"On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed. Is not nationalism - that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder - one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?" This quote was posted on a 'progressive' website yesterday, telling the American people to not fly flags and participate in celebrating Independence Day. The author of the quote? Howard Zinn.
Lovely. A college professor and author of books used in today's high schools and colleges, he is the poster boy for a significant population of today's teaching pool. You can imagine my disgust as I read over my son's reading list for last year's U.S. History class and noticed Zinn's version of our country's history. No, I will not type out the name of the book. I won't acknowledge the title here. His was an advanced placement class so I don't know if it was also used for other history classes. The indoctrination process used on our students continues to reach into younger and younger age classes. This book was used in a Junior class in high school.
A level of anti-American opinion sentiment has creeped into today's institutions of learning that hopes to push an agenda of socialism and gone unchecked for a generation. We see what results this has reaped. I recently read an excellent article by William Bennett, a former Secretary of Education and author of American history books for children. He wrote of David McCullough's concern that today's students are performing worse in history testing results than math and reading. McCullough recently testified before the U.S. Senate two years ago on his concerns. The latest results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress released last month serve to further prove the validity of his concern. He used the term 'national amnesia' saying," Amnesia of society is just as detrimental as amnesia for the individual. We are running a terrible risk. Our very freedom depends on education, and we are failing our children in not providing that education."
Neither Bennett nor McCullough blame the students, but the educators, as it should be. The favored line of thought of the teaching elite is to preach the negative or the positive of American history. Instead of educating on the greatness of our country, the greatest story in modern civilization, teachers have chosen to focus on discouraging national pride.
Remember Civics class? When I was a student in junior high school, now known as middle school, we took a class in civics. We were taught about the working of our government. We learned how politicians were elected on local, state and federal levels. We learned how laws were made and the advantage of being the political party in power. We learned basic facts of American government. I think the current disgrace being passed off as history class is a direct result of the phasing out of Civics class. To this day I say it is my 'civic' duty to vote, to serve on a jury, as it was taught to me in that class.
In today's politically correct world. we hear of the focus of the negatives of the behavior of the founding fathers, slave owners, or the faults of Christopher Columbus or an out of focus history of our country's space program - President Kennedy's only shining achievement. Of the space program more weight is put on the Challenger disaster than on the actual landing on the moon.
All the trend to focus on the negative over the positive is also cheating the student. History is an interesting subject with the right teacher. National pride is a good thing. Patriotism is a good thing. I am embarrassed to say that my own generation, the baby boomers, have elevated shaming patriotism to an art form. It is a disgrace that flying a flag or voicing a love of country allows a citizen to be taunted as supporting imperialism or displaying arrogance.
I read a post on a blog a while back. The blogger is liberal and was telling of an encounter with a couple from Germany. They were in Florida on vacation and struck up a conversation with the blogger and her husband. The blogger proudly stated she and her husband both told the tourists that they do not support the foreign policy of this country. Why is that a source of proud boasting? Was she just looking for cred with the bashers? A pat on the back? The boasting seemed so nonsensical to me that it stays with me to this day. The irony is that the chancellor in power at the time who wanted to win re-election and turned on President Bush to do so was defeated and the current chancellor, a woman, is mostly in line with our foreign policy.
We are not a perfect nation. We are, however, "the last best hope of earth" as Abraham Lincoln said. As other countries criticize us and feign distrust and superiority, we continue to feed the hungry of developing countries, we defend countries under attack, we send money to keep programs afloat for medical aid or education. We are the country the rest of the world looks to for leadership. That is a proud fact.
Our country's history is the greatest political history ever told. I would be angry to leave school and begin the luxury of leisurely reading books on history to discover different versions of writings. An example Bennett gives is one that today's textbooks give chapters to the re-invention of government, as it was called under Clinton, but reduce the Interstate Highway Act of 1956 by Eisenhower to a blurb.
How could you go through the day yesterday and not be touched by the songs played, the fireworks in the sky, the telling of historical events? How hard and bitter a person must you be to let your own political poisons overshadow celebrating the independence of the greatest nation on earth? How can you not see the very fact that you are free to voice such opinions without fear of persecution as a reason to celebrate?
Today's students deserve better. They deserve to know it is desirable to know your country. Celebrate. Go to a parade, fly a flag, relish the televised ceremonies of new citizens taking the oath of allegiance to our country, acknowledge our accomplishments, honor those who came before us, ooh and aah over firework displays, read a book to a child that makes history come alive. Start a conversation. Tell children the military serves a useful and honorable purpose, bringing freedom to millions around the world.
Tell them to be proud.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Cost Efficient
In Paris, in 1971, on this date, the lead singer of The Doors was found dead. Jim Morrison was found in his bathtub in his apartment by his girlfriend. He was 27 years old. The husband says The Doors as a rock group were hugely popular with the military during the Vietnam years. It's his recollection. By 1971, he was back from his service and I was still in high school. Didn't meet him for ten more years.
Different place, different time, still classic 60's rock. The Lizard King.
If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion on from whom you purchase your auto fuel, I will tell you I am purchasing from the two big name oil companies who have told Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to put his demands where the sun don't shine and refused to be strong armed into signing agreements allowing Chavez majority control on their operations. Chavez is hell bent to socialize the oil drilling industry in Venezuela and insisting foreign owned companies forfeit majority control of the operations, thus allowing the oil drilling industry to go the way of the governmental takeover of the electric and telephone companies.
The oil companies taking a firm stand and pulling out are taking a huge monetary hit for infastructure investments already in place. For ConocoPhillips the operations in the Orinoco region were valued at $6 billion and are about 10% of the company's reserve base and 4% of its worldwide production, according to an article in the Financial Times.
Somewhere along the way in the late 1980's I read a book on investing your money in socially conscious companies. I took the philosophy, that you support companies each time you spend money on investments, and decided to apply it into everyday life. I make the effort to support companies and causes with my purchases on a routine basis. I'm not making waves as an individual consumer but if the majority of consumers would use their financial voice regularly, the statement is heard.
I shop at locally owned businesses whenever it is practical. I purchase products made in my state so that workers are supported. I love a locally owned book store located close to my house and go there when I can, instead of the big name chains with the coffee cafes in the back. It's just basic stuff here. I also have the chore of paying bills, so I am known to be, um, frugal. I'm always looking for a deal and shop chains if it makes more sense.
Socialization of private industries is not the way for economic prosperity of a country or for its people's freedoms. It's a good deal if you're the dictator. Chavez has shut down the free press in Venezuela and takes great pride in his mentoring under Castro. Now he is forging ahead with his partnership with Iran. Today it was announced that Iran and Venezuela will build methanol facilities together in hopes of injuring the American energy sector.
I know it's popular, and easy, to ridicule and complain about big oil in this country. The fact is that until we develop a workable energy policy we are beholding to some bad people for oil. About 60% of our oil is coming from foreign sources. Our refineries are working at maximum levels. The last refinery was built 30 years ago. A segment of our population is committed to lobbying against any new drilling in our waters. Those screaming for alternative energies to be developed have absolutely no idea of the costs involved. Do not kid yourself. The costs will be passed on to the consumer. And those same people are also the ones who don't want wind farms cluttering up their precious ocean views from their estates on the coasts.
The Dems in congress, looking more and more like socialists, are working to take away tax incentives on big oil. They have determined that too much money is being made. When did they get to judge? Why should oil companies continue to make investments when everything is being set to favor alternatives? The same Dems pouting now over profits are the same ones obstructing the administration's energy policies, the first policies sent to Congress for votes in 2002. To hear critics speak, you would think nothing has been done by the administration. President Bush has advocated hydrogen technology, wind energy, clean coal, and now nuclear energy. Ethanol, coming from corn, is in use and the price of our groceries from the strain of producing the crop are felt at the market.
How much are you willing to sacrifice for energy independence? Solar panels for homes are not affordable for the average citizen. Some grants are made and that is good. Insulating windows in your home is an energy saver. Smaller vehicles are easier on gas consumption. Even recycling, an issue I've been involved with on a local level in our former community since the 1980's, has proven cost inefficient in many areas, especially out west with less populated areas.
We all make choices. Supply and demand. If you feel justified in supporting taking away incentives in one industry, then to be fair, other profitable industries should be looked upon in the same manner. Entertainment? Trial lawyers? Lobbyists? Hedge Fund financial firms? High tech millionaires? When did privileged lawmakers, reaping financial rewards from their positions of power and spouses and children enriching family coffers, get to be the voice of how much money companies can make?
I'd be more worried about their fellow lawmakers who consort with Hugo Chavez and bow and scrape to him for his offer of low cost heating oil and accept the oil. It was nothing but a publicity stunt after he went to the U.N. and denounced the president as the great Satan.
Priorities, anyone?
Different place, different time, still classic 60's rock. The Lizard King.
If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion on from whom you purchase your auto fuel, I will tell you I am purchasing from the two big name oil companies who have told Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to put his demands where the sun don't shine and refused to be strong armed into signing agreements allowing Chavez majority control on their operations. Chavez is hell bent to socialize the oil drilling industry in Venezuela and insisting foreign owned companies forfeit majority control of the operations, thus allowing the oil drilling industry to go the way of the governmental takeover of the electric and telephone companies.
The oil companies taking a firm stand and pulling out are taking a huge monetary hit for infastructure investments already in place. For ConocoPhillips the operations in the Orinoco region were valued at $6 billion and are about 10% of the company's reserve base and 4% of its worldwide production, according to an article in the Financial Times.
Somewhere along the way in the late 1980's I read a book on investing your money in socially conscious companies. I took the philosophy, that you support companies each time you spend money on investments, and decided to apply it into everyday life. I make the effort to support companies and causes with my purchases on a routine basis. I'm not making waves as an individual consumer but if the majority of consumers would use their financial voice regularly, the statement is heard.
I shop at locally owned businesses whenever it is practical. I purchase products made in my state so that workers are supported. I love a locally owned book store located close to my house and go there when I can, instead of the big name chains with the coffee cafes in the back. It's just basic stuff here. I also have the chore of paying bills, so I am known to be, um, frugal. I'm always looking for a deal and shop chains if it makes more sense.
Socialization of private industries is not the way for economic prosperity of a country or for its people's freedoms. It's a good deal if you're the dictator. Chavez has shut down the free press in Venezuela and takes great pride in his mentoring under Castro. Now he is forging ahead with his partnership with Iran. Today it was announced that Iran and Venezuela will build methanol facilities together in hopes of injuring the American energy sector.
I know it's popular, and easy, to ridicule and complain about big oil in this country. The fact is that until we develop a workable energy policy we are beholding to some bad people for oil. About 60% of our oil is coming from foreign sources. Our refineries are working at maximum levels. The last refinery was built 30 years ago. A segment of our population is committed to lobbying against any new drilling in our waters. Those screaming for alternative energies to be developed have absolutely no idea of the costs involved. Do not kid yourself. The costs will be passed on to the consumer. And those same people are also the ones who don't want wind farms cluttering up their precious ocean views from their estates on the coasts.
The Dems in congress, looking more and more like socialists, are working to take away tax incentives on big oil. They have determined that too much money is being made. When did they get to judge? Why should oil companies continue to make investments when everything is being set to favor alternatives? The same Dems pouting now over profits are the same ones obstructing the administration's energy policies, the first policies sent to Congress for votes in 2002. To hear critics speak, you would think nothing has been done by the administration. President Bush has advocated hydrogen technology, wind energy, clean coal, and now nuclear energy. Ethanol, coming from corn, is in use and the price of our groceries from the strain of producing the crop are felt at the market.
How much are you willing to sacrifice for energy independence? Solar panels for homes are not affordable for the average citizen. Some grants are made and that is good. Insulating windows in your home is an energy saver. Smaller vehicles are easier on gas consumption. Even recycling, an issue I've been involved with on a local level in our former community since the 1980's, has proven cost inefficient in many areas, especially out west with less populated areas.
We all make choices. Supply and demand. If you feel justified in supporting taking away incentives in one industry, then to be fair, other profitable industries should be looked upon in the same manner. Entertainment? Trial lawyers? Lobbyists? Hedge Fund financial firms? High tech millionaires? When did privileged lawmakers, reaping financial rewards from their positions of power and spouses and children enriching family coffers, get to be the voice of how much money companies can make?
I'd be more worried about their fellow lawmakers who consort with Hugo Chavez and bow and scrape to him for his offer of low cost heating oil and accept the oil. It was nothing but a publicity stunt after he went to the U.N. and denounced the president as the great Satan.
Priorities, anyone?
Monday, July 02, 2007
Loopy Loo
In his farewell speech, Tony Blair spoke of his decision to support the invasion of Iraq. He spoke of the heaviness in his heart for the loss of life. He spoke of his belief that ordinary Muslims crave democracy.
"It is so comforting to people to say there was an error made in the planning. Someone didn't spot what was going to go on. That is not what has created the problem. What has created the problem is that the people we are fighting have decided to give us a problem. What they have decided is that if they can hang on long enough in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or anywhere else, then we will lose the will."
"If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world."
Blair has had his own version of Bush Derangement Syndrome in his own country. He's been called Bush's poodle and other ignorant slurs. Rational thinking people can look at him as a stalwart allied defender of freedom. As the world's superpower, the U.S. is looked upon as a force of good, a defender of those who can't defend themselves. Blair gets it. He, like President Bush, have been steadfast in their conviction to continue the fight against terrorism and the evildoers. Despite polling numbers dropping like stones, they forged on.
Tony Blair is a liberal politician. Remember what fast friends he and Clinton were? The press was all giddy with speculation of stories of how he and President Bush would be able to work together on the world stage. They were hoping, of course, for the two to not be able to work together.
Joe Lieberman is a liberal politician. He annually receives almost 100% approval ratings from the liberal special interest groups who rate politicians for votes cast on issues. He has found a new level of support among some of the American public, though, thanks to his consistent support of the war on terrorism. He was drummed out of his own party by the fringe element who have hijacked his party and ran as an Independent for his Senate re-election race. He won with a mighty majority of votes against the anti-war wealthy Democrat candidate, supported by the very Senate colleagues working with Lieberman in D.C., including his fellow Connecticut senator.
It is a shame this country could not unite on the war in Iraq due to political discourse in this country. It was the foreign policy written into law by Clinton in 1998 that Saddam be removed. Every vote has been all about political expediency. We are to the point where some decisions are being made for whatever withdrawal we can make from Iraq with the highest level of saving face abroad. It's a no-win situation. Instead of being open to the greater picture and how to fight terrorism globally with Iraq being the best option for the beginning of the fight, the Dems made a strategic decision in the very beginning, led by people like Teddy the swimmer Kennedy, to oppose the war and any steps made by the Bush administration. They bet on failure and were determined to pursue defeat. Still are to this day, with Schumer from New York saying the war will bring votes to Dem candidates in the upcoming election.
Kennedy, of course, the son of the former ambassador to the Court of St. James. The son of the ambassador who resigned rather than support FDR and Churchill in the efforts to beat back Hitler in WWII. He made speeches that America should just suck it up and face the fact that our glory days were over. He was aligned with Chamberlain instead of Churchill. He was on the wrong side of history. In 50 years, how will history show the defeatists of today?
So, instead of uniting and fighting for a freer world and supporting those fighting the war on the ground, we have politicians acting like ostriches. Blair pointed out that Great Britain is in danger of losing the war on terrorism unless society is willing to confront the threats. The recent attacks in the United Kingdom are proof that western countries must be on their toes.
London is chock full of surveillance cameras on the streets as a security measure. Think of how the ACLU would squawk about that. London, however, knows a thing or two about terrorism in their streets after years of bombing from the Irish and have not been squeamish about protection measures.
"When I'm trying to change the law in order to make it easier to deport people who engage in terrorism- the idea that that's an assault on hundreds of years of British civil liberties is completely absurd. Some of what is written on this is loopy-loo in its extremism."
Loopy loo? Now that's an excellent term.
Tony Blair will make a fine MidEast envoy. Someone strong must speak up for us, those of us who are not willing to surrender to Islamofacism. Gordon Browne was welcomed into office with a bombing in Glasgow, he being of Scottish heritage. He also is of the same mind as Blair. So far two doctors have been arrested in connection to the Glasgow bombing. The old canard of oh, it's poor disenfranchised Muslims who are resorting to terror out of frustration is long dead.
Best of luck, Mr. Blair
"It is so comforting to people to say there was an error made in the planning. Someone didn't spot what was going to go on. That is not what has created the problem. What has created the problem is that the people we are fighting have decided to give us a problem. What they have decided is that if they can hang on long enough in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or anywhere else, then we will lose the will."
"If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world."
Blair has had his own version of Bush Derangement Syndrome in his own country. He's been called Bush's poodle and other ignorant slurs. Rational thinking people can look at him as a stalwart allied defender of freedom. As the world's superpower, the U.S. is looked upon as a force of good, a defender of those who can't defend themselves. Blair gets it. He, like President Bush, have been steadfast in their conviction to continue the fight against terrorism and the evildoers. Despite polling numbers dropping like stones, they forged on.
Tony Blair is a liberal politician. Remember what fast friends he and Clinton were? The press was all giddy with speculation of stories of how he and President Bush would be able to work together on the world stage. They were hoping, of course, for the two to not be able to work together.
Joe Lieberman is a liberal politician. He annually receives almost 100% approval ratings from the liberal special interest groups who rate politicians for votes cast on issues. He has found a new level of support among some of the American public, though, thanks to his consistent support of the war on terrorism. He was drummed out of his own party by the fringe element who have hijacked his party and ran as an Independent for his Senate re-election race. He won with a mighty majority of votes against the anti-war wealthy Democrat candidate, supported by the very Senate colleagues working with Lieberman in D.C., including his fellow Connecticut senator.
It is a shame this country could not unite on the war in Iraq due to political discourse in this country. It was the foreign policy written into law by Clinton in 1998 that Saddam be removed. Every vote has been all about political expediency. We are to the point where some decisions are being made for whatever withdrawal we can make from Iraq with the highest level of saving face abroad. It's a no-win situation. Instead of being open to the greater picture and how to fight terrorism globally with Iraq being the best option for the beginning of the fight, the Dems made a strategic decision in the very beginning, led by people like Teddy the swimmer Kennedy, to oppose the war and any steps made by the Bush administration. They bet on failure and were determined to pursue defeat. Still are to this day, with Schumer from New York saying the war will bring votes to Dem candidates in the upcoming election.
Kennedy, of course, the son of the former ambassador to the Court of St. James. The son of the ambassador who resigned rather than support FDR and Churchill in the efforts to beat back Hitler in WWII. He made speeches that America should just suck it up and face the fact that our glory days were over. He was aligned with Chamberlain instead of Churchill. He was on the wrong side of history. In 50 years, how will history show the defeatists of today?
So, instead of uniting and fighting for a freer world and supporting those fighting the war on the ground, we have politicians acting like ostriches. Blair pointed out that Great Britain is in danger of losing the war on terrorism unless society is willing to confront the threats. The recent attacks in the United Kingdom are proof that western countries must be on their toes.
London is chock full of surveillance cameras on the streets as a security measure. Think of how the ACLU would squawk about that. London, however, knows a thing or two about terrorism in their streets after years of bombing from the Irish and have not been squeamish about protection measures.
"When I'm trying to change the law in order to make it easier to deport people who engage in terrorism- the idea that that's an assault on hundreds of years of British civil liberties is completely absurd. Some of what is written on this is loopy-loo in its extremism."
Loopy loo? Now that's an excellent term.
Tony Blair will make a fine MidEast envoy. Someone strong must speak up for us, those of us who are not willing to surrender to Islamofacism. Gordon Browne was welcomed into office with a bombing in Glasgow, he being of Scottish heritage. He also is of the same mind as Blair. So far two doctors have been arrested in connection to the Glasgow bombing. The old canard of oh, it's poor disenfranchised Muslims who are resorting to terror out of frustration is long dead.
Best of luck, Mr. Blair
Sunday, July 01, 2007
The Dark Continent
Anyone know that Laura Bush and Jenna went to Africa last week? You sure wouldn't know it from news accounts. I did see a small paragraph about it buried in the back of the front page section where the world affairs are blurbed in our paper. She was in Mali, Zambia, Mozambique and Senegal. Why? She was touting the U.S. initiative that provides $600 million to schools in Africa. President Bush has allotted more money to the continent of Africa than any other president in history.
Wait, Kenye said George Bush hates black people.
Remember every time Hill or Bill went to Africa with a plane load of people it was all the rage? Lots of footage of natives dancin' and performin' for the visitors?
Oh, yeah, Mrs. Bush also focused on the issue of AIDS in Africa. Programs to fight the disease and educate the people have also received double the amount of money of any previous administration.
Maybe if Mrs. Bush's handlers had insisted on a performance for the cameras by the locals...
Never mind.
Wait, Kenye said George Bush hates black people.
Remember every time Hill or Bill went to Africa with a plane load of people it was all the rage? Lots of footage of natives dancin' and performin' for the visitors?
Oh, yeah, Mrs. Bush also focused on the issue of AIDS in Africa. Programs to fight the disease and educate the people have also received double the amount of money of any previous administration.
Maybe if Mrs. Bush's handlers had insisted on a performance for the cameras by the locals...
Never mind.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Both Sides
I know John Edwards thinks the war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan but apparently he forgot to mention it to those behind today's attempted attacks on London. Do you think at this point of his failing campaign, again, any stunt will do? Anything at all to make some waves, catch a headline or two or 100?
Edwards can't seem to get things together anymore. It really started to unravel when the reports hit about his $400 haircuts. Then the hedge fund he did work with to 'fact find' about the causes of poverty in America and the netting of $500,000 for said fact finding. Then the think tank or foundation or whatever it is that he founded has associated itself with the Univ of N. Carolina with the intention of being a forum for studying poverty yet Edwards himself is the one who is reported to be the recipient of the money going there. Then at the debate before last night's he stated he wasn't sure what a rich person was. Note to John: look in the mirror. And finally the campaign, in connection with the Hardball show, arranges for Elizabeth to call in while Ann Coulter is the guest and harass her for alleged slights Coulter has made about her husband. What is she, his mommy? Since when did Hardball become a call-in show? When has Matthews ever been so non interrupting of a guest as he was with Edwards?
Now, say what you will about Ann Coulter. I don't care. She puts herself out there and is perfectly capable of taking care of herself from critics. But, from what I have read and heard her say, because you know I'm not Matthews audience and according to his ratings his audience is measly, her statements were taken out of context and also completely misinterpreted. Nothing new but Elizabeth Edwards is hardly the person to be chastising Coulter for not being nice. Please. Edwards slams Republicans as if we are knuckle dragging, drooling, neanderthals. She has a vicious mouth herself.
I know she is ill and I am sorry for that. I defended his and her decision to continue on the campaign trail after she was told her cancer has returned and spread when others said she should just go home and be with her kids. But, by remaining on the trail, she is subject to the same treatment as anyone else. She calls into a politically themed talking heads show, they allow her to hog all the time, Coulter is browbeat and not allowed to respond and how dare anyone say anything negative about Elizabeth Edwards? Get real.
Anyone calling for Bill Maher's head on a platter after saying if Dick Cheney had been assassinated in the attempt on his life in Afghanistan then we'd have less dead American soldiers? Yes, he was fired by ABC after his horrendously unthoughtful comment on the terrorists after 9/11 but since then he's been on HBO and has ratcheted up his hateful diatribes to new levels. His contract's been renewed.
Or Rosie O'Donnell and her display of mental illness concerning this administration, war and conspiracy theories? She left her tv contract early and now may be rewarded with her own show on another network.
Free speech works both ways. Anyone in this country is allowed to say any stupid, hurtful, obnoxious thing they want. We have soldiers in foreign lands risking their lives so that we may keep that right.
No, John Edwards, the war on terror is not just a bumper sticker slogan. No, Elizabeth Edwards, you do not get to act as if you are the moral authority on civil behavior while practicing otherwise yourself. Let's not forget the original two official campaign bloggers that were hired. Ugly, nasty talking women.
Both sides of the political aisle have their bomb throwers. The offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder.
Put that on a bumper sticker.
Edwards can't seem to get things together anymore. It really started to unravel when the reports hit about his $400 haircuts. Then the hedge fund he did work with to 'fact find' about the causes of poverty in America and the netting of $500,000 for said fact finding. Then the think tank or foundation or whatever it is that he founded has associated itself with the Univ of N. Carolina with the intention of being a forum for studying poverty yet Edwards himself is the one who is reported to be the recipient of the money going there. Then at the debate before last night's he stated he wasn't sure what a rich person was. Note to John: look in the mirror. And finally the campaign, in connection with the Hardball show, arranges for Elizabeth to call in while Ann Coulter is the guest and harass her for alleged slights Coulter has made about her husband. What is she, his mommy? Since when did Hardball become a call-in show? When has Matthews ever been so non interrupting of a guest as he was with Edwards?
Now, say what you will about Ann Coulter. I don't care. She puts herself out there and is perfectly capable of taking care of herself from critics. But, from what I have read and heard her say, because you know I'm not Matthews audience and according to his ratings his audience is measly, her statements were taken out of context and also completely misinterpreted. Nothing new but Elizabeth Edwards is hardly the person to be chastising Coulter for not being nice. Please. Edwards slams Republicans as if we are knuckle dragging, drooling, neanderthals. She has a vicious mouth herself.
I know she is ill and I am sorry for that. I defended his and her decision to continue on the campaign trail after she was told her cancer has returned and spread when others said she should just go home and be with her kids. But, by remaining on the trail, she is subject to the same treatment as anyone else. She calls into a politically themed talking heads show, they allow her to hog all the time, Coulter is browbeat and not allowed to respond and how dare anyone say anything negative about Elizabeth Edwards? Get real.
Anyone calling for Bill Maher's head on a platter after saying if Dick Cheney had been assassinated in the attempt on his life in Afghanistan then we'd have less dead American soldiers? Yes, he was fired by ABC after his horrendously unthoughtful comment on the terrorists after 9/11 but since then he's been on HBO and has ratcheted up his hateful diatribes to new levels. His contract's been renewed.
Or Rosie O'Donnell and her display of mental illness concerning this administration, war and conspiracy theories? She left her tv contract early and now may be rewarded with her own show on another network.
Free speech works both ways. Anyone in this country is allowed to say any stupid, hurtful, obnoxious thing they want. We have soldiers in foreign lands risking their lives so that we may keep that right.
No, John Edwards, the war on terror is not just a bumper sticker slogan. No, Elizabeth Edwards, you do not get to act as if you are the moral authority on civil behavior while practicing otherwise yourself. Let's not forget the original two official campaign bloggers that were hired. Ugly, nasty talking women.
Both sides of the political aisle have their bomb throwers. The offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder.
Put that on a bumper sticker.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Message Received
The vote was just taken on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the question of cloture on the immigration reform bill. I am relieved to say that the people were heard, loud and clear on this matter and the politicians voted accordingly. The bill is dead.
Loud people, pat yourself on the back. I will raise a glass this evening to toast all those taking the time and interest in our country to do the right thing and tell our elected officials how they wanted them to proceed.
Listen, when Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont votes the way I want the vote to go, you know it is one messed up piece of legislation. The final vote tally shows an odd mixture on both sides of the argument. It certainly proves one argument, though. It was not a Republican or Democrat vote. It's an American vote. It's a right and wrong kind of vote. It's a listen to the people who put you into office kind of vote.
I heard lots of entertaining speeches during this long, drawn out, tortured process. I heard Republicans in favor of this bill, a part of the Masters of the Universe pushing this legislation through without going through the proper committee process, I heard a Republican president ratcheting up the rhetoric and causing unnecessary damage to his own party, I heard those bowing to pressure from lobbies like The Chamber of Commerce or La Raza, and I heard the standard name calling by those not capable to offer up anything else in the debate. Those opposing the bill were called racist, xenophobic, isolationists.
I heard those willing to stand up and be heard on behalf of this country. This is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. People are storming our borders to get in, not get out. We are a nation of laws and a nation of cultural assimilation. The melting pot. It is a privilege for foreign born people to live here, not a right. If the very first decision you make is to disregard our laws and come into the country illegally, well, you forfeit your privileges.
What does it say to all those going through the legal process, waiting years and paying fees to do it the right way? How can you say you are bringing people out of the shadows when you say they are here doing work no one else will do? And what is the justification to bring along all the extended family of the trespasser? How are we to believe the border will be secured when it hasn't been since the last amnesty bill, rammed through by Teddy the swimmer Kennedy more than 20 years ago?
Harry Reid was so desperate to get the bill to the floor for a vote, to demand the senators vote for cloture, that he rambled on about phone calls and letters received at his offices, filled with hate they were, except for the one phone call from a constituent named Tommy. He was making the whole thing up, you could tell. It also showed the complete arrogance of Reid. He listens to a lone phone call, as if we believe he actually spoke on the phone to anyone calling about the bill, instead of all the rest who were opposed to the bill?
Reid stated, after the vote, that he would re-visit the legislation in the future. Good. But next time let's do it right, shall we? Let's do it in small bites and let's put it through the proper committees, too. I live in a border state. The problems of illegal immigrants are huge here. Go to an emergency room on a Friday night as I have and see what happens. Every piece of paper from the city and the school board is in English and in Spanish. Classified ads in the newspaper for employment ask for bilingual speakers on a routine basis. And by bilingual, they mean Spanish, not German or Chinese or Japanese or French or Italian. We are a sanctuary city. We have a taxpayer funded day center for illegal immigrants looking for work to gather at each morning and wait to be picked up for a job that day by employers using them as cheap, disposable labor.
President Bush, with low poll numbers, felt emboldened enough to say he'll see the critics at the bill signing. Senator Reid, with even lower poll numbers than the president, didn't see the reason to listen to the American people, of whom only 22% wanted the legislation to push on.
Message received.
Cheers.
Loud people, pat yourself on the back. I will raise a glass this evening to toast all those taking the time and interest in our country to do the right thing and tell our elected officials how they wanted them to proceed.
Listen, when Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont votes the way I want the vote to go, you know it is one messed up piece of legislation. The final vote tally shows an odd mixture on both sides of the argument. It certainly proves one argument, though. It was not a Republican or Democrat vote. It's an American vote. It's a right and wrong kind of vote. It's a listen to the people who put you into office kind of vote.
I heard lots of entertaining speeches during this long, drawn out, tortured process. I heard Republicans in favor of this bill, a part of the Masters of the Universe pushing this legislation through without going through the proper committee process, I heard a Republican president ratcheting up the rhetoric and causing unnecessary damage to his own party, I heard those bowing to pressure from lobbies like The Chamber of Commerce or La Raza, and I heard the standard name calling by those not capable to offer up anything else in the debate. Those opposing the bill were called racist, xenophobic, isolationists.
I heard those willing to stand up and be heard on behalf of this country. This is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. People are storming our borders to get in, not get out. We are a nation of laws and a nation of cultural assimilation. The melting pot. It is a privilege for foreign born people to live here, not a right. If the very first decision you make is to disregard our laws and come into the country illegally, well, you forfeit your privileges.
What does it say to all those going through the legal process, waiting years and paying fees to do it the right way? How can you say you are bringing people out of the shadows when you say they are here doing work no one else will do? And what is the justification to bring along all the extended family of the trespasser? How are we to believe the border will be secured when it hasn't been since the last amnesty bill, rammed through by Teddy the swimmer Kennedy more than 20 years ago?
Harry Reid was so desperate to get the bill to the floor for a vote, to demand the senators vote for cloture, that he rambled on about phone calls and letters received at his offices, filled with hate they were, except for the one phone call from a constituent named Tommy. He was making the whole thing up, you could tell. It also showed the complete arrogance of Reid. He listens to a lone phone call, as if we believe he actually spoke on the phone to anyone calling about the bill, instead of all the rest who were opposed to the bill?
Reid stated, after the vote, that he would re-visit the legislation in the future. Good. But next time let's do it right, shall we? Let's do it in small bites and let's put it through the proper committees, too. I live in a border state. The problems of illegal immigrants are huge here. Go to an emergency room on a Friday night as I have and see what happens. Every piece of paper from the city and the school board is in English and in Spanish. Classified ads in the newspaper for employment ask for bilingual speakers on a routine basis. And by bilingual, they mean Spanish, not German or Chinese or Japanese or French or Italian. We are a sanctuary city. We have a taxpayer funded day center for illegal immigrants looking for work to gather at each morning and wait to be picked up for a job that day by employers using them as cheap, disposable labor.
President Bush, with low poll numbers, felt emboldened enough to say he'll see the critics at the bill signing. Senator Reid, with even lower poll numbers than the president, didn't see the reason to listen to the American people, of whom only 22% wanted the legislation to push on.
Message received.
Cheers.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Loud is Good
Let me just say I watched a bit of Larry King last night to treat myself to the sight of Paul McCarthy and Ringo Starr together in Las Vegas for the Circue d'Soliel production of "Love" with the music of The Beatles. I am trying my best to figure out a way of getting there to see the show. Last night ramped up that desire. But, please, Larry King? Poor old man. He called Ringo, George, and his questions are just too stupid to bear. Do they need the money?, he asked. Do they pinch themselves over their legacy in the world of music?, he asked. It was embarrassing.
According to The Museum of Broadcast Communications, "The Fair Doctrine is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair."
The Fairness Doctrine is in play again within the halls of Congress. When the free market doesn't serve the left as successfully as they want, they feel entitled to use the government. Make a law to serve their interests.
"It's time to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine", said Senate Majority Whip Dick "gulags" Durbin. "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the FCC, not a law. Twice the Democrat controlled Congress tried to make it law, both times saw a veto. One veto was issued by President Reagan, the other by President George H.W. Bush. The focus now is talk radio.
John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Clinton, has a 'progressive' think tank in D.C. and it is partially funded by George Soros. The Center for American Progress received seed money from Soros to get underway. The center manages a radio studio, too, used by liberal commentator Bill Press, formerly of CNN.
The Center for American Progress has issued a report stating steps to essentially shut down conservative talk shows on talk radio. Technically it would shut down Air America, too, as it was all liberal, or 'progressive' all the time. The Center seems to have forgotten everyone's right to freedom of speech, even for conservatives. Since Air America has been a dismal failure then it must be time to go after conservative talk radio. They want to limit the number of radio stations one company can own. They want to put into place a quota system for women and minorities to own stations. Then they want the government to "require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting." There you go, the left will decide what you can broadcast and they'll charge you, too. What a deal.
The history of talk radio presents a clear picture. In the middle 1980's this new venue for conservatives to voice opinions and share common thoughts caught on in popularity. It was an untapped market and sorely needed. Previous to talk radio, the airwaves were completely dominated by one side of the political aisle and never questioned. This includes all three old networks on television, PBS, NPR, all major city newspapers, Hollywood power players, the weekly 'news' magazines, and the halls of higher learning.
Talk radio is successful because there is a market for it. It's just that simple. Even today, after all the protesting that, no, the press and media are not liberally orientated, a viewer will still find every network Sunday morning talk show, and CNN, dominated by liberal panelists. Typically there is, for instance, three or four panelists on the Russert show or the ABC show and only one will be conservative. Last week none of the panelists were conservatives on Russert's show. I guess since one was from the Wall Street Journal, that was the token conservative. But he's not. The only conservative section of the Wall Street Journal is the editorial page. The reporting is the same as elsewhere. I subscribe to it and read it all 6 days a week.
During the recent Take Back America Conference, the leaders were high fiving each other over the success of cowing the Democrat candidates running for President from participating in the debate set up by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus. Fox News is their sworn enemy because it is successful, twice as many viewers as CNN now, and because it shows both sides of a debate. I guess their real fatal flaw is that Fox News unabashedly supports the troops, especially in a time of war. Last I knew, soldiers came from both sides of the aisle.
As a conservative, the worse offense was committed by Senator Trent Lott last week when he declared that talk radio was in need of being 'dealt with' and causing problems. That would be because of the immigration reform debate. Too bad Lott forgot that the very talk radio shows he was turning on were the ones who so ardently supported him during the controversy over his remarks at Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. Many liberal groups are against the immigration reform bill, too, like labor unions. A recent poll shows only 22% of Americans are in support of passage of the bill.
So, Senator Durbin needs to hear from the American people, especially those like me that watch C-SPAN and catch him on the floor of the Senate accusing American soldiers of acting as Nazis and running gulags and now wants some revenge after it got unexpected publicity on Conservative outlets. Or maybe Diane Fienstein, who on Fox News Sunday said she is looking into legislation for the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe she doesn't like the coverage of her husband's sweet deals with defense contractors while she was on the committee overseeing the appropriations.
I don't think one venue is too many for an opposing viewpoint. Sometimes loud is good.
According to The Museum of Broadcast Communications, "The Fair Doctrine is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair."
The Fairness Doctrine is in play again within the halls of Congress. When the free market doesn't serve the left as successfully as they want, they feel entitled to use the government. Make a law to serve their interests.
"It's time to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine", said Senate Majority Whip Dick "gulags" Durbin. "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the FCC, not a law. Twice the Democrat controlled Congress tried to make it law, both times saw a veto. One veto was issued by President Reagan, the other by President George H.W. Bush. The focus now is talk radio.
John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Clinton, has a 'progressive' think tank in D.C. and it is partially funded by George Soros. The Center for American Progress received seed money from Soros to get underway. The center manages a radio studio, too, used by liberal commentator Bill Press, formerly of CNN.
The Center for American Progress has issued a report stating steps to essentially shut down conservative talk shows on talk radio. Technically it would shut down Air America, too, as it was all liberal, or 'progressive' all the time. The Center seems to have forgotten everyone's right to freedom of speech, even for conservatives. Since Air America has been a dismal failure then it must be time to go after conservative talk radio. They want to limit the number of radio stations one company can own. They want to put into place a quota system for women and minorities to own stations. Then they want the government to "require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting." There you go, the left will decide what you can broadcast and they'll charge you, too. What a deal.
The history of talk radio presents a clear picture. In the middle 1980's this new venue for conservatives to voice opinions and share common thoughts caught on in popularity. It was an untapped market and sorely needed. Previous to talk radio, the airwaves were completely dominated by one side of the political aisle and never questioned. This includes all three old networks on television, PBS, NPR, all major city newspapers, Hollywood power players, the weekly 'news' magazines, and the halls of higher learning.
Talk radio is successful because there is a market for it. It's just that simple. Even today, after all the protesting that, no, the press and media are not liberally orientated, a viewer will still find every network Sunday morning talk show, and CNN, dominated by liberal panelists. Typically there is, for instance, three or four panelists on the Russert show or the ABC show and only one will be conservative. Last week none of the panelists were conservatives on Russert's show. I guess since one was from the Wall Street Journal, that was the token conservative. But he's not. The only conservative section of the Wall Street Journal is the editorial page. The reporting is the same as elsewhere. I subscribe to it and read it all 6 days a week.
During the recent Take Back America Conference, the leaders were high fiving each other over the success of cowing the Democrat candidates running for President from participating in the debate set up by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus. Fox News is their sworn enemy because it is successful, twice as many viewers as CNN now, and because it shows both sides of a debate. I guess their real fatal flaw is that Fox News unabashedly supports the troops, especially in a time of war. Last I knew, soldiers came from both sides of the aisle.
As a conservative, the worse offense was committed by Senator Trent Lott last week when he declared that talk radio was in need of being 'dealt with' and causing problems. That would be because of the immigration reform debate. Too bad Lott forgot that the very talk radio shows he was turning on were the ones who so ardently supported him during the controversy over his remarks at Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. Many liberal groups are against the immigration reform bill, too, like labor unions. A recent poll shows only 22% of Americans are in support of passage of the bill.
So, Senator Durbin needs to hear from the American people, especially those like me that watch C-SPAN and catch him on the floor of the Senate accusing American soldiers of acting as Nazis and running gulags and now wants some revenge after it got unexpected publicity on Conservative outlets. Or maybe Diane Fienstein, who on Fox News Sunday said she is looking into legislation for the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe she doesn't like the coverage of her husband's sweet deals with defense contractors while she was on the committee overseeing the appropriations.
I don't think one venue is too many for an opposing viewpoint. Sometimes loud is good.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
It's All Coming Back To Me Now
What's more fun than hearing the clips of Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy singing in Spanish on a Spanish language radio station in L.A.? Remembering that Teddy was kicked out of Harvard University for 2 years for cheating on a Spanish final exam.
Juneteenth: On June 19, 1865, Major General Gordon Granger landed on Galveston Island with news that the war was over and slaves were free. The celebration of today's Americans commemorates the end of slavery in the United States.
Sometimes I read something so over the top that the statement lingers in my mind for days.
A couple of days ago I read some blogs no longer on my daily reading list. I read one commenting on a recent tragedy in Austin. During the Junteenth rally a child was hit by a car. A mob scene developed with the rally goers physically attacking the driver of the automobile and the passenger in the car. The driver was killed. The child was taken to a local hospital, treated and released. Fortunately the child's injuries were minor.
The driver wasn't committing a hit and run offense. It was an accident in a crowded situation. The driver immediately got out of the car to attend to the child before help arrived.
The driver was Hispanic. The mob was mostly black from the Juneteenth rally. Remember the L.A. riots some years ago when the motorist was pulled from his truck and beat to a pulp? Think that.
The Austin Police Department are downplaying the incident, for whatever reason.
This blogger I read states the problem is rampant hatred of Hispanics in our country. She states the incident brings to her mind thoughts of the Holocaust.
Wow. What history class did I miss? Maybe it's time for a field trip to a Holocaust museum. We have a magnificent one here in Houston that I can wholeheartedly recommend. Our museum tells the complete story of the Holocaust. I have learned facts both times I have visited. They also have exhibits of Rwanda's genocide. That would be in line with the Holocaust, historically speaking.
We might also want to remember that the Jews were murdered on the basis of their religion, not because of their country of origin. Blurring the lines doesn't move the debates forward.
No mention of this tragedy implied racial bias brought on the brutality. Does she assume black people are rounding up Hispanics and murdering them? No mention of any one's legal status in our country was brought into the report either.
It's a common alarmist comment, this Nazi stuff, isn't it? Particularly when a Republican is in the White House. Since his inauguration we have heard the constant thread of criticism that President Bush is a Nazi, conservatives are Nazis, brown shirts, marching in lockstep. All to conjure up thoughts of Nazi Germany.
As Jon Stewart of the Daily Show fame, no conservative, chastised a guest not so long ago, "No, only Hitler was Hitler".
Why claim it is all about rampant hate for Hispanics? Seems to me if the hatred was rampant, Nazi style, we would read of daily murders solely because the victim was originally from Mexico, central or South America.
I now remember why I stopped reading that blog.
Juneteenth: On June 19, 1865, Major General Gordon Granger landed on Galveston Island with news that the war was over and slaves were free. The celebration of today's Americans commemorates the end of slavery in the United States.
Sometimes I read something so over the top that the statement lingers in my mind for days.
A couple of days ago I read some blogs no longer on my daily reading list. I read one commenting on a recent tragedy in Austin. During the Junteenth rally a child was hit by a car. A mob scene developed with the rally goers physically attacking the driver of the automobile and the passenger in the car. The driver was killed. The child was taken to a local hospital, treated and released. Fortunately the child's injuries were minor.
The driver wasn't committing a hit and run offense. It was an accident in a crowded situation. The driver immediately got out of the car to attend to the child before help arrived.
The driver was Hispanic. The mob was mostly black from the Juneteenth rally. Remember the L.A. riots some years ago when the motorist was pulled from his truck and beat to a pulp? Think that.
The Austin Police Department are downplaying the incident, for whatever reason.
This blogger I read states the problem is rampant hatred of Hispanics in our country. She states the incident brings to her mind thoughts of the Holocaust.
Wow. What history class did I miss? Maybe it's time for a field trip to a Holocaust museum. We have a magnificent one here in Houston that I can wholeheartedly recommend. Our museum tells the complete story of the Holocaust. I have learned facts both times I have visited. They also have exhibits of Rwanda's genocide. That would be in line with the Holocaust, historically speaking.
We might also want to remember that the Jews were murdered on the basis of their religion, not because of their country of origin. Blurring the lines doesn't move the debates forward.
No mention of this tragedy implied racial bias brought on the brutality. Does she assume black people are rounding up Hispanics and murdering them? No mention of any one's legal status in our country was brought into the report either.
It's a common alarmist comment, this Nazi stuff, isn't it? Particularly when a Republican is in the White House. Since his inauguration we have heard the constant thread of criticism that President Bush is a Nazi, conservatives are Nazis, brown shirts, marching in lockstep. All to conjure up thoughts of Nazi Germany.
As Jon Stewart of the Daily Show fame, no conservative, chastised a guest not so long ago, "No, only Hitler was Hitler".
Why claim it is all about rampant hate for Hispanics? Seems to me if the hatred was rampant, Nazi style, we would read of daily murders solely because the victim was originally from Mexico, central or South America.
I now remember why I stopped reading that blog.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Mao Is My Bag
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go". So said T.S. Eliot.
Do you think ditzy actress Cameron Dias has learned that lesson the hard way now? Seems the world traveling Dias offended her Peruvian hosts in Machu Picchu when she chose to accessorize her fact finding wardrobe with an olive colored bag decorated with the Red Star design and Mao's quote "Serve the People" painted in Chinese. Oops. Cam, there to participate in a tv show celebrating Peru's culture, a Canadian production focusing on young community leaders in the world, evidently didn't do her homework on the filming location. The Peruvians suffered massacres, assassinations and bombings at the hands of insurgent Maoists, known as the Shining Path, back in the 1980 and 1990's. It is estimated that 70,000 were killed.
One of those sorta, kinda apologies was issued on her behalf yesterday via a statement emailed to the Associated Press. "I sincerely apologize to anyone I may have inadvertently offended. The bag was a purchase I made as a tourist in China and I did not realize the potentially hurtful nature of the slogan printed on it," she said. "I'm sorry for any people's pain and suffering and it was certainly never my intention to reopen what I now know is a painful wound in this country's history and wish for their continued healing," she said.
What a twit. Why is it so hard for public personalities to issue a true apology today? Why didn't she say, "I'm sorry, I had a mistake"? Instead it's all about if people are offended by how they took her accessory as a statement. She makes the people out to be mistaken by such a non-apology. She should have said she's sorry she's so ignorant. Traveling while stupid. She was truly surprised by the reaction of the human rights activists criticizing her.
Seems to me if she is going to travel the world with cameras to document her world culture education, she should at least read up a bit on the history of the culture she is to be observing. Seems like the point of learning about other cultures and the big ole world out there is to have her realize everything is not all about her. Her handlers should have advised her better on wardrobe.
The 'progressives' just don't get it. There is no glamour in Communism or Socialism. Both are systems of oppression and brutality for 'the people' and those very people enamoured with these governments are the ones who would be first to be persecuted. There is no freedom of expression or free speech in these governments.
The New York Times ran an article about the death of Vilma Espin, the wife of acting dictator of Cuba, Raul Castro. She's described as "an idealist socialite who fought alongside Fidel and Raul Castro in the mountains of Cuba and later, as Raul Castro's wife, became a prominent advocate of women's rights and a powerful member of the Cuban Communist Party". Wow. Cuba is not known as a place of any human rights at all and here we are to believe Espin promoted women's rights. Yeah, ok.
I have a suggestion to Cameron Dias, Danny Glover, Cindy Sheehan and all the other Che t-shirt wearing, Cuba vacationing, Chavez supporters: listen to Maria Conchita Alonzo. She's a celeb, they could relate on that level. She's a former Miss Venezuela. Her family escaped Cuba and Castro when she was a child, immigrating to Venezuela. She was the keynote speaker of the Latino Coalition 2007 Summit in D.C. earlier this year. She made headlines for criticizing Chavez for"anti-democratic practices and terrorist-encouraging rhetoric" when such a speech should have been taken for granted. I find it odd that sticking up for democracy and freedom for people is newsworthy in today's America. What does that say about her colleagues in Hollywood and the typical ugly talking celebrity?
Do you think ditzy actress Cameron Dias has learned that lesson the hard way now? Seems the world traveling Dias offended her Peruvian hosts in Machu Picchu when she chose to accessorize her fact finding wardrobe with an olive colored bag decorated with the Red Star design and Mao's quote "Serve the People" painted in Chinese. Oops. Cam, there to participate in a tv show celebrating Peru's culture, a Canadian production focusing on young community leaders in the world, evidently didn't do her homework on the filming location. The Peruvians suffered massacres, assassinations and bombings at the hands of insurgent Maoists, known as the Shining Path, back in the 1980 and 1990's. It is estimated that 70,000 were killed.
One of those sorta, kinda apologies was issued on her behalf yesterday via a statement emailed to the Associated Press. "I sincerely apologize to anyone I may have inadvertently offended. The bag was a purchase I made as a tourist in China and I did not realize the potentially hurtful nature of the slogan printed on it," she said. "I'm sorry for any people's pain and suffering and it was certainly never my intention to reopen what I now know is a painful wound in this country's history and wish for their continued healing," she said.
What a twit. Why is it so hard for public personalities to issue a true apology today? Why didn't she say, "I'm sorry, I had a mistake"? Instead it's all about if people are offended by how they took her accessory as a statement. She makes the people out to be mistaken by such a non-apology. She should have said she's sorry she's so ignorant. Traveling while stupid. She was truly surprised by the reaction of the human rights activists criticizing her.
Seems to me if she is going to travel the world with cameras to document her world culture education, she should at least read up a bit on the history of the culture she is to be observing. Seems like the point of learning about other cultures and the big ole world out there is to have her realize everything is not all about her. Her handlers should have advised her better on wardrobe.
The 'progressives' just don't get it. There is no glamour in Communism or Socialism. Both are systems of oppression and brutality for 'the people' and those very people enamoured with these governments are the ones who would be first to be persecuted. There is no freedom of expression or free speech in these governments.
The New York Times ran an article about the death of Vilma Espin, the wife of acting dictator of Cuba, Raul Castro. She's described as "an idealist socialite who fought alongside Fidel and Raul Castro in the mountains of Cuba and later, as Raul Castro's wife, became a prominent advocate of women's rights and a powerful member of the Cuban Communist Party". Wow. Cuba is not known as a place of any human rights at all and here we are to believe Espin promoted women's rights. Yeah, ok.
I have a suggestion to Cameron Dias, Danny Glover, Cindy Sheehan and all the other Che t-shirt wearing, Cuba vacationing, Chavez supporters: listen to Maria Conchita Alonzo. She's a celeb, they could relate on that level. She's a former Miss Venezuela. Her family escaped Cuba and Castro when she was a child, immigrating to Venezuela. She was the keynote speaker of the Latino Coalition 2007 Summit in D.C. earlier this year. She made headlines for criticizing Chavez for"anti-democratic practices and terrorist-encouraging rhetoric" when such a speech should have been taken for granted. I find it odd that sticking up for democracy and freedom for people is newsworthy in today's America. What does that say about her colleagues in Hollywood and the typical ugly talking celebrity?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
On Horseback
Have you heard of Texas EquuSearch? Most recently they were in the news for searching for the young pregnant mom in Ohio, now determined to be dead. They are originally from Galveston county here in Texas and the founder is Tim Miller.
Mr. Miller knows about searching for a missing loved one. He experienced the worst scenario himself, back in 1984. His daughter, Laura Miller was abducted and murdered at the age of 16.
Texas EquuSearch was started up in 2000 as a non-profit organization, supported solely by donations of members and surrounding communities. Their speciality is the ability to search wooded areas and rural settings on horseback. The volunteers are mostly experienced horse owners.
How cool is that? Searching for lost loved ones on horseback. They ask for no money from the families that ask for help. You may have heard of them during the Natalee Holloway search in Aruba. They have acquired more and more sophisticated equipment and can now do water searches using the latest technology.
Tim Miller is a soft spoken, humble man. He is a hero.
Mr. Miller knows about searching for a missing loved one. He experienced the worst scenario himself, back in 1984. His daughter, Laura Miller was abducted and murdered at the age of 16.
Texas EquuSearch was started up in 2000 as a non-profit organization, supported solely by donations of members and surrounding communities. Their speciality is the ability to search wooded areas and rural settings on horseback. The volunteers are mostly experienced horse owners.
How cool is that? Searching for lost loved ones on horseback. They ask for no money from the families that ask for help. You may have heard of them during the Natalee Holloway search in Aruba. They have acquired more and more sophisticated equipment and can now do water searches using the latest technology.
Tim Miller is a soft spoken, humble man. He is a hero.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Random
Janie, over at www.soundingforth.blogspot.com, tagged me with a meme asking for seven random facts about me. It's time to do it, since I said I would.
1. I am the oldest of 3 girls. My poor father. One sibling 16 months younger, one 7 years.
2. My major course of study in college was political science and my minor was in English.
3. I graduated from high school a semester early.
4. My first car was a baby blue colored Mercury comet, shared with my sister. Daddy paid.
5. I attended college in Atlanta.
6. My husband and I met on a blind date. Arranged by his mother.
7. I have a head full of useless knowledge. I love trivia challenges.
There ya go. I am supposed to tag seven people, but I'll just invite whoever wants to participate to jump right in. It's summer and seems lots of folks are taking breaks and blogging lightly.
The heat is on.
1. I am the oldest of 3 girls. My poor father. One sibling 16 months younger, one 7 years.
2. My major course of study in college was political science and my minor was in English.
3. I graduated from high school a semester early.
4. My first car was a baby blue colored Mercury comet, shared with my sister. Daddy paid.
5. I attended college in Atlanta.
6. My husband and I met on a blind date. Arranged by his mother.
7. I have a head full of useless knowledge. I love trivia challenges.
There ya go. I am supposed to tag seven people, but I'll just invite whoever wants to participate to jump right in. It's summer and seems lots of folks are taking breaks and blogging lightly.
The heat is on.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Lipstick on a Pig
I'm able to take the opportunity to send along kudos to a Democrat this morning and that is a pleasant surprise. I know it's a political calculation on the Senator's part, being from a fairly purple state and all, but I'll plunge ahead with a leap of faith.
Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri has spoken. She says she will vote against cloture on the Amnesty bill disguised as immigration reform. Good for her. Usually her face sends me reaching for the channel clicker as she doesn't come off very well when questioned in interviews. She doesn't think quickly on her feet, in my opinion. She comes off rather thick, as the Brits say. And don't get me started over the pandering with Michael J. Fox and stem cell research so that she could win her seat. Christopher Reeves will stand and walk again, remember that outlandish claim by the Dems supporting Hollywood's insistance on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Just say anything for a vote.
Congress has an approval rating at 14% now. An all time low in the polls. Even President Bush's numbers are better than that. And, you know, he's the devil.
We observe creepy voiced Harry Reid being led over the side of the cliff by allowing Chuckie Schumer to set the agenda and insist it's all about picking up additional seats in 2008. Reid continues to speak inappropriately for someone in a leadership position: the President is a liar remark made to school kids in Nevada, the war is lost, Republicans are obstructing legislation (THAT one so rich I can't believe it, after the past years of the Dems using obstruction as their only solution to anything), Republicans are only beholden to special interests (again so rich , as his 3 sons and one son in law are all lobbyists and have aided him on the very profitable land deals he's made in Nevada) and so forth.
Nancy Pelosi, aka Grandma Mimi, is having difficulties of her own. Remember her promise to clean the swamp? Well, instead of dealing with earmark reform, she has renamed them. She is demanding that adult children be allowed to travel with their congressional parent on the taxpayer's dime if the congress person's spouse isn't available to travel. There's the demand for the larger jet for her and all her family and staff to travel on back and forth to California. The claim that the congress will work full weeks is long gone, with a schedule for 2007 containing 20 weeks off and weeks of working Tuesday thru Thursday.
To be sure, the abuses are on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans were in control of Congress long enough for them to pick up the bad habits established by the 40 plus year dominance of the Democrats before the Republican revolution. A big difference, however, is when the Republicans came into power in 1994, Newt Gingrich had a ten point plan and accomplished the agenda in fairly short order. Changes were made in those first years and held. Grandma Mimi mimicked this with her own first 100 hours plan. So far the only accomplishment is raising the minimum wage.
The problem lies in the fact that for the Dems to take back Congress, they had to overreach on the promises and pledges. The American voter, starving for a change of course in D.C. bought into the whole routine and now they are waking up and putting facts together. Pelosi is not the sharpest intellect in D.C. She is kinda scary with all the plastic surgery, but that's just a personal observance for me. Her Armani suits are lovely. Yet she has overplayed her role. She feels entitled to do foreign policy diplomacy, traveling to countries like Syria, misrepresenting Israel's positions to its neighbors, and posing, smiling with murdering dictators. No, not George Bush. Real murdering dictators. A congressman from the midwest is now proposing legislation restricting in writing her ability to covort with the sworn killers of Americans and if she violates it, she'll be charged with violations worthy of the Logan Act. We have a State Department, thanks Grandma.
So, kudos to Senator McCaskill, for now. She has made the right decision for her country regardless of the true reasoning behind it. Standing up to Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy and his history of pushing immigration reform every 21 years, beginning in 1965, has brought us to the mess we're in now. Kennedy is consistently shown to be on the wrong side of history and this time is no different.
Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri has spoken. She says she will vote against cloture on the Amnesty bill disguised as immigration reform. Good for her. Usually her face sends me reaching for the channel clicker as she doesn't come off very well when questioned in interviews. She doesn't think quickly on her feet, in my opinion. She comes off rather thick, as the Brits say. And don't get me started over the pandering with Michael J. Fox and stem cell research so that she could win her seat. Christopher Reeves will stand and walk again, remember that outlandish claim by the Dems supporting Hollywood's insistance on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Just say anything for a vote.
Congress has an approval rating at 14% now. An all time low in the polls. Even President Bush's numbers are better than that. And, you know, he's the devil.
We observe creepy voiced Harry Reid being led over the side of the cliff by allowing Chuckie Schumer to set the agenda and insist it's all about picking up additional seats in 2008. Reid continues to speak inappropriately for someone in a leadership position: the President is a liar remark made to school kids in Nevada, the war is lost, Republicans are obstructing legislation (THAT one so rich I can't believe it, after the past years of the Dems using obstruction as their only solution to anything), Republicans are only beholden to special interests (again so rich , as his 3 sons and one son in law are all lobbyists and have aided him on the very profitable land deals he's made in Nevada) and so forth.
Nancy Pelosi, aka Grandma Mimi, is having difficulties of her own. Remember her promise to clean the swamp? Well, instead of dealing with earmark reform, she has renamed them. She is demanding that adult children be allowed to travel with their congressional parent on the taxpayer's dime if the congress person's spouse isn't available to travel. There's the demand for the larger jet for her and all her family and staff to travel on back and forth to California. The claim that the congress will work full weeks is long gone, with a schedule for 2007 containing 20 weeks off and weeks of working Tuesday thru Thursday.
To be sure, the abuses are on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans were in control of Congress long enough for them to pick up the bad habits established by the 40 plus year dominance of the Democrats before the Republican revolution. A big difference, however, is when the Republicans came into power in 1994, Newt Gingrich had a ten point plan and accomplished the agenda in fairly short order. Changes were made in those first years and held. Grandma Mimi mimicked this with her own first 100 hours plan. So far the only accomplishment is raising the minimum wage.
The problem lies in the fact that for the Dems to take back Congress, they had to overreach on the promises and pledges. The American voter, starving for a change of course in D.C. bought into the whole routine and now they are waking up and putting facts together. Pelosi is not the sharpest intellect in D.C. She is kinda scary with all the plastic surgery, but that's just a personal observance for me. Her Armani suits are lovely. Yet she has overplayed her role. She feels entitled to do foreign policy diplomacy, traveling to countries like Syria, misrepresenting Israel's positions to its neighbors, and posing, smiling with murdering dictators. No, not George Bush. Real murdering dictators. A congressman from the midwest is now proposing legislation restricting in writing her ability to covort with the sworn killers of Americans and if she violates it, she'll be charged with violations worthy of the Logan Act. We have a State Department, thanks Grandma.
So, kudos to Senator McCaskill, for now. She has made the right decision for her country regardless of the true reasoning behind it. Standing up to Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy and his history of pushing immigration reform every 21 years, beginning in 1965, has brought us to the mess we're in now. Kennedy is consistently shown to be on the wrong side of history and this time is no different.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Summer is Here
Happy First Day of Summer. And, yes, it's hot enough for me. I'll hear that question in passing about a bazillion times before summer's passed.
I saw Mickey Dolenz of The Monkees fame on tv the other day. He was being asked what he thought of "I'm a Believer" being in the running for the Hillary campaign theme song. He was definitely underwhelmed by that thought. He said "Believer" is a love song and had nothing to do with anything political. He suggested another song title and it was not a polite suggestion. Not a fan of her highness. The whole theme song concoction is lame. Just like her 'let's chat' campaign announcement. I don't care how much her Hollywood pals put her into warm and fuzzy staging, it doesn't fly with her.
And, she picked a song sung by a Canadian.
Yesterday, after President Bush's announcement that he will veto the embryonic stem cell legislation, Hillary said as President she will lift the ban. Problem with her promise is, of course, that there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research. Her husband, Slick Willie, put the ban on it though. President Bush lifted it. He said all along, however, that he will not support federal dollars going to it. There is lots of that research being done, with no fruitful results unfortunately, but it is done in the private sector, as it should be done.
The energy bill didn't get much steam under it in the Senate. Why? Well, it was all about adding taxes and taking tax breaks away from the evil Big Oil. All about goodies for special interest groups lobbying for alternative fuel sources. Evidently the other special interest groups are more in line with the Dems instead of the oil lobby. But don't ask Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy or John Kerry to allow the wind mills to be put offshore in the waters surrounding their estates. No, no, don't obstruct any of their lovely views.
Refinery capacity increases were knocked out of consideration. No new plans for oil drilling or production. The bill was never about solutions, or even any ideas, just taxes.
A company that was to establish the first large wind farm off the coast of Texas in the Gulf of Mexico has scrapped the project. Too expensive, not cost efficient at all. They will continue with plans for inland projects, though.
As Dogbert of the Dilbert comic strip said yesterday: "You can't save the earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice". It's always other people.
A new poll verifies previous poll results that 9 out of 10 journalists working within the media contribute money to Democrats. Shocking, I know. Good to see a little light shone on that, though. Bias, what bias?
BBC has been cited by its own researchers for being too biased against the war on terror, especially the war in Iraq, too accepting of current fads in popular thought, too accepting on the idea of global warming, too enthralled with celebrities and their opinions and too unwilling to get out of their own little comfort zones. Wow. Did you realize the BBC is taxpayer funded? Yep. It's like NPR or PBS. No bias there, either.
Do you think taxpayer funded conservative points of view would survive for any time at all? They think if they deny bias then it doesn't exist. Repeating false statements doesn't make them true, no matter how many times the statements are repeated.
According to WWLTV.com, Ellenese Brooks-Simms, the former Orleans Parish School Board President, has pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from a local businessman to promote and approve software education programs in the parish schools. The accepted bribes amount to $140,000 and the unnamed businessman received a contract worth $900,000 for the program. Both of them used several bank accounts to mask the transactions.
The unnamed businessman? According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, sources claim it is Mose Jefferson, brother of Congressman William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson now under indictment for bribery in relationship to Nigerian business dealings.
He ain't heavy, he's his brother.
I saw Mickey Dolenz of The Monkees fame on tv the other day. He was being asked what he thought of "I'm a Believer" being in the running for the Hillary campaign theme song. He was definitely underwhelmed by that thought. He said "Believer" is a love song and had nothing to do with anything political. He suggested another song title and it was not a polite suggestion. Not a fan of her highness. The whole theme song concoction is lame. Just like her 'let's chat' campaign announcement. I don't care how much her Hollywood pals put her into warm and fuzzy staging, it doesn't fly with her.
And, she picked a song sung by a Canadian.
Yesterday, after President Bush's announcement that he will veto the embryonic stem cell legislation, Hillary said as President she will lift the ban. Problem with her promise is, of course, that there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research. Her husband, Slick Willie, put the ban on it though. President Bush lifted it. He said all along, however, that he will not support federal dollars going to it. There is lots of that research being done, with no fruitful results unfortunately, but it is done in the private sector, as it should be done.
The energy bill didn't get much steam under it in the Senate. Why? Well, it was all about adding taxes and taking tax breaks away from the evil Big Oil. All about goodies for special interest groups lobbying for alternative fuel sources. Evidently the other special interest groups are more in line with the Dems instead of the oil lobby. But don't ask Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy or John Kerry to allow the wind mills to be put offshore in the waters surrounding their estates. No, no, don't obstruct any of their lovely views.
Refinery capacity increases were knocked out of consideration. No new plans for oil drilling or production. The bill was never about solutions, or even any ideas, just taxes.
A company that was to establish the first large wind farm off the coast of Texas in the Gulf of Mexico has scrapped the project. Too expensive, not cost efficient at all. They will continue with plans for inland projects, though.
As Dogbert of the Dilbert comic strip said yesterday: "You can't save the earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice". It's always other people.
A new poll verifies previous poll results that 9 out of 10 journalists working within the media contribute money to Democrats. Shocking, I know. Good to see a little light shone on that, though. Bias, what bias?
BBC has been cited by its own researchers for being too biased against the war on terror, especially the war in Iraq, too accepting of current fads in popular thought, too accepting on the idea of global warming, too enthralled with celebrities and their opinions and too unwilling to get out of their own little comfort zones. Wow. Did you realize the BBC is taxpayer funded? Yep. It's like NPR or PBS. No bias there, either.
Do you think taxpayer funded conservative points of view would survive for any time at all? They think if they deny bias then it doesn't exist. Repeating false statements doesn't make them true, no matter how many times the statements are repeated.
According to WWLTV.com, Ellenese Brooks-Simms, the former Orleans Parish School Board President, has pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from a local businessman to promote and approve software education programs in the parish schools. The accepted bribes amount to $140,000 and the unnamed businessman received a contract worth $900,000 for the program. Both of them used several bank accounts to mask the transactions.
The unnamed businessman? According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, sources claim it is Mose Jefferson, brother of Congressman William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson now under indictment for bribery in relationship to Nigerian business dealings.
He ain't heavy, he's his brother.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Choices
Life is full of choices, isn't it? Every day, from start to finish, we all make choices in the form of decisions made and actions taken, conscious or not. Sometimes the choices made are difficult, take a little pondering. Sometimes the choice is an easy one and leaps out at you with very little thought.
Yesterday, for lunch, my husband found a little place serving Vietnamese food. He tried it and enjoyed it, mostly because tripe was on the menu. To me, that is a disgusting choice of food. He, on the other hand, enjoys it from time to time. As a frequent world traveler, it behooves him to be an adventurous eater.
My husband is a person who has never met a stranger in his life. He enjoys striking up a conversation with whomever is sitting next to him, anyone within polite conversing range. Yesterday at this little lunch place he was seated next to a table of three men. Turns out one of the men was a soldier, about to be re-deployed to Afghanistan. When it was time to pay the bill for the table, my husband voiced a desire to buy the soldier his lunch. He politely thanked him and refused the offer. His friends had it taken care of, in one bill for the table combined. He was surprised my husband wanted to buy a stranger's lunch. My husband told the soldier it was the very least he could do for someone traveling across the globe for his family, a second time. The very least.
Good choice.
Some news continues of the travels of failed former president, Jimma Carter. Seems he's been in Ireland, trolling for funds for his foundation. He scored an agreement from the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs to provide $600,000 euros over the next three years to support "election monitoring and democratic reform." To secure the financial windfall, Carter was happy to bash our country abroad, again. While still at war, Carter resorted to the bad choice of claiming the U.S. has lost its leadership in human rights post 9/11. This from the man who brought about our current predicament in the war on terror by his poor choices while in the oval office.
He bashed the Bush administration who is showing support for Fatah in Palestine over Hamas. He supports Hamas. This is a difficult choice for our country but the lesser of two evils. That is what some difficult decisions amount to in life. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
Carter, as usual, chose wrong. Again.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, as is Fatah. Hamas, however, boldly continues to state that the party will never, never recognize Israel and will continue to hold the destruction of Israel as its mission. The U.S. is left to offer help to Fatah, and President Abbas, in order to help protect Israel. The choice was helped along, certainly, as stories of the brutality of the Hamas thugs filtered out in the media. The thugs were, among other actions, forcing boys as young as 12 to the roof of a multi-story building with bound hands and taped mouths and pushing them to death. They are not troubled by killing their own fellow Palestinians. It's all about their blood thirsty quest for taking over the territory and then destroying Israel, with the help of their partners in Syria and Iran.
The choice becomes quite easy if Israel is threatened next.
I listened to two different experts in foreign affairs last night. Both said basically the same thing. One was a former terrorist now living in the U.S. and writing about the issue of peace in the region. The other was an Israeli diplomat. The conclusion both came to in these separate interviews was the same. Sometimes the enemy of freedom must be killed. As with the new offensive in Iraq, the enemy must be killed, no longer just pushed out of the area of conflict. Just killed. It's harsh to our ears, I know, but it is war and we must fight to win. Anything less is a waste of blood and treasure. We must let the soldiers do their job. Get out of their way and let them go. All the politically correct waging of war is costing too many lives.
Michael Yon has a new post up on his site. Still embedded in Iraq, he knew of the current new campaign in Iraq to kill al-Queda in the outlying areas of Baghdad before it began. He was given a heads up, if you will. He chose to honor his professional and personal commitment to the soldiers and not report on the mission until it was already underway. His kind of integrity is a welcome change of pace from those in the media bound and determined to support our defeat in Iraq. He is convinced from previous missions in Iraq that General Petraeus is the man for the mission. He points out the Defense Department's previous errors and missed opportunities and how Petraeus should have been in charge a long time ago. He thinks Petraeus can still be successful there, even with all the cards stacked against him both there and at home. It's a fascinating read. Go check it out.
Yesterday, for lunch, my husband found a little place serving Vietnamese food. He tried it and enjoyed it, mostly because tripe was on the menu. To me, that is a disgusting choice of food. He, on the other hand, enjoys it from time to time. As a frequent world traveler, it behooves him to be an adventurous eater.
My husband is a person who has never met a stranger in his life. He enjoys striking up a conversation with whomever is sitting next to him, anyone within polite conversing range. Yesterday at this little lunch place he was seated next to a table of three men. Turns out one of the men was a soldier, about to be re-deployed to Afghanistan. When it was time to pay the bill for the table, my husband voiced a desire to buy the soldier his lunch. He politely thanked him and refused the offer. His friends had it taken care of, in one bill for the table combined. He was surprised my husband wanted to buy a stranger's lunch. My husband told the soldier it was the very least he could do for someone traveling across the globe for his family, a second time. The very least.
Good choice.
Some news continues of the travels of failed former president, Jimma Carter. Seems he's been in Ireland, trolling for funds for his foundation. He scored an agreement from the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs to provide $600,000 euros over the next three years to support "election monitoring and democratic reform." To secure the financial windfall, Carter was happy to bash our country abroad, again. While still at war, Carter resorted to the bad choice of claiming the U.S. has lost its leadership in human rights post 9/11. This from the man who brought about our current predicament in the war on terror by his poor choices while in the oval office.
He bashed the Bush administration who is showing support for Fatah in Palestine over Hamas. He supports Hamas. This is a difficult choice for our country but the lesser of two evils. That is what some difficult decisions amount to in life. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
Carter, as usual, chose wrong. Again.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, as is Fatah. Hamas, however, boldly continues to state that the party will never, never recognize Israel and will continue to hold the destruction of Israel as its mission. The U.S. is left to offer help to Fatah, and President Abbas, in order to help protect Israel. The choice was helped along, certainly, as stories of the brutality of the Hamas thugs filtered out in the media. The thugs were, among other actions, forcing boys as young as 12 to the roof of a multi-story building with bound hands and taped mouths and pushing them to death. They are not troubled by killing their own fellow Palestinians. It's all about their blood thirsty quest for taking over the territory and then destroying Israel, with the help of their partners in Syria and Iran.
The choice becomes quite easy if Israel is threatened next.
I listened to two different experts in foreign affairs last night. Both said basically the same thing. One was a former terrorist now living in the U.S. and writing about the issue of peace in the region. The other was an Israeli diplomat. The conclusion both came to in these separate interviews was the same. Sometimes the enemy of freedom must be killed. As with the new offensive in Iraq, the enemy must be killed, no longer just pushed out of the area of conflict. Just killed. It's harsh to our ears, I know, but it is war and we must fight to win. Anything less is a waste of blood and treasure. We must let the soldiers do their job. Get out of their way and let them go. All the politically correct waging of war is costing too many lives.
Michael Yon has a new post up on his site. Still embedded in Iraq, he knew of the current new campaign in Iraq to kill al-Queda in the outlying areas of Baghdad before it began. He was given a heads up, if you will. He chose to honor his professional and personal commitment to the soldiers and not report on the mission until it was already underway. His kind of integrity is a welcome change of pace from those in the media bound and determined to support our defeat in Iraq. He is convinced from previous missions in Iraq that General Petraeus is the man for the mission. He points out the Defense Department's previous errors and missed opportunities and how Petraeus should have been in charge a long time ago. He thinks Petraeus can still be successful there, even with all the cards stacked against him both there and at home. It's a fascinating read. Go check it out.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Helpful Helpers
It's tough getting good staff these days, isn't it? Angelina Jolie blaming her representatives for denying some of the members of the press access to her wonderful self while she promotes a story of a journalist who died for freedom of the press, but no one said she was educated. And, I'm quite sure she never expected to be criticized for her vanity and arrogance. Senator Webb blaming his aide for the gun incident at the Capitol, finally coming clean that of course it was his gun, after he let the aide sit in jail over the incident. After he remained silent as to his ownership of the gun. There's a stand up kind of guy.
The problem comes into play with people in the spotlight, doing good deeds, when they start to feel entitled. Entitled to more. More perks, if you will. Elected officials become arrogant, expecting monetary gain, world travel and special treatment. They forget they work for us, the taxpayer. Once out of power, there are book deals, corporate boards on which to sit, lobbying firms enticing you with sweet employment packages.
Celebrities forget the very people they criticize may have purchased tickets to their movies which made them incredibly wealthy and free to live the good life. Do they really think only those on one side of the political aisle buy tickets to movies?
President Clinton, starting off retirement from public office as a man in debt, not even owning his own home, and now is worth about $50 million. Before they were officially out of the White House, Hillary had the commitment of an $8 million book deal and Bill's promise to put her into the Senate, then the White House herself. So far so good. She feels entitled to all of it because Bill has been a public servant all of his professional life. That means, of course, living off taxpayers but never mind. She even became a partner at the law firm in Little Rock because of his career. Her claim of intellectual superiority? Not so much. Like everything else of these two people, all hype. Or, as is said in Texas, all hat no cattle.
Hillary's current outrage against 'big business', like big oil? Well, seems she and Bill have lots of millions worth of stock in companies like WalMart, oil, and pharmaceuticals. Yeah, we're shocked. WalMart, on whose board she sat for many years, collecting payment for her service to them, is now attacked by the likes of her as an unfit employer. The oil companies she now insists do not deserve tax breaks to continue operating? Lots of money made of them by these two. And I wonder how Hillary's socialized medicine works into her drug stocks?
Barack Obama, showing his rookie status again, claims he won't do negative campaigning because he's all about a new tone in Washington. Then a commercial is released where he refers to Hillary as the senator from India because of her campaign contributions. Oops. A little negative, not to mention racist and is now on the outs with Indian voters.
He blames his staff for the commercial.
It's just hard to get good help these days.
The problem comes into play with people in the spotlight, doing good deeds, when they start to feel entitled. Entitled to more. More perks, if you will. Elected officials become arrogant, expecting monetary gain, world travel and special treatment. They forget they work for us, the taxpayer. Once out of power, there are book deals, corporate boards on which to sit, lobbying firms enticing you with sweet employment packages.
Celebrities forget the very people they criticize may have purchased tickets to their movies which made them incredibly wealthy and free to live the good life. Do they really think only those on one side of the political aisle buy tickets to movies?
President Clinton, starting off retirement from public office as a man in debt, not even owning his own home, and now is worth about $50 million. Before they were officially out of the White House, Hillary had the commitment of an $8 million book deal and Bill's promise to put her into the Senate, then the White House herself. So far so good. She feels entitled to all of it because Bill has been a public servant all of his professional life. That means, of course, living off taxpayers but never mind. She even became a partner at the law firm in Little Rock because of his career. Her claim of intellectual superiority? Not so much. Like everything else of these two people, all hype. Or, as is said in Texas, all hat no cattle.
Hillary's current outrage against 'big business', like big oil? Well, seems she and Bill have lots of millions worth of stock in companies like WalMart, oil, and pharmaceuticals. Yeah, we're shocked. WalMart, on whose board she sat for many years, collecting payment for her service to them, is now attacked by the likes of her as an unfit employer. The oil companies she now insists do not deserve tax breaks to continue operating? Lots of money made of them by these two. And I wonder how Hillary's socialized medicine works into her drug stocks?
Barack Obama, showing his rookie status again, claims he won't do negative campaigning because he's all about a new tone in Washington. Then a commercial is released where he refers to Hillary as the senator from India because of her campaign contributions. Oops. A little negative, not to mention racist and is now on the outs with Indian voters.
He blames his staff for the commercial.
It's just hard to get good help these days.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Water, Water Everywhere
Every single day for the past week has brought afternoon and early evening thunderstorms. We've had intense thunder, hail, lightning, streets flooding, the whole enchilada. We have a continuance of this pattern to look forward to again this week.
Yes, I am on sinus medication.
We stayed in for Father's Day due to the nastiness outdoors. I grilled steaks and the day was very quiet.
The son began a summer school class this morning. It's a concentrated class, which means he sits there from 8:00 to 1:00 and finishes the course in 2 weeks time. It's the second semester pre-cal course. Poor kid got my math genes. His father is a math and science genius so he doesn't relate to us at all about this.
Next month he makes up a Chemistry class. Don't go there.
The immigration reform bill will be back in play in the upcoming days. It's been interesting watching and listening to those on both sides. Late last week Senator Trent Lott, D-MS, decided to be the conservative basher du jour. He decided to bash talk radio and it's listeners. He claims talk radio is running the country. Would that it were true. Too bad he's forgotten the same talk radio hosts he is busy criticizing now are the same who passionately defended him when he made his politically incorrect, albeit innocent, remark during the birthday gathering of Strom Thurmond. More importantly, too bad he's forgotten for whom he works.
Conservatives are not against immigration. Conservatives are against illegal immigration. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Follow the laws all ready in place. Close and secure the borders, both north and south. Distribute tamper proof id cards for all those entering this country.
Simply know who is here.
The argument I don't understand is the one stating we have to let the illegal immigrants come out of the shadows. Well, I don't know about where you live, but here everyone is quite free to roam in the sunlight.
This massive legislation is just wrong. It was developed in secret by a self-appointed group of Senators headed up by Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy. That alone is a big enough red flag for me. The committee process was abandoned. Amendments on the Senate floor were curtailed, especially by the Republican minority.
It's just wrong.
The fines will not be paid. The touch back provision requiring them to go back to the home country for a year is a joke. The paperwork for those applying the legal way is so backed up that a massive onset of more paperwork will further muck up the system. It would be better to simply do nothing than to enact all that is in this legislation. We should take it a step at a time.
One foot in front of the other. Slow and steady.
Yes, I am on sinus medication.
We stayed in for Father's Day due to the nastiness outdoors. I grilled steaks and the day was very quiet.
The son began a summer school class this morning. It's a concentrated class, which means he sits there from 8:00 to 1:00 and finishes the course in 2 weeks time. It's the second semester pre-cal course. Poor kid got my math genes. His father is a math and science genius so he doesn't relate to us at all about this.
Next month he makes up a Chemistry class. Don't go there.
The immigration reform bill will be back in play in the upcoming days. It's been interesting watching and listening to those on both sides. Late last week Senator Trent Lott, D-MS, decided to be the conservative basher du jour. He decided to bash talk radio and it's listeners. He claims talk radio is running the country. Would that it were true. Too bad he's forgotten the same talk radio hosts he is busy criticizing now are the same who passionately defended him when he made his politically incorrect, albeit innocent, remark during the birthday gathering of Strom Thurmond. More importantly, too bad he's forgotten for whom he works.
Conservatives are not against immigration. Conservatives are against illegal immigration. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Follow the laws all ready in place. Close and secure the borders, both north and south. Distribute tamper proof id cards for all those entering this country.
Simply know who is here.
The argument I don't understand is the one stating we have to let the illegal immigrants come out of the shadows. Well, I don't know about where you live, but here everyone is quite free to roam in the sunlight.
This massive legislation is just wrong. It was developed in secret by a self-appointed group of Senators headed up by Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy. That alone is a big enough red flag for me. The committee process was abandoned. Amendments on the Senate floor were curtailed, especially by the Republican minority.
It's just wrong.
The fines will not be paid. The touch back provision requiring them to go back to the home country for a year is a joke. The paperwork for those applying the legal way is so backed up that a massive onset of more paperwork will further muck up the system. It would be better to simply do nothing than to enact all that is in this legislation. We should take it a step at a time.
One foot in front of the other. Slow and steady.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Cake and Justice
Yesterday, my birthday not wedding anniversary!, was a good day. Chocolate cake with chocolate butter cream frosting and the old fashioned kind of roses, one pink one blue, and piping for decoration. Yellow piping. It's delicious and I intend to eat more tonight. I can hear my arteries slamming shut.
This afternoon I went to lunch with my dear childhood friend. Her treat. I ate the comfort food I cherish best, fried Gulf shrimp. Complimentary bread pudding for the birthday girl from the restaurant.
Does life get any better, in the culinary way?
Tomorrow, Father's Day, we will take the husband out for the steak of his choice. I hope we can all decide on a movie to go to see. I'm voting for the new Nancy Drew movie, my childhood hero, but I am meeting much resistance. Guys.
I was watching as the decision to disbar Mike Nifong, of Duke Lacrosse players fame, came down. I think that's the least he deserves. He's been proven to be the very worst of politicians. He was using his venue, the criminal justice system, as his campaign strategy.
Who isn't impressed with the young men now forever tagged with the notoriety of this case? They have shown themselves to be well-spoken, intelligent and graceful under fire. Their parents have done a fine job with them.
So, where's the apology from the President of Duke University? Where's the apology from the 88 Duke professors who took out the full page ad in the newspaper to declare the young men guilty before they even had a day in court? There's the downside to the liberal takeover of today's college campuses in full view. Blame the students. Why? Because they were white, because they were athletic, because they were from successful families? Was the woman automatically innocent because she was black, because she was a poor, single mother stripping for a living? Why was she the immediate sympathetic victim? Her partner in stripping immediately came out saying the alleged victim was lying about it all.
But it was a political season for the DA and he was to milk it within the black community. A Democrat, he was counting on the black community to help him in a narrowly contested political campaign. His opponent, a popular woman lawyer, was neck and neck with Nifong in the polls right up to the election. Nifong used race, class, and gender wedges and won the election.
And, what does that say about the black community? Blindly vote for a Democrat no matter what? Let the party continue to take you for granted and use you for votes?
And when is enough enough with charlatans like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Both run down to stir the pot. Jackson declares he'll pay for the stripper's college education. The New Black Panther party goes there and yells death threats to the students, trying to incite violence. How does any of this move the racial problems in this country forward?
I know better than to wait for those apologies to run in a newspaper.
This afternoon I went to lunch with my dear childhood friend. Her treat. I ate the comfort food I cherish best, fried Gulf shrimp. Complimentary bread pudding for the birthday girl from the restaurant.
Does life get any better, in the culinary way?
Tomorrow, Father's Day, we will take the husband out for the steak of his choice. I hope we can all decide on a movie to go to see. I'm voting for the new Nancy Drew movie, my childhood hero, but I am meeting much resistance. Guys.
I was watching as the decision to disbar Mike Nifong, of Duke Lacrosse players fame, came down. I think that's the least he deserves. He's been proven to be the very worst of politicians. He was using his venue, the criminal justice system, as his campaign strategy.
Who isn't impressed with the young men now forever tagged with the notoriety of this case? They have shown themselves to be well-spoken, intelligent and graceful under fire. Their parents have done a fine job with them.
So, where's the apology from the President of Duke University? Where's the apology from the 88 Duke professors who took out the full page ad in the newspaper to declare the young men guilty before they even had a day in court? There's the downside to the liberal takeover of today's college campuses in full view. Blame the students. Why? Because they were white, because they were athletic, because they were from successful families? Was the woman automatically innocent because she was black, because she was a poor, single mother stripping for a living? Why was she the immediate sympathetic victim? Her partner in stripping immediately came out saying the alleged victim was lying about it all.
But it was a political season for the DA and he was to milk it within the black community. A Democrat, he was counting on the black community to help him in a narrowly contested political campaign. His opponent, a popular woman lawyer, was neck and neck with Nifong in the polls right up to the election. Nifong used race, class, and gender wedges and won the election.
And, what does that say about the black community? Blindly vote for a Democrat no matter what? Let the party continue to take you for granted and use you for votes?
And when is enough enough with charlatans like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Both run down to stir the pot. Jackson declares he'll pay for the stripper's college education. The New Black Panther party goes there and yells death threats to the students, trying to incite violence. How does any of this move the racial problems in this country forward?
I know better than to wait for those apologies to run in a newspaper.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
A Salute to Old Glory
Happy Flag Day. "What the flag means to me" was the name of an essay for school children in Wisconsin in 1885. That was the beginning of a movement to declare a day for celebrating our national symbol of freedom, our American flag. In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson declared it a national day of observance. Why was June 14 chosen? On June 14, 1777 Congress determined how the American flag would look, that's why.
We fly Old Glory everyday, out in front of our house. I've done it since 9/11/01, when our world changed. I have an American flag that was flown over an American military base in Afghanistan and it is folded and being kept for our son to have to remember our military response. A certificate commemorating it is signed by the military members who sent it to us. It is priceless.
Sometimes a little worse for the wear and tear, our flag has withstood much. It has even suffered the indignity of hateful sorts burning it in protest. Some of us have felt the impact of the flag being a site for sore eyes in a foreign land. The haters usually don't have much experience of world travel or they would appreciate what the American flag truly represents.
Lately I've pondered some of the differences of opinions about the freedoms afforded to Americans. Some declare with certainty that our freedoms, our 'rights', have diminished during this time in history. I don't fall victim to this line of thought. I think necessary steps have been taken while preserving our status as the most free of nations. I expect no less.
Yesterday I saw a reporter from a large liberal newspaper in the northeast discussing her thoughts on Gitmo and the recent ruling of the 4th Circuit Court on the scaling back of Executive decisions made concerning detainees. The one ruling on the person of suspicion being held in South Carolina was the topic briefly. This person, it was ruled, must be charged or released. I think this ruling will be overturned on appeal as the other two such rulings have been, but the 'reporter' didn't bother to include that line of thought in her answers to questions. She obviously is of the opinion that detaining enemies of our country, those who plot to kill us, is too extreme. I was struck by her lack of understanding of the dangers faced by our country. No, she hadn't even been to Gitmo yet she didn't hesitate to call for its closing and to criticize its operations. Nevermind that hundreds of news organizations from around the world that have gone there and determined it is run with decency and humanitarian standards. Nevermind that the International Red Cross visits regularly and determined it is operating properly for human rights.
This reporter was smug and snide in her remarks and did not present herself in a good light. The very American soldiers that she criticized, yes, the soldiers, not the Administration alone, that continue to serve and allow her the freedom to criticize them, don't have the luxury of sitting in an air conditioned tv studio and bloviating on how the country should be run.
Does she stop and show a little respect on Flag Day, I wonder?
I've pondered a contrast in generations of Hollywood elites recently. A father/daughter of Hollywood, Jon Voight and Angelina Jolie, are a case to study. The father totally gets the struggles facing our country and the dangers of the post 9/11 world. He supports the war on terror. He is not afraid to speak up.
The daughter, however, is of another way of thinking. She is of the opinion her freedoms outweigh the freedoms of others. She's special. She flies around the globe, buying children from different countries for her own little rainbow coalition to prove how wonderful she is, yet, when given a project like the Danny Pearl story, she shows her true colors. You may remember Pearl was beheaded at the hands of Islamofacists in Pakistan while researching the story of the Shoe Bomber for the Wall Street Journal. His wife, a beautiful French woman of mixed ethnic heritage, wrote a book about her husband and their life together as journalists out in the world. Jolie plays the wife, Mariana, and focuses on the love story aspect of their life together.
However, at the premiere, she demanded Fox News not be allowed to be in attendance and that the other journalists and entertainment writers sign contracts to only ask about the movie, not her personal life. Sign contracts. No said to the entertainment writer for the most watched cable news network. What's she afraid of? Her precious Brad Pitt was there as executive producer and didn't voice opposition to such tyranny. I understand the AP and others just took a pass. Good for them, for a change.
I would guess from such arrogant behavior, Jolie is a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine which would put an end to the freedom of talk radio. If the left can't get its way, well, they'll just shut it down. There's your freedom of speech at work.
I'm guessing there is no American flag raised at her house.
We fly Old Glory everyday, out in front of our house. I've done it since 9/11/01, when our world changed. I have an American flag that was flown over an American military base in Afghanistan and it is folded and being kept for our son to have to remember our military response. A certificate commemorating it is signed by the military members who sent it to us. It is priceless.
Sometimes a little worse for the wear and tear, our flag has withstood much. It has even suffered the indignity of hateful sorts burning it in protest. Some of us have felt the impact of the flag being a site for sore eyes in a foreign land. The haters usually don't have much experience of world travel or they would appreciate what the American flag truly represents.
Lately I've pondered some of the differences of opinions about the freedoms afforded to Americans. Some declare with certainty that our freedoms, our 'rights', have diminished during this time in history. I don't fall victim to this line of thought. I think necessary steps have been taken while preserving our status as the most free of nations. I expect no less.
Yesterday I saw a reporter from a large liberal newspaper in the northeast discussing her thoughts on Gitmo and the recent ruling of the 4th Circuit Court on the scaling back of Executive decisions made concerning detainees. The one ruling on the person of suspicion being held in South Carolina was the topic briefly. This person, it was ruled, must be charged or released. I think this ruling will be overturned on appeal as the other two such rulings have been, but the 'reporter' didn't bother to include that line of thought in her answers to questions. She obviously is of the opinion that detaining enemies of our country, those who plot to kill us, is too extreme. I was struck by her lack of understanding of the dangers faced by our country. No, she hadn't even been to Gitmo yet she didn't hesitate to call for its closing and to criticize its operations. Nevermind that hundreds of news organizations from around the world that have gone there and determined it is run with decency and humanitarian standards. Nevermind that the International Red Cross visits regularly and determined it is operating properly for human rights.
This reporter was smug and snide in her remarks and did not present herself in a good light. The very American soldiers that she criticized, yes, the soldiers, not the Administration alone, that continue to serve and allow her the freedom to criticize them, don't have the luxury of sitting in an air conditioned tv studio and bloviating on how the country should be run.
Does she stop and show a little respect on Flag Day, I wonder?
I've pondered a contrast in generations of Hollywood elites recently. A father/daughter of Hollywood, Jon Voight and Angelina Jolie, are a case to study. The father totally gets the struggles facing our country and the dangers of the post 9/11 world. He supports the war on terror. He is not afraid to speak up.
The daughter, however, is of another way of thinking. She is of the opinion her freedoms outweigh the freedoms of others. She's special. She flies around the globe, buying children from different countries for her own little rainbow coalition to prove how wonderful she is, yet, when given a project like the Danny Pearl story, she shows her true colors. You may remember Pearl was beheaded at the hands of Islamofacists in Pakistan while researching the story of the Shoe Bomber for the Wall Street Journal. His wife, a beautiful French woman of mixed ethnic heritage, wrote a book about her husband and their life together as journalists out in the world. Jolie plays the wife, Mariana, and focuses on the love story aspect of their life together.
However, at the premiere, she demanded Fox News not be allowed to be in attendance and that the other journalists and entertainment writers sign contracts to only ask about the movie, not her personal life. Sign contracts. No said to the entertainment writer for the most watched cable news network. What's she afraid of? Her precious Brad Pitt was there as executive producer and didn't voice opposition to such tyranny. I understand the AP and others just took a pass. Good for them, for a change.
I would guess from such arrogant behavior, Jolie is a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine which would put an end to the freedom of talk radio. If the left can't get its way, well, they'll just shut it down. There's your freedom of speech at work.
I'm guessing there is no American flag raised at her house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)