2-4 Liberal commentators and, for "balance", stack the right side with uh...1 Conservative.

Now, that's balanced.

I noticed a perfect example of this yesterday while someone in my house was flipping channels on the TV, and lighted momentarily on ABC's Program, "The View". Four women, three of whom who were unabashed Liberal, and one Conservative.

This is what the Liberal media calls "Fair and Balanced".

As far as I can see, the lone Conservative on these panels usually has a more lucid, logical argument, anyway. The Liberals usually lose in my opinion. What happens is the Liberals end up insulting and/or shouting down the Conservative.

Liberal radio has been tried now, and it has been pretty much unsuccessful.

According to Wikipedia (usually Liberally biased itself):

"Air America was conceived as a for-profit operation in response to the perception held by many that conservative dominance of talk radio ... gave the Republicans an electoral advantage over the Democrats because it helped the Republicans turn out their political base...The growing belief that liberal groups were ineffective in getting their viewpoint across in the media was the reason the concept of creating a liberal talk radio network emerged."

Air America recently filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to stay on the air while they straighten out problems with their creditors.

So now, The reason for this entry, a question:

Why has Liberal talk radio been unsuccessful? If you pay attention to the media, (the Newspapers, radio, and television), it seems obvious. There are more than enough Liberal Americans in America to support and fund them, aren't there? Why are they failing?

I have a theory. It may be whacked, but here it is, nevertheless:

The majority of Liberal leaning Americans care nothing for talk radio of any persuasion. They are not news junkies. They don't pay attention to the issues. They would rather listen to music.

This would account for the prevalence of Liberals in "Man-on-the-street" interviews who cannot answer simple questions like, "Who is the Vice President?", or "Who is the Secretary of State?"

This would also account for the apparent lack of lucid and logically thought out arguments for their stated strong positions on various divisible topics, like the stem cell research controversy, or abortion, or gay marriage.

Many Americans, who identify themselves as Liberal or Democrat, simply parrot Liberal talking points and bumper sticker phrases to make their points. It's as if they don't have an original thought in their heads.

This is not to say that many Liberals don't have reasonable well thought out arguments. Many do. But they are the ones, one would think, that would support Liberal talk radio.

So why don't they? Or do they? Are there not enough of them? Or are they just apathetic to the plight of Air America and the other Liberally biased broadcasting organizations?

It just seems to me that there are a lot more Conservatives that take the time and make the effort to familiarize themselves with the issues than Liberals.

Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, I'm sure that the Liberals who frequent my blog will set me straight. Perhaps they can even offer a plausible explanation as to why Liberals feel the compulsion to introduce legislation in Congress to save Air America.

A Little Humor

"Humor is our way of defending ourselves from life's absurdities by thinking absurdly about them." ~ Lewis Mumford

I found this in my e-mail this morning. It's too funny to not share:

A man walked into a very high-tech restaurant in a fancy hotel.
As he waited to be seated, he noticed that the maitre d' was a robot.

The robot clicked to attention and said,
"Sir, there is a one hour wait. I am programmed to converse with you until
a table is ready, if you please."

Intrigued, the man said, "OK."
The robot clicked a couple more times and then asked,
"Sir, what is your IQ?"
The man answered,
"Oh, about 164."

The robot then proceeded to discuss the theory of relativity, interstellar
space travel, the latest medical breakthroughs, etc. The man was most
impressed. The next day he returned, but thought he would try a different
tack.

The robot again asked,
"What is your IQ, sir?"

This time the man answered,
"Oh, about 100".

So the robot started discussing NASCAR racing, the latest basketball
scores, and what to expect the Red Sox to do this weekend.

The guy had to try it one more time. So the next day he returned.

Again the robot asked the question,
"What is your IQ?"

This time the man drawled out,
" Uh.....'bout 50."

The robot clicked, then leaned close and very slowly asked,
"Are - your - people - going - to - nominate - Hillary?"

The Sky Is Falling

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." ~ Mark Twain

Oh, this is a good one. Scientists are going to move the hands of the "Doomsday clock" a little closer to midnight this week.

I don't know what I can say about this. Maybe I don't have to say anything. It speaks lunacy for itself. Here's a news flash for those erstwhile scientists:

The world is going to end someday. But the only One who knows when, is God.

Lunacy is demonstrated in the fact that the scientists started the clock at seven minutes till midnight in 1947, and have changed it 17 times since then, and it is now at seven minutes till midnight.

That's right. It's back where it started.

Here's another news flash for the scientists:

Time doesn't run backwards.

I don't know what's more ridiculous. The arrogance of these scientists, who presume to know more than God, or the fact that anyone would give them any credibility.

English: A Second Language?

"Civilization is a method of living, an attitude of equal respect for all men." ~ Jane Addams

When I moved here, I had to enroll my son in school. We live in an area that is mostly white, but there are many black students in his school, and a few Hispanic and other minority students.

When we filled out the paperwork for his school we also received a packet of papers describing the school, it's district, and the various programs the school offered. Included in this packet was a form to fill out, if we considered ourselves qualified, for reduced price or free meals for the student.

This is not unusual, in fact, I have never seen a school that didn't offer this program, and I think it is a very good program for underprivileged students.

What made this particular form jump out at me is this:

It was printed completely in Spanish.

All of it. Not part of it. All of it. It wasn't printed in English with Spanish subtitles, or printed in Spanish with English subtitles. It was all Spanish.

All Spanish.

I'm not kidding. I know just enough Spanish to recognise what the document was. I wondered, breifly, if there were any parents who received the same form that didn't understand a word of it. Then I realized it was probably included in our packet by mistake.

Actually, I am more amused than outraged at this political correctness gone overboard. It was, after all, just an administrative mistake. I take it for what it is.

But doesn't it say something about our new all-inclusive society nonetheless?

Lately I have been decrying Government overkill and political correctness run amok. The efforts to make the playing field equal in this country have swung too far the other direction.

I think the only way to defeat discrimination is to let people sort out their problems on their own, through ordinary interaction with people of all races, and get the Government out of it. All the Government does is make things worse.

Remember how the Irish were treated in the 19th century in this country? They were discriminated against, and the Government did nothing to alleviate their situation. Yet somehow, the Irish are now accepted as typical white Americans. How did we learn to accept them without Government intervention?

We did it by using good old American common sense.

Perhaps we should try that approach again.

Consultants

"Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder." ~ Laurence J. Peter

I wrote an incredibly lengthy post today on why I don't like consultants but, after re-reading it, I decided it was a little too long so I am just going to say I don't like consultants.

Consultants once decided that I was not qualified to do a job that I had been tremendously successful at for over 13 years at another company, and suggested the company hire me in a completely different type of position, one at which I had virtually no experience and was completely incapable of performing. Eventually, I had to leave. It was the first time I ever voluntarily left a job because I was incompetent. It was humiliating.

Incidentally, one of that company's best employees was a woman who had worked for me at the other company. She was one of their best because I trained her.

But consultants said I didn't have the right personality traits for that particular position.

I didn't fit.

Later, I was re-hired at a position I had done previously at a certain company but at a substantially lower starting wage than before. Why lower? Because in my absence, the company had hired consultants to help hem produce more profits.

More profits at the expense of their employees.

I suppose consultants have done wonderful things for many companies, but according to my personal experience, they are more a hindrance than a benefit.

All Generalities Are False

"Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science." ~ Edward O. Wilson

I was reading over a couple of posts and the comments on them from a leftie blog this morning and I was struck by the amount of accusations that indicate Conservatives and Liberals are defined by how they view the monetary assets or lack of them in people.

One of the most important factors, although not all of the most important factors, in determining ones political ideology kept popping up in the form of how we all view the wealthy and the poor and how we all propose to solve the problems caused by the gulf between the two.

Here are the two differences as I perceive them:

Conservatives stress personal responsibility to solve the problem of poverty, and Liberals stress the importance of the Governments responsibility to solve it.

On top of this is how the two ideologies attack one another for supporting one class over the other.

Wealthy people are demonized by the left because, apparently, they have money. They are seen as greedy and selfish, with a blatant disregard for poor people. Charity, if the Liberal commenters are to be believed, is not one of the wealthy class's qualities. They are like the ruling castes in India who consider it Godly to let the poor die in their poverty because that is their Karma. Supposedly, they will never think of helping a poor person to overcome their plight, ostensibly because if they did, the poor might well rise above them and crush them in some shrewd hostile takeover or something.

That seems to generally be how the wealthy are perceived by the Liberal ideology as far as I can see.

On the other hand, Poor people are generally seen by Conservatives, as lazy, ambitionless people with no desire to rise above their situation and an overwhelming need to lean wholly on the Government for their sustenance. They are to be detested, as they obviously don't want to take responsibility for themselves. They want the taxpayers to take care of them without expectation of paying anyone back.

That is the perception I get from reading what Conservatives often say.

As my father used to say, "All generalities are false, including the statement that all generalities are false."

I'll let the Philosophers try to figure that one out.

The fact is neither ideology is absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. There are those extreme examples in both the wealthy and the poor.

I am not wealthy, and never have been. Yet I don't expect the Government to take care of me. I don't want it to. I want to take responsibility for myself. I expect no hand outs nor would I accept them if they are offered. At least not without the expectation from my benefactors that I will eventually pay them back.

I will not bend this stubborn pride of mine to accept such a kindness. But that's me. And there are many just like myself that would find it demeaning to accept government help.

I know there are many people living below the poverty line that place no such restrictions on themselves and will accept, gladly, whatever handouts that are offered to them, even to the point of taking advantage of such kindness by cheating and lying to procure them.

These people are known as welfare cheats and they are legion. But not all poor people are welfare cheats.

Many poor people are Liberals but some are Conservatives.

On the other hand, I have known wealthy people who are exactly what the Liberals seem to believe are the rule, rather than the exception. They are greedy. They are selfish. They care nothing about the poor. They have the attitude that all a poor person has to do to alleviate his situation is "get a job".

Poor people often resent the success of wealthy people regardless of whether the wealthy person in question is a good person or not. That is a classic example of class envy.

Somehow, because one is wealthy, they are evil.

That is, of course, not true. There are many evil wealthy people, but there are many evil poor people as well. Some are Liberals.

Additionally, I have known many wealthy people in my lifetime that are generous and kind, and (blanch) Conservative.

All generalities concerning wealth and poverty are false.

Incidentally, the perception among many wealthy people that all a poor person has to do is to get a job is not because they are evil, or greedy, or selfish. It is because they have truly never been poor, and so, have no frame of reference. No matter how much personal contact they have with poor people, the solution is usually that simplistic to one who was never in that situation, or have and forgotten where they come from.

The fact is, they simply don't understand.

Just as I cannot understand how people like Bill Gates and other multi-billionaires never seem to be contented with their vast fortunes. They just continue to make deals and do more research and hire consultants so they can become richer and richer past all understanding.

I don't get it. I keep telling myself that if they were me, I'd stop gaining riches and any accidental increase in my earning more than I need would cheerfully be donated to the poor.

If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd likely think differently. Maybe. I don't know.

I think if we are honest with ourselves, Liberal and Conservative, we will have to concede that there are no absolutes, and not everyone fits into the stereotypical perceptions that define our singular ideologies.