Writeminded

It's all about CONTROL (#1)

2009-06-04T16:30:00.000-07:00

I began this post in January, 2007, and procrastinatingly, have only reviewed it a few times since then. Pathetic.
I finally decided today, as I was reminded of the Tiananmen Square Uprising, that I'll just throw it out there, as unfinished as anything I've done, just to get the ball rolling. Anyway, as most bloggers seem to do brief but frequent updates (almost like sticking Post-It Notes on your screen) about what's only topical that day, even the very hour of posting, I'll have this foundational piece from which to build, as topical events warrant. There's always something occuring that resonates with this battle over control, and boy-oh-boy we've seen our fill of that lately, have we not?

***This is the 1st stab at a Hydra-like subject (and I ain't Hercules!) that I'll revisit and expand on periodically, with NO preplanning about subject order, frequency, or duration. I'm too impatient to wait for all that.***

This post's heading could well be the title of a book somebody should write.
The premise being thus: throughout history, the battles for human freedom have seen two basic philosophies (world views) pitted against each other- "I want to control you" vs. "Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone"
Often, at least for generations of modern times, the battles are so subtle (or mischaracterized) that they are hardly detected, and sometimes the combatants are almost indistinguishable.

To begin with, a common assumption about conflicts between peoples, when taking a long backwards glance at history, is that people are always fighting to control each other. Ancient battles pitting one kingdom against another or country vs. country seem to be turf-wars over land and power, entered into mutually; "to the victor goes the spoils", and the winner gets to "lord it over" the losers (if there are any survivors). The truth is that almost every single war ever waged has been initiated by a greedy, unrighteous aggressor, desiring to control or even vanquish it's victims. The decision on the part of the aggressor to attack another (whether the victim be a nation, kingdom, or individual) can accurately be characterized as the embodiment of all of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The aggressor greedily lusts after and has envy for another's status or posessions. A prideful conceit convinces him that he deserves to posess (and better utilize) that which another owns. This unsatisfied desire grows into a wrath unleashed upon it's victim. And all because the slothful sinner was too lazy to acquire that which he desired through righteous industry, and gluttony blinded him from being satisfied with what he already had.

Following is a list of some of the original topics I thought I'd be reflecting on in this CONTROL thread. I added the last one today.

welfare, 1st amendmant issues, environmentalism, free-markets vs. regulations, abortion?, shared-space, health issues, nutrition vs. freedom-to-eat-whatever-I-want, universal healthcare, terrorism-threat response, progressive (punitive) taxation, property rights and abuse of the "takings clause", the "Fairness Doctrine", campaign finance "reform" that inhibits free speech action. Government takeover of Too-Big-To-Fail companies

Well, now that this old post is finally published (and I FINALLY published anything!), I can hopefully revisit this frequently, with the battles raging over which direction this great nation will go. My apologies for once again being so absent.

The battle we wage

2009-03-06T14:00:00.000-08:00

Where the hell have I been for almost four months?

Giving the new Messiah a chance.

So.... how's he doing?

Well, I offer this new blog post on my Twitter page. It's miniblogging, 140-or-less characters at a time.
Read it from the bottom, up, starting with the one that begins "I just realized why libs REALLY hated Reagan."

Let me know what you think. If you think.

Too big to let fail: The Sequel

2008-11-19T10:00:00.000-08:00

Where does it end?

Ford CEO Alan Mulally, Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli,
GM CEO Rick Wagoner

The "Big Three" American automakers were insisting to Congress yesterday & today that if they don't get an immediate infusion of $25,000,000,000 in taxpayer money, there'd be "severe and debilitating ramifications"; and that "the societal costs would be catastrophic". "It's about saving the U.S. economy from a catastrophic collapse," said GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner. They warned that not forking over the money would "undermine our nation's ability to respond to military challenges", and therefore, it "would threaten our national security." And (most importantly) they'll be out of work. Oh, and the UAW tagged along to add "Yeah, what he said!"

Wagoner explained how the $25,000,000,000 would be used: “We’ll use this bridge to pay for essential operations, new vehicles and powertrains, parts from our suppliers, wages and benefits for our workers and retirees and taxes for state and local governments...". They insisted they need this bailout urgently, just to get thru to the end of this year.

And then what, pray tell? This is November 19th! Six weeks to financial Armageddon, and then what? What will magically change after that? I mean, the Messiah won't take office til the 20th of January, so how will they survive after the $25,000,000,000 is burned thru?

Since they don't recognize the costs of union wages & benefits as a primary cause of their financial ills, do they think the credit-crunch (which they cited as the main cause of their current crisis) will be resolved and the rest of the economy will be back on track by January? That's a little too much optimism to be relying, on as a consideration for loaning $25,000,000,000 to an industry with such an antiquated business model. Or, do they really not naively think the nation's financial troubles will be resolved by then, and this is just the latest installment in public money for them?

Detroit's financial woes began long before the recent nationwide monetary meltdown. And they're due in large part to the manufacturing costs weighing them down as a result of the inordinate income, benefits, and pension plans that the UAW secured for it's members.
Predictably, Democrat Rep. Barney Frank immediately defended the union, contending that it was not any part of the automaker's problems.

When the option of restructuring the various companies' finances under Chapter 11 protection was suggested, Barney Frank responded "We already have too much union busting and too much income inequality for workers". That's alot like the Phillip Morris company insisting that an emphysema patient's smoking habit has nothing to do with his illness.

The research I've done shows a consensus of estimates that the cost to our Big Three is over $2000 (some say $2600) per car for their burdensome union contacts. How can they expect to compete with non-union car companies with those kind of built-in expenses?

Where, indeed, ARE we headed?

2008-11-06T19:00:00.000-08:00

Well, the American people have spoken.

An energized and idealistic movement of people were inspired to vote for Barack Obama in great numbers by the eloquent and lofty rhetoric written for this great speechifier, and he delivered those speeches with great skill. He's got one helluva speech writer. Even this 106 year old nun, who hadn't voted since 1952, was captivated by his charisma.

I've read many of his speeches over the course of the last several months, many of them from before he even threw his hat in the ring. (Officially, that is.) Several of them have a poetic grace and rhythm similar to long-famous words attributed to some of our greatest orators. This one, for instance, is filled with several stanzas that truly stir the soul and lift the spirit.

I have no idea which spiels were written by whom, but the author behind his speeches is less important than the principles behind his policies. Hillary was on the right track when she analyzed Obama's initial attraction by saying "We have one speech in 2002 versus a record of accomplishment and a record of action." And that ingredient to his attraction only grew during the primaries and the final campaign, with more great speeches. However, there's more to governing than giving speeches.

That said, even if Obama were to be the steady, thoughtful, listening, intelligent, competent, serious-business president that we all hope he'll be, it doesn't change the fact that his policy initiatives and the political philosophy that guides them, are from the "progressive" leftist wing of the Democratic Party. A brief perusal of some of the issues under the AGENDA tab on his new transition website gives us a glimpse of where we're headed:
***10/10/08 UPDATE: Those sneaky bastards disabled all the topics under the AGENDA tab!! The quoted excerpts below were there a few days ago. Perhaps they're "tweaking" their grand scheme a bit... Will their designs on your life be better, or worse when they reappear? We'll see.....! ***

“Obama and Biden support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.”

Wasn't that the essence of the immigration bill that was previously killed by a massive outpouring of grassroots citizen opposition?

“Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a
plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high
school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.” (my emphasis)

Did he get this idea from Castro, Chavez, or Mao Tse-tung?

“Obama and Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and
powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.”

Completely eliminated? The tougher sentences for crack were a response to the crime wave of street violence that were destroying urban areas in the '80's, especially gang activity. As Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney in Miami, said: "It is clear that crack cocaine and white powder cocaine had a very different impact in terms of not only the lives of the users but the impact on the community." However, leftists like Obama ignore historical context and insist that the sentencing disparity is only another example of "institutional racism" that was designed to unjustly target African-American drug pushers.

"Obama and Biden will create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in areas that
have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student
academic achievement in cities across the nation. The Promise
Neighborhoods will be modeled after the Harlem Children's Zone,
which provides a full network of services, including early childhood
education, youth violence prevention efforts and after-school activities,
to an entire neighborhood from birth to college."

Well, at least it's not cradle-to-grave, only cradle-to-college. Is this really the responsibility of the Federal government, bureaucratically controlling entire neighborhoods across the country, experimenting to see if centralized-service-saturation of a community will produce Utopia? Talk about being a community organizer! The department overseeing this program might be called Central Planning.

Where are we headed?

2008-11-03T20:00:00.000-08:00

On the eve of perhaps the most transformational election in our nation’s history, let us hearken to the ominous prediction of Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party USA’s most successful presidential candidate (and founder of the ACLU): "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Most people seem to scoff at the suggestion that Barack Obama is a socialist, or that his “spread the wealth around” and “bring about redistributive change” comments indicate socialist leanings.

I don’t.

I acknowledge that he’s not a member of the Socialist Party USA. He doesn’t have to be. He’s a Democrat, a progressive Democrat, and the most liberal Democrat in the US Senate. Why buy the cow when you’re getting the milk for free? Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, is the only senator that may be to the left of Obama, and is an Independent (but caucuses with Dems, of course). At least he’s honest enough to admit his intentions. Barack Obama is not.

I don’t hold out much hope for this election because, sadly, the electorate’s voting trend over several decades may give credence to an observation Norman Thomas made near the end of his life: “The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly.” (Recent example: Bipartisan support for the financial bailout.)

Too many Americans have become too comfortable with government providing too many services to too many people. And it may be too late to stop the progressive juggernaut.

The Democrats owned the White House, the Senate, and the Congress in 1933 when FDR’s New Deal legislation flew thru his famous Hundred Days (with Republican support).

The Democrats owned the White House, the Senate, and the Congress in 1964 when LBJ’s Great Society legislation installed another round of progressive programs.

If the Democrats own the White House, the Senate, and the Congress in 2009, will BHO embark on yet another ambitious agenda to create the Amerika that he envisions?

Never mind that many of those programs were intended to be temporary to address problems-of-the-day and retired when things got better; as the brilliant economist Milton Friedman said “There’s nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.”

The one thing we can be thankful to Comrade Obama for, although it hasn’t seemed to matter to so many Americans who just want “a chance to make history”, is that he hasn’t denied the permanence of his Universal Healthcare dream or his return to highly progressive tax rates. (The latter will most likely result in an actual reduction of proceeds to the Treasury, as the reverse of the principle that a significant cut in tax rates usually increases real collections.)

In summation, I fear that an Obama victory portends a bleak future for the formula of free market entrepreneurial capitalism, individual responsibility & autonomy, and voluntary personal charity that have made this country the greatest experiment in human governance of all time.
As P.J. O’Rourke put it, “America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damned well pleased.”

Obama wants to use diplomacy with these people?

2008-06-25T12:30:00.000-07:00

Israel National News recently reported that Hamas' "Minister of Culture", Atallah Abu Al-Subh, called our Secretary of State a "black serpent" in a local TV interview. "With the arrival of that black scorpion with a cobra's head, Condoleezza, I began to worry that she would use her venomous fangs and hiss to kill this initiative and new spirit that we should protect," he said.

Abu Al-Subh continued: "The arrival of Condoleezza Rice is not a good sign... Condoleezza Rice, you are not welcome. Every proud Palestinian views you as a murderer, and sees the blood of the children of Palestine between your lips and on your fangs. I pray to Allah that you will soon slither away, along with your master who is more Zionist than the Zionists, that murderer and criminal, whose place in history is more advanced than that of Nero, Hulagu, Genghis Khan, Timor the Lame, Hitler, and Mussolini, and before them that of Nimrod -- that criminal murderer, little Bush, who is striving to fan the flames in this region."

How in the world would an Obama administration begin to have diplomatic discussions with such people?

Before addressing the radical mindset that produces such unenlightened thoughts, the crude, 7th century trashtalk itself deserves comment:

What the hell...?!?

What an ignorant, juvenile, archaic culture he's attempting to administer.

The isolated, hateful, deprived and depraved organization that created and nurtured him, and which he now helps to lead, produces that kind of paranoid delusional mindset. Many Palestinians and the people within groups like Hamas are forever blaming the tiny island of democracy that is Israel for all of their self-inflicted pathologies and their stagnant societies.

"Black serpent with a scorpion's head"..."her venomous fangs and hiss"..."the blood of the children of Palestine between your lips and on your fangs"..."I pray to Allah that you will soon slither away." How would Barack Obama even hope to begin reasoning with people that think this way? The truth is, you can't reason with them. You must neutralize or defeat them. Diplomacy doesn't work with everybody. Promoting the dangerously niave policy that we should engage in diplomatic talks with all of our enemies, or our allies' enemies, is one of the many reasons that underscore why Barack Obama isn't ready to lead this country.

New York's Hugo Chavez: Rep. Maurice Hinchey

2008-06-18T21:30:00.000-07:00

Pictured to the right of (because it's hard to be to the left of) Phil Donahue

The citizens of the 22nd Congressional District must have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for candidates to represent them in Congress, since they've sent this idiot to Washington DC for eight terms now. Perhaps there are too many hippies still hanging around the "artists' enclave of Woodstock" in his district. Or just chalk-one-up for the power of incumbency. Whatever the cause, Hinchey, (the 1st word to describe him on his home page is "progressive", read: SOCIALIST) is the moron that wrongly, and malevolently, accused President Bush and Karl Rove of orchestrating the Rathergate episode, which I blogged about here.

Today he put his foot in his mouth again, ignorantly making more false claims he can't possibly back up, as well as exposing his collectivist desires.

In a press release responding to President Bush's call for more domestic oil exploration, Hinchey ignorantly claimed "...68 million untouched acres (already leased to oil companies) could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, nearly double current domestic oil production." With no substantiation for his predictions, he further disgraces himself by citing his Leftist-paranoid conspiracy theory: "The oil companies are simply sitting on those 68 million acres until oil prices rise to $200 or $300 a barrel when they can make even greater profits at the expense of Americans," and that the president is colluding with them in "...an attempt by oil companies to grab as much federal land as they can before one of, if not the most, oil-friendly administration leaves office."

When asked about the subject of oil refinery capacity (because leftist tree huggers like Hinchey haven't allowed any new refineries to be built in 30 years), Comrade Hinchey endorsed the Socialist goal of taking over and nationalizing the privately owned oil refineries in this country. Such a power grab would draw either warm applause from fellow traveler Hugo Chavez, or his ire because of Commie-competition, which is a bit of an oxymoron, and rather ironic.

If Comrade Hinchey and Rahm Emanuel happen to know where to drill on those 68 million acres to get at the oil deposits that may or may not be there, perhaps they should tell us. What geological survey can they cite that indicates the oil companies are greedily sitting on known reserves? Like his source for knowing that President Bush faked his own would-be-damaging National Guard records, Hinchey "just knows it".

It's hard to decide which is worse: the hypocrisy of Leftists whining about gas prices when they are the ones who've blocked any expansion of domestic discovery and building refineries (not to mention nuclear power stations), or the Socialist tendencies to have the government take control over anything they want use of.

As if the government would run the refineries more efficiently...?!?

06/19/08 UPDATE: I just ran across this PRICELESS video of the CLUELESS Maxine Waters (by the way, who the hell keeps electing this mentally-challenged fool?) threatening Big Oil to take'em over!
A MUST SEE!

Rest in peace, Tim Russert- you did Buffalo proud

2008-06-13T15:30:00.000-07:00

At just 58 years old, Tim Russert leaves this world way too early. His gracious, good natured, diplomatic, and yet tenacious approach to interviewing political guests on "Meet the Press" acheived, as well as anyone could, the principle of unbiased watchdog journalism.

God bless his family, his wife and son, and his father, "Big Russ", especially on this Father's Day weekend.

The company he keeps

2008-06-12T13:00:00.000-07:00

For the last twenty years, Barack

Obama has kept company with some radically-minded and angry characters, who don't think very highly of the United States of America, and that's not even counting his wife, Michelle.

Clockwise from lower color photo: Tony Rezko (convicted June 4th on 16 counts of corruption); Bernardine Dohrn (domestic anti-establishment terrorist); Jeremiah Wright (Obama's 20-year pastor); Father Michael Pfleger (pictured w/close friend Louis Farrakhan), (recently-suspended, Al Jolsen-like, "Catholic" priest); Bill Ayers (domestic anti-establishment terrorist)

Below are some quotes by and descriptions of some of Obama's long-term friends. See if you can match them with the friends above:

A.) "America has been raping people of color, and America has to pay the price for the rape!"

B.) "...for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country." (Age: 44)

C.) "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home,kill your parents, that's where it's really at.''

D.) ''Dig it! (Charles) Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.''

E.) He lived in 15 states, taking names of dead babies in cemeteries who were born in the same year as he. He describes his typical safe house: there were usually books by Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara's picture in the bedroom...

F.) America is a "just downright mean" country.

G.) He writes about his sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' They were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend.

H.) ''I felt grand juries were illegal and coercive.'' (Hint: She's now a law professor at Northwestern!)

I.) During a protest against Chuck’s Gun Shop (Riverdale, IL.), he twice threatened to “snuff out” the shop’s owner and threatened the same fate for legislators who oppose his position on gun control.“We’re gonna find you and snuff you out,” he said about the gun shop owner, likening the man to a “rat.” “We’re gonna snuff out legislators who are voting against our gun laws and we’re coming for you because we are not going to sit idly.”

J.) Has been on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted List".

With friends like this, who needs (political) enemies?

HC & HC: kindred spirits

2008-05-15T22:00:00.000-07:00

They share a common disdain for capitalism. They share the same philosophy about their nation's health care system. They've been paired together in campaign ads for a Socialist candidate in Argentina. They even share the same initials.

Look at this appearance in front of a receptive audience at the DNC. And then see what her fellow-traveler has been doing since he acquired the kind of power for which she yearns.

On "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", Hillary said "The last seven years have been really hard on America. If you're welathy, if you're well connected, you've been taken care of. I think it's time we had a president who's going to be a champion again for the American people." (Except when fighting an enemy that has sworn to harm us.)

What's worse, Barack Obama's even a more strident socialist than Hillary.

Off the cuff Obama (or off his rocker?)

2008-04-04T10:30:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton may have been onto something when she implied Barack Obama's only public policy skill is giving good speeches.
I've read many of Obama's speeches on his website, and he is a good speechifier. However, one begins to wonder if he actually had a hand in writing any of those eloquent speeches when Obama is caught going off-script.

Below is part of Obama's response, from a town hall meeting in Johnstown, PA, to a question about how his administration would approach HIV/AIDS and STD's in young girls. It has sparked alot of criticism for Obama's devaluing of human worth, when in the form of an unplanned child. Almost as insightful as his "punished with a baby" remark, is the inarticulate and clumsy rambling of an Obama-sans-teleprompter, nor a carefully crafted speech.

"So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual.

But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16." (So, Obama equates a baby with an STD?) "You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one.

Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.
But we should also provide better treatment. And we should focus on those sectors where it's prevalent and we've got to get over the stigma because understand that the fastest growth in HIV/AIDS is in heterosexuals, not gays. And so, we've got to get out of that stigma that we still have around it.
It's connected also to drug use. So, one of the things we have to do is to start thinking about better substance abuse treatment programs around drugs and not just treat it as a criminal justice issue. Treat it as a public health issue as well.

So -- but this all is connected to the idea of prevention and so my health care plan says, you know what? I don't want kids in the emergency room for treatable illnesses like asthma. I want them to get a primary care doctor and have regular check-ups and, you know, if we decreased obesity rates back to the rates that existed back in 1980, we would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars -- one trillion dollars because that's what's accounting for huge spikes in heart disease and diabetes and all kinds of preventable illnesses. So we've got to put emphasis on that.

Let me say one last thing, though. I'm going to use the presidential bully pulpit to start talking about people taking responsibility. We were talking about education earlier. It doesn't matter how good the job the schools are doing, if parents, you don't turn off your TV sets and put away your video games and make your kids do your homework and meet with the teachers, it won't make any difference. And the same is true on health care. I mean, some of us just have bad luck, and -- or genetically, are predisposed to certain diseases.

But, you know, if we're not all making some effort to get exercise and, you know, eat properly and not smoke and, you know, and I know -- I've had my own little battles. You know, I used to sneak a few cigarettes once in a while. My wife cut me off at the pass. She announced on 60 Minutes, she said, you know, "Yeah, he used to smoke (cocaine?) once in a while, and he promised me. So if you catch him, anybody out there" -- but that was good. I think we all have to take some responsibility for these issues as well. That's going to be important."

How can someone so stupid amass such wealth?

2008-04-02T23:00:00.000-07:00

To save our planet from global warming, CNN founder Ted Turner insists the country (and "the whole world") needs to approach the problem "the same way we did when we entered WWII, we have to fully mobilize everything we have".

And then Turner warns us of his dire predictions if we don't: "Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll have eight degrees- we’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten- not ten- but thirty to forty years, and basically none of the crops will grow; most of the people will have died, and the rest of us’ll be cannibals- civilization will have broken down- the few people that are left will be living in, in, in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad- there’ll be no more corn growin’. It, it will- it, it- not doing it is suicide- just like dropping bombs on each other, and nuclear weapons is suicide."

Cannibals!? In thirty to forty years? His grandchildren, if they survive the Hades-like eight-degree higher temps, will become cannibals? Not much faith in humankind, I guess. Which is kind of funny, because in the same interview, he said "I mean, I know we're the same people (humans) who did the holocaust, but we also did the Mona Lisa and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony".

Not even the most hysterical climatologists have inferred that global warming, if its man-made, will reach the point of no return in thirty to forty years. (Thank God Ted caught himself on his original timeline of ten years or he may have been one of those cannibals!)

Interviewed on the Charlie Rose show on April 1st--wait just a gall-durned minute now! April 1st? Have I been duped? Was this just an April Fools joke I got snookered by?

No...after reviewing the entire show, I'd have to say that Turner was serious. And Rose is always serious. Sorry about the interruption...

As I was saying, Charlie Rose had "a conversation with Ted Turner" , which I've linked to, on his April 1st broadcast, in which Rose asked him about: CNN, conservation, AOL, journalism, George W. Bush, war, presidential election, cable news, Iraq, Time Warner [keyword links by Charlie Rose], as well as global warming, the Goodwill Games, and Fidel Castro.

When Rose cozies up to Turner with “people listen to you and the views you’re expressing”, Turner replies “They should. I think alot and I’m smart. Ya know, I’ve worked at that, I’ve worked at that.” Which is quite evident, when Turner later says "I love this planet, and it’s worth saving. It’s worth saving." Man, it doesn't get any smarter than that.

That wisdom is bolstered by this brilliant analysis of the Bush Administration (in response to a question about how we should address illegal immigration): “What are we gonna do- shoot ‘em?! Who are we gonna shoot? Our present administration figures that, just, ya know, if ya don’t like the way that somebody’s doin something just start shootin’m and bombin’m! But all that does is mak’m madder!”

"And I don’t like the wall, the wall… I remember we had a president that we all liked pretty much, and he said ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!’ " Sheer brilliance.

About the Goodwill Games, that he created, Turner says “I spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting peace between the countries, and understanding, and I’m sure that it led-that it was one of the things that led to the end of the Cold War- we’re a lot safer now than we were during the Cold War.” Later in the interview he does, at least, acknowledge that Ronald Reagan “was real instrumental in ending the Cold War”.

Turning the dialogue to the ailing Cuban communist dictator, Fidel Castro, Rose asks “Your friend, Fidel, is near death- or not?... Have you sent word to him, have you sent him a note saying…?” Turner says “I did. Yeah, cuz I’m concerned about him. I offered to stop down and see him, but I didn’t get an answer.”

Rose asks “So, do you think Fidel was a good man or a bad man?” Turner pauses, looking up ponderously, and says "Ah, I, I, I think he’s done a lot of good, and he’s done some bad too, I mean, I- I don’t like, ah, his human rights-" Rose interrupts to challenge him: “I thought you’d be a big 'freedom’ man'.” To which, Turner insists “I am. I am. That’s the thing I’m against. I was just gonna- tryin to say before you interrupted me, again… that I didn’t like his record on human rights and democracy.”

So, Turner has to ponder the question and search for a diplomatic answer about the murderous Commie tyrant, and offers up praise to him before begrudgingly criticising his "record on human rights", but he easily accuses- with no prompting whatsoever- that President Bush "figures that, just, ya know, if ya don’t like the way that somebody’s doin something just start shootin’m and bombin’m!" Mensa-like mentality there.

In response to a reference by Rose about communist North Vietnam being a great market for U.S. goods, Turner says "They’re great people. And we just killed three million of’m. If we hadn’t done that, we’d have even more customers over there. We’re killing our own customers!" Hey Ted!: The Viet Nam War was 35 years ago. (Maybe having been married to Hanoi Jane makes it seem like it was just yesterday.)

Turner sums up his To-Do list for America: "So we’ve gotta stop doing the two suicidal things, which are hanging on to our nuclear weapons and then after that we’ve got ta, we’ve got ta stabilize the population..." Rose interrupts, again, with “What’s wrong with the population?” To which Turner continues, “We’re too many people. That’s why we have global warming! We have global warming cuz too many people are using too much stuff! If there were less people they’d be using less stuff.” Plato would be proud of Ted.

As evidence of Turner's hypothesis, he contends, “The natural world is collapsing all around us, and global warming is just one manifestation of that. A few years ago, remember we had the hole in the ozone layer that was caused by CFC’s. We’re, we’re altering the climate and the world in so many different ways. And, and, and, what we’re doing is, is, is reducing the Earth’s carrying capacity, so that, each year the, the, the natural world gets poorer, and, and less able to support the increasing number of people. We have a finite world, but an infinite ability to increase our population, and we’ve got ta, we’ve got ta handle, handle that.”

Ted's solution for that?: “We’ve got to stabilize population. On a voluntary basis, everybody in the world’s gotta pledge to themselves: one or two children is it. And, and, and ah, we’ve got to do that, otherwise all the gains that we make in redoing our energy system are gonna be erased by a population increase.”

How in the world- you may be asking- did a moron like Ted Turner manage to build a financial empire and launch successful enterprises like CNN, TNT, and TBS while remaining so utterly clueless? Well, perhaps the answer lies in the distinct talents for making money that are separate from the conventional characteristics of intelligence. The sort of money-mind that only an economic genius possesses...one that allows Turner to make this sort of analogy to principal vs. interest: “Basically, we’ve got to take better care of our planet. We’ve got to move into a sustainable mode, that we’re living on the interest of the planet and not encroaching on the principal, like we are today.”

Now if we could only figure out what would represent interest, in the way of resources- and what would be the principal...

Half of marriages do NOT end in divorce!!

2008-03-31T16:00:00.000-07:00

After hearing this ridiculous claim again tossed out on a news report the other day, I felt compelled to set the record straight, for the edification of the vast galaxy of Writeminded visitors, anyway.

This false statistic is thrown around so casually, it seems that many people citing it are almost promoting the demise of marriage as an institution. Viewing marriage as if it were some kind of archaic holdover from puritanical days of old, they eagerly repeat (without the slightest thought to it's glaring illegitimacy) the notion that half of all the married couples we know will see their promises of lifelong committment deteriorate into bitter, painful divorces.

I've heard Michael Medved address this statistical screwup at least a couple times on his radio show, in which he's pointed out that some really sloppy analysis (so easily corrected) of the stats simply compared the number of marriages to divorces in a given year, as if those marriages were also the ones dissolving that same year!
For example, the National Center for Health Statistics reported 2.4 million marriages in 1981, and 1.2 million divorces.

Now, a moron not prone to giving anything more than a nanosecond of reflection might compute that into a 50% failure rate. But the average 3rd grader would probably be wise enough to immediately comprehend that the many millions of marriages from previous years, going back several decades even, would comprise the pool from which those 1.2 million divorces came.

Here, for those caring enough to inform themselves, is a state-by-state table of the marriage rates, per 1000 people, for eight different years.
Here is a similar table for the divorces in those same years.

In my Minnesota, for example, the marriage-to-divorce rate ratio in 1990 was 7.7 to 3.5, per 1000 people. (Happily, the divorce rate dropped thru most of the proceeding years to 2.8 divorces per 1000 people in 2004.)

But it should be obvious to everyone that the couples calling it quits in any given year were not half of the same couples that just said their "I do"s.

That this common error hasn't been put to rest by the media reporting it, doesn't speak well for their attention to detail and fact-checking. And, the fact that the obviousness of the assumption didn't jump out at those reporters (and everyone else citing it) in the first place, leads one to think that they may have a vested interest in heralding the demise of the institution that is the cornerstone of civilized society.

Obama's dilemma.....

2008-03-24T17:00:00.000-07:00

....is an opportunity for America to once again discuss RACE.

Before Barack Obama even addressed the controversy over his pastor and the racist and anti-American portions of some of his sermons that have been publicized recently, Shelby Steele wrote, in the Wall Street Journal, an insightful, thought-provoking, excellent essay on his candidacy and the influence of race as an ingredient in modern American politics.

The piece has so many truly compelling paragraphs, that I hesitate to excerpt any here, lest you skip reading it entirely, which you should, but these are particularly enlightening:

"How to turn one's blackness to advantage?
The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.

This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence."

(I would interject the clarification that I am not in need of having this innocence conferred upon me, but rather, having it recognized as something I already possess, by virtue of the fact that I am not racist, and am innocent of racial discrimination or prejudice.)

"But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."

Echoing a common criticism of many opponents, notably Hillary Clinton, the "blank screen" that is Barack Obama may now be more believably understood to be a result of intent, rather than an inability of Obama's to specify how he would accomplish so many of the progressive goals he's idealized about. Setting aside the race issue for a moment, once we get past his charismatic rhetorical skills we see that Obama is just another big government liberal who wants federal bureaucracies to manage health care and education, redistribute wealth, and who doesn't understand the importance of our success in fighting radical Islamists in Iraq.

Before I return to the race issue, let me just say that Obama, if he's nominated, needs to be defeated simply because he'd promote socialistic policies that would bankrupt this country.

He wants to give everyone who wants to go to college $4000 per year for four years! Not loans, not limited grants that you'd need to compete for, but free money for everybody that wants it. (Then to "repay" America with community service.)

His loudest promise is to provide a health care plan for every American by the end of his 1st term, and one that "cuts costs for the typical family by up to $2,500 a year". How's the math on that going to work out? Insure everyone (providing medical care for everyone, whatever care anyone needs), including the 48 million that he claims are uninsured now, and still somehow manage to reduce the costs for everyone? Impossible. (Here's a quote from his speech in Spartanburg, SC last November: "...I'll pass a universal health care bill that allows every American to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves and cuts every family's premiums by up to $2500. And mark my words - I will sign this bill by the end of my first term as President.")

In his "A More Perfect Union" speech several days ago, Obama said: "...we all want to move in the same direction". That's not true. His progressiveness isn't progress. It's socialism. I don't believe most Americans really want that and, for sure, not everyone does.

Now back to the race issue and Obama's speech.

I give Obama credit for indicting Rev. Jeremiah Wright's lack of historical context, saying that "...he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country...is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."

I give Obama credit for condemning Rev. Wright for seeing "...the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

I also give Obama credit for acknowledging that Rev. Wright "...expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country...", but then the first example he gave was inaccurate: "...that sees white racism as endemic..." I'm certain that Rev. Wright doesn't think white racism is endemic (restricted to a particular place). He believes it's pandemic (widespread), epidemic (affecting many persons at one time), and chronic (long duration or frequent recurrence). And he's wrong.

Obama also appeared to be aware of something that most of us were not (because we don't travel to many different types of churches), even though Martin Luther King Jr. chastised us for it out over 40 years ago, when he said: "It is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o'clock on Sunday morning." A completely different meaning of that observation- a malignant manifestation of King's sincere concern for unity in the Church- has become painfully clear to many in America just in the last couple of days. Along with Wright's racist rants being broadcast widely and repeatedly, other black preacher's sermons have found their way into the limelight of modern media, and.....they're nothing like what most of us have ever experienced in our churches, to be sure.

It's become evident that it's common, in some predominantly black churches, to hear a great deal of victim-based, racially divisive "black liberation theology" that still blames "rich, white" America for oppressing African-Americans economically, judicially, and socially, as if this was 1963.

Donna Brazile, Al Gore's past campaign manager, recently said that "Jeremiah Wright is actually one of the more moderate black preachers- just go to a church down the street from my house...", when on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos". While she's not responsible for being an expert on the preaching styles of various pastors across the country, we can assume that, in her long career of traveling around the U.S. for Democratic candidates, she's visited many churches and listened to many different preachers.

In conclusion, if these are the statements of a "moderate" black preacher... :

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing "God Bless America"?! No, no, no, not "God Bless America"- God damn America! That's in the Bible! For killing innocent people! God damn America for treating us citizens as less than human!"

"They will not only attack you if you try to point out wuss goin on in White America, US of KKKA..."

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people!"

"Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky- (with the pastor visually simulating sex) -he was riding dirty!"

"We (the United States) believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

"We started the AIDS virus..." (to kill blacks). "We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty."

...then we may be farther from racial reconciliation than ever.

Five years in Iraq

2008-03-19T09:00:00.000-07:00

And what have we accomplished?

We've liberated 25 million people from a murderous, tyrannical dictator.

We saved the country from another generation of even worse tyranny, as Saddam's sons were more depraved than their father.

We've shut down the rape rooms and torture chambers.

We closed the heinous children's prison and freed it's innocent captives.

We delivered their tormentor to the victims of Hussein's bloody reign, so they could deliver justice to him.

We've planted the first seeds of democracy in the deserts of modern Babylon.

We've given the Iraqi people their first taste of self governance, with free elections and drafting a constitution.

We've reminded the world, with the sacrifice of so many of our own citizens, what it means to be the leader of the free world, and have used our superpower gifts of might, wealth, and liberty for the betterment of others.

Obama's hateful conspiracy nut pastor

2008-03-15T01:00:00.000-07:00

It is simply not believable that Barack Obama could attend Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years and not be aware of, as Obama has claimed, Wright's many racist and conspiratorial rants that have forced Obama, now that it's getting wider exposure, to remove his old pastor from his campaign. It's just not credulous that he wouldn't have heard, over the course of a 1000+ potential Sunday sermons, similar sentiments from his pastor. It isn't plausible that Obama didn't know- hadn't even heard thru the grapevine- that his pastor said this just after Sept. 11, 2001: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."

Though he's distancing himself from the pastor now, and condemning each of the specific statements when they get reported, Obama cannot expect reasonable people to believe that he sat in the pews of Trinity UCC for twenty years, listening to Rev. Wright's racist religious beliefs without being aware of them.

If Barack Obama wants us to evaluate him on the basis of his judgement, as he constantly requests of us, then he may end up being rejected for exhibiting the questionable judgement of remaining a close friend and disciple of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Find the "PRESSURE"

2008-03-13T13:27:00.000-07:00

A common response to deflect criticism about misleading headlines in the newspaper business is to say that the reporters don't write the headlines, as if the only party that critics are willing to blame is the reporter. Or, because an article's author and the headline writers are different people, the separation is intrinsically entitled to produce discrepancies. It's a weak argument at best, because the news organization is still responsible for every word it prints or posts.

The subtle (but effective) misrepresentations that most liberal media outlets employ are barely even recognized by the majority of people who tend to skim over many articles, reading only the headlines and the first few paragraphs. After all, who's got the time, or the inclination, to read an entire article with a critical eye, looking for inconsistencies in the reporting, except for news nerds like me.

This article on CNN Politics site is a prime example of the media not merely informing (especially since it's misinforming) but influencing it's readers. The headline reads: "Bush ups pressure on House to pass intelligence bill". Leaving aside the poor grammar of using the slang term ups instead of increases, the message of the headline is that President Bush somehow increased the amount of pressure that he and other parties have thus far exerted on the members of the House of Representatives to make the Protect America Act permanent.
However, the article includes no description or examples of any kind of "pressure" tactics that the president is employing to influence house members to vote one way or another.

It doesn't cite, for example, any warnings the president may have given that he'll veto other bills that the House and Senate have passed, if they don't pass this one. It doesn't describe, in any manner, exactly what use of his authority the president has exercised, is exercising, or may exercise to induce action by the House. No committee assignments have been threatened. Nancy Pelosi's office hasn't been moved to the basement of the Rayburn House Office Building. No-one's spouses or children have been intimidated. No cars have even been egged or homes T.P'd in connection with this bill.

I suspect that CNN merely wants to plant another impression in the reader that President Bush is pushy and demanding. They want to influence (not inform) the reader towards viewing our president as a manipulative controller who abuses the power of his position to get his way, especially when it involves warrantless wire taps and internet traffic surveillance.

"Change" is one thing...

2008-03-04T13:06:00.000-08:00

...but a guy to the left of Ted Kennedy?

I'm fairly confident that my fellow Americans will not knowingly choose a committed socialist as our president. However, as six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, Norman Thomas, threatened, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings."

In the midst of Obamamania that's sweeping the country, it is encouraging to remember that we have actually elected several Republican presidents throughout the last few generations of progressive promise-makers that the Democrats and other leftist parties have fielded. Despite the sincere and passionate efforts of some of the most oratorically gifted snakeoil salesmen to take the national stage, the American people have had the sense, often enough, to recognize the emptiness of their populist pap.

Unfortunately, every four years, certainly eight, there's a new crop of young skulls-full-of-mush to be tempted, cajoled, bribed, and bamboozled with the lofty rhetoric of economic equality.

And then there's always the older adults that might be experiencing a season of testing, trying hard to get ahead, or just keep up, and the struggle just..seems...so....haarrrd at times, that...you just want to give up and give in. Give in to socialism's siren song of orchestrated equality, promising you an easier lot in life. Less toiling, burdens lifted, and finally, finally, somebody who cares about you and your plight.

People feeling that way are the prime targets of liberal politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton, who get their power from pandering to those who feel powerless. (...or just challenged.) They pit themselves against the strawman that is somehow responsible for whatever difficulties and obstacles their target audience may feel are hindering their pursuit of happiness. If the populist pol can convince them that he empathizes with their struggle and will do battle for them against those conservative culprits conspired to confound their efforts to live their lives the way they want, and to get what is rightfully theirs, then he's got a constituent.

Populist liberalism always creates convenient villians of the wealthy and the powerful, as if their wealth came at your expense, and their power is unearned, unethical, and oppressive.

Obama constructs the false struggle he hopes his followers will swallow and even adopt as their own: “We spend our whole lives caught up in being told what we can’t do. (By whom?!) And what’s not possible, and that children have to be poor (what?) and race always is going to matter in this country ( the mantra of black "leaders") and there’s always going to be injustice and the economy can never work for anybody (the opposite of conservatism!). We’re fed that stuff all the time (by the DNC and NAACP). Mostly by folks who are in power and take advantage of the status quo.” Bullshit, Barack! It's the liberal leaders of your own Democratic Party that say those things, as a pretense to their own power grabs.

Oh, that one- just one- mainstream media reporter or debate moderator would have the curiousity and journalistic integrity to press Obama for an identification of specifically whom he believes has been communicating such negative messages to him his whole life! **3/22 update: Now we know who-- his own pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright!**

On January 20th, Obama proclaimed at a church in Atlanta, "Unfortunately, all too often when we talk about unity in this country, we've come to believe...that racial reconciliation can come easily - that it's just a matter of a few ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past, and that if the demagogues and those who exploit our racial divisions will simply go away, then all our problems would be solved. All too often, we seek to ignore the profound institutional barriers that stand in the way of ensuring opportunity for all children, or decent jobs for all people, or health care for those who are sick." Which institutions? Colleges, banks, churches? The Boys Scouts/Girls Scouts, 4-H, Knights of Colombus, Jaycees? Elected offices at local, state, or national levels? The NAACP, Ku Klux Klan, the National Urban League, or the National Vanguard? Well, yes, at least two of those institutions DO seek to exploit racial divisions in this country. But they wield power over ANYbody's lives only if you give them that power to do so. In fact, if we enlightened people simply ignore or ostracize (like in "Twelve Angry Men") those "ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past", we could so marginalize them and emasculate their dwindling influence in society that, along with interracial marriage, race will finally become an insignificant non-factor in our country.

Speaking to the Nat'l Conference of Black Mayors last May, Obama claimed "...millions of children are not given an equal chance to realize their own potential. And for too long, our kids -- not "those kids," but our kids -- have been asked to settle for mediocrity simply because of their zip code, the color of their skin, and how much their parents earn." Mr Obama, WHO has asked them to settle for mediocrity? Especially because of skin color? This country doesn't expect anyone to settle for mediocrity. This country offers more opportunity for acheiving excellence than any in the history of man.

A year ago in Selma, Alabama, Obama illogically generalized: "...we've got what's known as a health care disparity in this nation because many of the uninsured are African American or Latino. Life expectancy is lower. Almost every disease is higher within minority communities. The health care gap." "...beacuse many of the uninsured are African American..." Well, many of them are white, also. All ethnicities, in fact are included. Republicans, democrats, and third party people are among the uninsured, as well. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, athiests, and even some Hindus are uninsured, I'm sure. So are right handed people, left handed people, and the ambidextrous. You get the point. The uninsured are uninsured by no design; no conspiracy, no orchestrated plan to discriminate, no hidden agenda at play to oppress any particular people group. And the inclusion of any particular demographic is no more disconcerting than another demographic. Except, of course, for children.

The bottom line is this: liberals only win when they can convince enough people that their problems are somebody else's fault or are too big to be handled personally, and that the government is the only solution to those problems.

Maybe "Third World" status is better

2007-05-07T09:20:00.000-07:00

If moving from Third World poverty and underdevelopment means adopting the pathologies of modern American culture, perhaps Mexico should reconsider the goal.

A few of the cultural values, cited in a no-longer available news article (but the story is covered in this article) about 18,000 Mexicans posing for a "mass nudity photographer" (That job wasn't mentioned at Career Day in high school), are under attack and it doesn't bode well for a nation that's trying to lift itself out of poverty, if it means lowering itself into the cultural gutter.

Along with the many millions of American dollars that Mexican workers in the U.S. have shipped back home, have they also transported the less admirable cultural values they've absorbed here, mistaking them for enlightenment or progress?

"Some participants said the massive turnout showed that Mexicans, at least in the capital, were becoming less prudish." (original article)

Firstly, I would say that they misunderstand the term prude. According to Webster: One who is excessively concerned with propriety or morality. The distinctive concept in Webster's definition of a prude is excessiveness. That's what distinguishes a prude from the rest of proper society. I would argue that disdain for stripping and cramming into a public square for a photo shoot doesn't make one a prude.

"This event proves that really we're not such a conservative society anymore. We're freeing ourselves of taboos," said Fabiola Herrera, a 30-year-old university professor who volunteered to strip, along with her boyfriend. (original article)
Taboos? Yes, I guess public nudity is a taboo. But one worth shedding? Don't call it progress.

Some other values derided in the original article were: "tough-guy" masculinity, family loyalty, sanctity of life, and traditional marriage. I'd happily trade Rambo for Mr. Rogers as an example of what a man should be like, if we could retain respect for the family and respect for life.
"The capital of the world's second-biggest Catholic nation...has recently challenged some important traditions. Last month, Mexico City legislators legalized abortion...gay couples are getting hitched in civil ceremonies...and lawmakers plan to debate whether to legalize euthanasia." (original article)

"What a moment for the Mexican art scene!" Spencer Tunick, photographer/"artist", said at a news conference, without the slightest hint of the sarcasm that this quip deserved.

The message of the Virginia Tech massacre:

2007-04-18T19:00:00.000-07:00

We are all very vulnerable.

While parents, poets, pundits, and politicians struggle to make sense of the senseless, we all grapple with the sad reality that evil is among us and tragedy could visit us at any time.

Not encouraging words, I know, but a stark reality that, when faced with an open mind and a soul yearning for meaning, can lead one to a deeper lesson of the Virginia Tech massacre:
cherish and celebrate life while we can.

"You never know when your time is up" sounds cliched, but like many cliche's it's really a truism. We don't know when our time is up. (Excluding suicides & death row executions.) Did any of those poor souls at Virginia Tech that day think that they were going to be murdered, would never see family and friends again? Of course not. And yet, it happened to be true.

The morning of September 11, 2001 the people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon went about their normal routines, never giving thought to the possibility of the evil that would soon visit them. It's given the phrase "...out of the blue" an all-too literal meaning.

As they dropped them off at America's Kids Day Care Center on a fine spring day in 1995, the parents of 15 children never dreamed their kids would join 153 other people as casualties, and over 800 injured, in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Even the men and women stationed at Pearl Harbor on the quiet morning of December 7, 1941 never saw it coming. Though there's debatable evidence of some in FDR's administration having some prior knowledge, the 2403 souls lost that day and the 1178 injured never foresaw that their idyllic Hawaiian morning would be so menacingly shattered. Even on a naval military base and while much of the world was already at war, somehow, they never saw it coming.

If even those who don uniform and prepare for battling evil forces can be caught so unawares, how then shall the rest of us ever be prepared for the capricious nature of random acts of violence?

As Peggy Noonan reflected in her Wall Street Journal column, "...all those big cops, scores of them, hundreds, with the latest, heaviest, most sophisticated gear, all the weapons and helmets and safety vests and belts. It looked like the brute force of the state coming up against uncontrollable human will."

Barricading oneself in a castle-like fortress and never leaving would be one approach to prepare for unforeseen violence, but hardly practical, and hardly living.

The inescapable truth is that we are all very vulnerable, nearly anywhere and at anytime, to the unpredictable actions of a lone lunatic with malicious intent. This is especially true when the element of self-preservation is absent. When a violent psychopath isn't concerned about his own safety (intends, in fact, to kill himself anyway) than no risks are too great for him to take, and our response options are limited. And this only pertains to the recognized threat anyway, if the duration of an attack even allows time for a defensive response.

The entire idea of trying to prepare for or reduce the likelihood of attacks like the one at Virginia Tech seems naively misguided, if not impossible. In the vast expanse of our United States with 300 million inhabitants, it's simply not practical for us all to be guarded against the unpredictable threat of "uncontrollable human will", even if we lived in a police state.

Rather, our time and energies should be focused on living our lives to the fullest, on embracing and celebrating life while we have it, on enriching it's value for ourselves and those around us, and contributing what we can to make our little corner of the world a better place to live. And that, in turn will help to make it a safer place, for all of us.

Brad

The mystery of Leftist thought

2007-04-06T13:30:00.000-07:00

Okay, thought may be an overly generous adjective (if not a contradiction in terms) to apply to the mindset that plagues most Lefties. Perhaps we'll just stick with mindset, as it can also evoke lockstep, which describes the manner in which most Lefties march when it comes to undermining and weakening the work of our armed services. Embarrassed apologists for even the most benign presence of our military anywhere in the world, other than safely tucked-in behind our own borders (and not on any school campuses), the Left simply doesn't understand the proper mission of our military and their central role in the Global War On Terror.

Perhaps the college-bound Bill Clinton's infamous draft-dodging derision for our armed forces is, ironically, the most honest admission of the Left's general view of our men and women in uniform: "I despise the military."

This often hidden contempt for the very people who purchased and now maintain our freedom begins to explain the Left's rush to defeat in Iraq today, and their decades of opposition to America's influence for human liberty around the world, even before the ungrateful 60's radicals started destroying college campuses. But this anti-military malevolence doesn't fully satisfy as rationale for the Left's opposition to the current U.S. military deployments. Not when one considers the suicidal aspect of destroying the strength and effectiveness of the forces which preserve our precious freedoms.
They do, after all, benefit from those same freedoms.

So, what is it that drives the Left's thought processes? How can they possibly look at America's role in defending liberty around the world for generations, and yet repeatedly conclude that America is somehow a greater threat to world peace than those who've stated and demonstrated their evil desires to destroy us and our allies? Is it merely a spirit of rooting-for-the-underdog, taken to insane extremes?

Using that analogy, they root for the rabid street-mongrel who's come into our neighborhood, and threatens to harm our children, meanwhile scolding our own St. Bernard for protecting them and guarding his territory. They'd rather kennel our watchdog/protector for being too aggressive and confrontational, for presuming the mongrel is a threat just because he's snarling, baring his foamy teeth, and bristling his back.
They insist that, surely, our dog must have provoked him somehow, and all we need to do is feed the rabid street-mongrel, show it some affection, and try to understand it, and all will be well.
Oh- and send our dog to diversity trai-- I mean, obedience training.

What if it's not the underdog in our enemy that liberals are sympathizing with? Could it be our enemy's ideology itself? Could it be that they favor the intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism, antichristianism, anticapitalism, and antimodernity quest for a global Islamic theocracy? That seems an unlikely motive, even for the staunchest Leftists.

Is it possible, then, that Democrats and other Lefties (here and in Europe) actually believe that if we get out of the Middle East, stop supporting Israel, and just leave the Islamofascists alone, that we'll all be safe, and we can put all this self-induced conflict behind us?

A naivete born of innocence in a child, we embrace, even cherish. It's precious and sentimental. The naivete born of ignorance on the Left, is damnable. It's dangerous and sorta mental.*

Here are a few simple questions that demand answers from the opponents of the GWOT and the war in Iraq:
Why do they want our military to be weaker than it currently is?
Whose military would they favor to be stronger than our own?
What, exactly, do they believe is the proper role of our military in the GWOT?
Do they believe there is a GWOT underway, or should there even be one?
If there is an Islamofascist terrorist enemy that threatens us, then where , when , and how shall that threat be met?

These big questions that beg for answers from the Left never seem to get asked of national Lefties, be they major Democratic officials or leftist university professors. If we could get rational, indepth answers to some of these questions, perhaps we could begin to unravel the mysteries of Leftist thought, and move them beyond sloganeering and cliches, but don't hold your breath.

* mental: "Of, relating to, or affected by mental disorder." Webster's II, New Revised Dictionary

Carbon Credits are the Emperor's Clothes

2007-03-27T12:00:00.000-07:00

Al Gore may not have invented the internet, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had a hand in creating this modern snake oil scam. Perhaps a hidden financial interest in this eco-deception would explain his quixotic fervor about global warming...?

Selling Carbon offsets?
The idea that some entity will collect your money to mitigate your shameful destruction of Mother Earth (for using too much energy), and could offset the affect of your "carbon footprint", by shifting your burden onto someone else (like this poor slob-->
who's under-consuming would be an
ingenious scam, if it weren’t so
ridiculously fraudulent on it’s face.

For starters, who the hell would presume they have the authority to absolve someone of profligate energy consumption? And who’d be dumb enough to acknowledge such a haughty claim? (Ooh- sorry, Arnold!)
Why believe some foolish organization that says they have the authority to issue carbon credits and to sell carbon offsets to assuage your liberal tree-hugging, earth-worshipping guilt for living in the modern world, and not like it was 1845?

Here’s some flim-flam from the TerraPass website offering to help you save the earth by selling you some snakeoil in the form of guilt-reducing blue sky :
1."Each year, the average car emits about 10,000 lbs (three times its weight!) in carbon dioxide pollution – a leading cause of global warming." (First they instill the fear & guilt.)
2."You buy a Road TerraPass." (Next, they offer you simple absolution--for only $29.95 a year!)
3."TerraPass funds clean energy projects that reduce carbon dioxide emissions." (Then they tell you how the scam’s supposed to help Mother Earth.)
4."Your TerraPass is third-party verified to reduce the equivalent of your car’s carbon dioxide pollution." (Welllll, just so long as it’s "3rd-party verified", then I guess everything’s just hunky-dory, eh?)

And just look at the really cool stuff you get for only $29.95!:
"Your member kit includes:
"TerraPass window decal. A static cling decal for the window of your car that shows how much you have reduced your impact." (And how gullible you are.)
"TerraPass bumper sticker. Be loud and proud." (Uh-oh, Queer Nation may sue them for stealing that phrase!)
"TerraPass clear decal. A clear decal featuring the TerraPass logo. Looks great on tinted windows." (Like the ones on Al Gore's gas-guzzling limo.)

And, this is how your penance-fees are supposed to turn into Earth-saving action:
"Your TerraPass purchase supports clean energy projects. When you buy a TerraPass, you sponsor a guaranteed reduction in carbon dioxide emissions."
For example:
"An entrepreneurial wind farmer receives funds to expand his plant." (And to kill more birds!)
"A small dairy farmer gets capital to install digesters on his farm to control methane emissions." (Can't we just feed the cows Beano?)
"Using financial instruments such as carbon credits, your funds result in guaranteed reductions." (Gauranteed by whom?)

I wonder if I could get away with selling vampire insurance...?
More analogous would be the sale of Pedophile Points to child molestors, as a way of easing guilty consciences and offsetting the damage they've inflicted upon innocent children. The PedoPass Company would determine the personal and communal impact (a "fondling footprint"?) of various offenses, and then sell the offenders a proportionate amount of Pedophile Points. The money would be invested in Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, etc., and used to help create safe places and relationships for children to experience.
And just like the Carbon Credits scam, the offenders wouldn't have to actually change their behavior, they simply pay a fee, get a nice little window decal, and carry on with their wonton ways; cleansed of their guilt by knowing that somebody else is going to treat some other child with care and compassion.

Brad

Democrats continue CRAPASS

2007-03-21T12:30:00.000-07:00

In the latest installment of their Corrupt-Republican Abuse-of-Power Accusations and Scandal Strategy, the Democrats accuse the Bush Administration of unethical behavior (perhaps even illegal) in the replacement of eight U.S. Attorneys.
Ignoring the president's perfectly legal privilege to hire and fire the attorneys at his own discretion with no action-criteria required, the Dems have made more C.R.A.P. charges against the beleaguered Bush Administration and it's performance of routine duties.
Not since Richard Nixon occupied the Oval Office, have we seen such frequent accusations of corrupt Republican abuses of power.

The C.R.A.P. charge is now the first line of criticism in the Democratic response to almost everything the Administration (and by extension, every Republican) does. Ranging in topics from elections, disaster relief, and airline security, to energy policy, national defense, and hunting accidents, C.R.A.P. accusations are automatically implied or made outright to every decision made and action taken by President Bush or anyone in his administration.
Rather than offering simple disagreement with the president's actions and suggesting alternate options, the Dems have chosen to go the route of character assassination by attempting to scandalize them by accusing Bush and others of unethical and even illegal tactics.

Whether CRAPASS is the brainchild of James Carville (the Clinton's most loyal C.R.A.P. claimant) or Howard Dean (the pugnacious and diminutive DNC chair who oozes with C.R.A.P. accusations), is unclear, but what is clear is that, years ago, the Dems decided to launch a relentless campaign of constant accusations of corruption and abuse-of-power by Republicans.
Their plan has been to burden and distract the administration with C.R.A.P. claims with such frequency, intensity, and duration, and on almost every action, that the average voter will grow weary from it all, assume that at least some of the claims must have merit, and will vote for the Democrats just to stop their flow of C.R.A.P. accusations.

Brad

Happy Birthday, Gipper!

2007-02-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

In 1980, Ronald Reagan promised he would cut the inflation rate (then at 12.8 percent, from a Carter-high of 14.8 percent earlier that year). By 1983, he had it down below 4 percent, where it stayed throughout his presidency.

He said he'd cut taxes, which had a top rate of 78 percent when he took office. He cut that down to 35 percent.

He said he'd reduce unemployment, which was at 7.4 percent in 1982. He got it down to 5.4 percent.

He said he'd lower the interest rates, and he cut them to less than half of what they were when he was elected.

"Reaganomics" stopped being called that about the time that liberals and other detractors realized (before they began to forget it again) that they actually worked. (And, they couldn't allow him to be credited with the economic success the US experienced after his policies were enacted.)

But far more important to America and the free world than the wisdom and determination of Ronald Reagan's economic performance, was his vision of liberty and goodness for America, and therefore, the world.

Of America, he said in his farewell : "And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home."

Happy Birthday, Mr. President, and thank you!

Brad

"Bush's Vietnam"

2007-01-28T22:00:00.000-08:00

That infamous caption for the battle in Iraq has been a favorite of the pacifist cut & run left since nearly the inception of the effort to liberate Iraq.

However, Senator Ted "Quagmire" Kennedy seems to crave, most passionately, an identity as the senior government leader in opposition to President Bush's leadership. "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam," Kennedy said... (CNN, 4/05/2004) , (CBS, 1/17/2005) , (ABC, 1/09/2007) , to cite a few examples.

Our enemy's media outlet, Al Jazeera, is only too happy to trumpet the refrain of defeatism by Quagmire Kennedy, the sort of doubt-filled, self-destructive (and deadly) pondering that has marked the senator's public life since he crawled out of the Chappaquiddick :
"...are we a force that is perceived to be expanding the kind of uncertainty and savagery and revolution that's taking place there?" (Let us not forget the senator's claim that Saddam's rape rooms were now open under U.S. management.)

Liberals and other critics of the US military action in Iraq seem to suffer from Selective Memory Syndrome when it comes to the lessons of Vietnam. The most memorable number for them is 58,000- the number of US casualties. Certainly, every one of those precious American lives that were lost is a tragedy and deserves to be remembered with honor. From a human (not just American) and historical perspective, however, the more important number to remember is 3,500,000- the estimated number of human souls lost in the Communist holocaust that followed our withdrawl from Vietnam.
Or perhaps it's 2,500,000- those slaughtered in the killing Fields of Cambodia alone.
At very least, 1,400,000- the refugees forced from their homes to flee for their lives.

Ironically, it's the self-hating liberals in this country (riddled with guilt over America's wealth, success, and influence) that usually accuse conservative pro-Americans of not caring enough about the rest of the world's peoples (especially the oppressed and disenfranchised indigents in third world countries) whom are now demanding that we abandon the peaceful and freedom-seeking Iraqis because they're "not worth one more American life".

I question whether the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, and Gore are really so much concerned about protecting American lives, as they are in protecting their own reputations or credibility. In order for them to be right on this- the gravest issue of this generation- America has to fail in Iraq. Understand their dichotomy: If America succeeds in Iraq, they're proven wrong. It's that simple; if America wins, they lose.

If our current efforts (or other strategies faithful to the same basic principles) are successful in helping a free and democratic Iraq to rid herself of Islamofascist tyranny (by one group or another), if they become allies in the struggle against terrorism, and they can prosper as an open society not plagued with constant threats to security and civil order...then Bush was right, and they were wrong. They'll be revealed for the dangerously indecisive fools that they are.

Kennedy has doggedly battled Bush from the beginning. He opposed the 2002 vote that authorized military force to liberate Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power — a vote he called "the best vote I've cast in my 44 years in the United States Senate". He's painted himself into a corner, and his bloated ego won't let him quit now. America must fail in Iraq for him to be right. For him, getting involved in that mess was a lost cause from the beginning, doomed to failure and not worth the effort; certainly not worth risking a life over. Chappaquiddick Teddy all over again.

John Kerry's credibility on judging the potential cost (in human lives) of U.S. withdrawl while the enemy is still a threat has not improved in over 35 years. When interviewed in 1971 by Dick Cavett about the concern for potential Communist violence against our allies if the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, Kerry (mouthpiece for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and eyeing a 2nd run for Congress) opined (in his smarmy Thurston Howell III accent) that "...at most there might be five thousand people killed- a number so small that it was 'lunacy' to talk about it." [Excerpted from Unfit For Command by John E. O'Neil]

His judgement was off by about 3,495,000 human lives sacrificed and nearly one and a half million driven from their homeland. Because America cut and ran.

And they want to do it again.

Then it would be another Vietnam.

And the power-hungry Democrats and turncoat Republicans and all the Bush-haters would cry in unison: "See! See! We told you this was another Vietnam!" Self-fulfilled prophecy.

The surest way to make the Iraq liberation become "another Vietnam" would be for the US military to pull out too soon. As banks are wont to say, there are "substantial penalties for early withdrawl".

Especially for those left behind.

Brad

That's so cliched

2007-01-13T12:00:00.000-08:00

Two questions about cliches: Why are people so eager to dismiss the subject of a cliche as being false or insignificant; and why is a particular cliche (the phrase itself) derided, especially when it is accurate? That's not the proper use of the word.

I prefer to view many cliches as truisms, especially when they're powerful or poignant.
Some great examples are:

Freedom isn't free.

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Commonly mistaken for cliches are some stupid phrases that are actually the opposite of cliches, like:

It takes one to know one...

Don't knock it til you've tried it.

The late-19th century introduction of the figurative use of the word ( a past participle of clicher,"stereotype") gets to the essence of the what is implied about the subject to which "cliche" is attached: it's repetitiousness.

And of particular irritation to me is the phrase "The end justifies the means", always used sarcastically or with derision to criticize and condemn an action or policy one disagrees with, or which is promoted by someone with whom one disagrees.

The end does, of course, justify the means in MANY cases: Surgeons remove tissue or organs to halt the spread of cancer (amputate limbs to save a life); police and CIA/DEA/FBI use deception (go undercover) to catch criminals; the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in WWII to avoid hundreds of thousands of lives that would be lost in a ground invasion, and to end a war; firefighters will burn and destroy some trees to save more; a parent will discipline a child to change behaviors that could harm them worse. In other words, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Brad

The Unibrower writes again!

2007-01-07T15:50:00.000-08:00

Some people have a tradition of sending Christmastime letters to their friends and extended families to update them on all the news about the family, and to send holiday greetings and well wishes.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sent we distant Americans a pleasant little Christmastime letter, too.

How thoughtful.

And his opening doxology even sounds like one of the Gospel-writers: "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers."
Of course, his God is the Allah of the radically violent, intolerant, bloodthirsty Islamofascist terrorists. And the "perfect human being" he wishes upon us is the hidden Twelfth Imam that will usher in Armegeddon by slaughtering all infidels. Not exactly Joy to the World, is it?

Brad

the Unibrower's letter cont'd...

2007-01-07T15:30:00.000-08:00

**Written in May,2006. Forgot to post then. My apologies!**

As I wrote in a previous post, this letter from Iran's president to our president, is rather unprofessional, and not up to the standards of diplomatic discourse that one expects between world leaders. Perhaps that's partly due to it's uniqueness in modern history, as the brilliant historian Victor Davis Hansen pointed out after the letters release. (I apologize for not linking his comments- I've searched the web 4 times in vain for the quotes I saw attributed to him, and I don't recognize related writings on his website.)

It's mainly due, however, to the fact that this man is a nut case of the first order. As an Islamofascist consumed by hating Jews and Christians, he's now also preoccupied with obtaining nukes, so there's little time and energy left for mundane matters like understanding history, using logical reasoning, and writing coherently.

For a hilarious satire of Ahmadinejad's letter, read James Lileks' Screedblog of May 9th, 2006.

Brad

Ending my unannounced absence?

2006-11-27T19:00:00.000-08:00

I apologize to my regular readers for the lengthy and unannounced absence.

I met a wonderful woman, fell in love, and have embarked on a life's journey with her. We all know how time consuming HEALTHY relationships are!

Also, during that time, my Marine son severly broke his neck in a combat training exercise, and some of my time in the last couple months has been consumed with that issue. He's doing GREAT, thank God, but will probably be discharged after completing convalescence leave and rehab therapy in the coming months.

My thankful hat's-off to the staff of Sentara Norfolk General Hospital and the awesomely professional and caring staff at the Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA! Also to Sgt. T, 1st Sgt. Smith, Lt. Ray, all of Dan's Marine buddies, and especially Cpt. Kenney! Genuine concern and brotherhood revealed themselves. Semper Fi !

I hope I'll resume regular posting now. Thanks for checking back in, my dear readers!

Brad

The new Beavis & Butthead, or Madmen on the rise?

2006-09-20T16:30:00.000-07:00

The primary reason that this nation can ill afford to ever allow liberals to regain majority control in the Senate, the Congress, and (God forbid) the Whitehouse, is that they would not have the faintest idea about how to properly handle the threat to our republic (and the free world) that is posed by an ascension to power by madmen such as the delutionally psychotic darlings of the U.N., Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuala's Hugo Chavez.

Their back-to-back low rent rants against President Bush and we "imperialist Americans" this week would better fit the spirit of the Warped Tour than the United Nations General Assembly. Indeed, they could easily be dismissed as a couple of insignificant two-bit buffoons, the Beavis & Butthead of world leaders, were it not for the fact that one has his hand on the spigot to 11% of our nation's oil imports, and the other is trying to aquire nuclear weapons.

Brad

Lady Liberty still welcomes

2006-08-14T00:30:00.000-07:00

Like most Americans, when I first heard the news that visitor's access to the Statue of Liberty's crown will remain closed due to security concerns, I was saddened, even angry. Angry at the terrorists who'd won another victory over our freedoms. Never would I be able to gaze across the New York skyline from this famous viewpoint.

And then, as I pondered this lost liberty, an experience that countless people have shared over the 120 years since the beautiful gift to America- indeed, the world- arrived from France, it occurred to me that the most significant view of Lady Liberty remains: towering above the island upon which she stands in the New York Harbor, she still beckons to the tired, the poor, the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of" the teeming shores of oppressed nations, "the homeless, tempest-tost" souls from around the world, to whom Lady Liberty still lifts her lamp of freedom, "beside the golden door".

Awed by what she has symbolized to millions of people across the globe and thru generations, I can only imagine what feelings of excitement, anticipation, gratitude, relief, hope, and joy must have swelled the hearts of those lucky immigrants for whom Ellis Island was a portal to this great land of freedom and opportunity.

What volume of tears that must have washed the crowded decks of the countless ships in the endless parade of humanity that made it to the welcome shores of our blessed country. Tears of thankfulness, joy, and relief as weary refugees from troubled lands completed long and arduous journeys thru fear and oppression, into the light of security and freedom that our country promises. Tears of saddness and regret for those loved ones left behind or lost along the way.

I can only imagine what exhilaration and inspiration lifted their spirits, as they lifted their eyes to the horizon that revealed itself as they neared the harbor, catching their first glimpse of Her, beckoning them to our free and prosperous nation.

Though access to Her crown has been denied

for the forseeable future, the freedoms and

opportunities that She symbolizes are not denied to anyone who chooses to make the

most of their talents and ambition, and calls

this great country their home.

Rather than the view of New York from Her

crown, our view of Her captures the essence of

Her beauty and meaning.

Brad

Trees in Antarctica? There goes the neighborhood!

2006-07-15T16:00:00.000-07:00

Yes, we could see trees growing in Antarctica within this very century perhaps, according to one climatologist, Stanford Professor Robert Dunbar.

Al Gore would be terrified, I'm sure, to learn that the Earth may actually produce more vegetatian than it does now, because of global warming, not in spite of it. More vegetatian means potentially more food for the world's peoples. Isn't that a good thing?

People suffering from starvation due to drought and pestilince aren't overly concerned that this planet might produce more vegetation. Quite to the contrary, if we can take advantage of this increased vegetation, then we'll only have the small matters of dictatorial tyrrany, civil wars, and ethnic "cleansing" to tackle before every child can go to bed well fed.

Brad

The ol' Grey Lady has Alzheimer's

2006-06-28T17:00:00.000-07:00

Useless beyond her prime, and posing a danger to herself and others around her, the Grey Lady has increasingly displayed signs of dimentia and mental (as well as moral) atrophy.

She can't remember who she is or where she lives.

Besides frequently confusing even the simplest details, she's become a vulnerable target for unscrupulous conmen who are all too eager to expoit her diminished capacities.

Sinking into psychotic bouts of "bite the hand that feeds you" behavior, she often turns on her caregivers and those who protect her from outside harm, mistaking them as the real threat to her well-being.

This most recent and most egregious betrayal (Sorry, FREE NYTimes.com registration req'd.) of trust between herself and the family who care for her, demonstrates clearly that she is beyond help, and deserves to be put out of her misery for her own good, and for the health and safety of all.

Could somebody put a call in to Michael Schiavo or Jack Kevorkian please?

Brad

NOTE: Christian compassion and respect for life of course demands that real people not be done-away with. This is satire.

apologies for sparse posting

2006-06-16T16:30:00.000-07:00

I've been very busy of late, mentoring a young expectant mother recovering from Meth, whose boyfriend is about 4 wks into a 2-3yr prison sentence.

***UPDATE*** We've been trying to finish some home improvements so she can move out of a rented house (it got kinda trashed over the last 2 yrs.), and into an apartment to start her new life with her soon-to-arrive daughter. I'm there pretty much every evening after work, and she has no computer. (Not that I'd be able to blog anyway!)
That's in addition to trying to spend time with my recently Honorably-discharged Army son before he begins his National Guard duty, and my youngest son before he leaves for the Air Force.

I'll try to squeeze something in more frequently, even if it's not very well researched.

In the meantime, try www.hughhewitt.com and his many excellent links!

Brad

Is the DNC ghostwriting for Ahmadinejad?

2006-05-09T17:30:00.000-07:00

(Or, could it be...........Ted Kaczynski ?)

Despite its high school-quality argumentation and prose, this translated letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush resembles some of our Fever Swamp Left's lamest examples of paranoid propaganda.

Or maybe because of it.

Clearly a kindred spirit to many of this country's Bush-haters, Ahmadinejad penned the rambling 18 pager (morphing from one topic to another) without consulting his nation's parliament about its content.
And what content it has!
In a stream-of-consciousness manner, the former teacher resonates most of the Gore/Dean/Kennedy/Bin Laden/Soros/Reid/Pelosi/Kerry talking points on the evils of the Bush Administration, and western democratic capitalism in general:

"...lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed..."

"...sanctity of private homes of citizens broken..."

"...the country pushed back perhaps fifty years..."

"...tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way..."

"...taken away from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families."

"On the pretext of the existence of WMDs...

"...no WMDs existed to begin with..."

"...throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West."

"...prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them..."

"...the existence of secret prisons in Europe..."

And then, of course, there's Israel. There's always Israel:

"...many questions about the phenomenon of Israel..."

"...sixty years ago such a country did no exist... (looking at)"old documents and globes..."

"...try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel."

My, but that's precious sarcasm, is it not? (Those jackasses still don't have Israel on their maps.)

"...study the history of WWI and II..."

"After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed..."

"Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East...?"

"A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids,

destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand

its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps

thousands of Palestinians in prison."

Eventually, Ahmadinejad moves on to our oppressive (and probably envy-driven) criticism of Iran's wonderful technology sector:

"Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement

reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and

portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime?

Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history

has scientific and technical progress been a crime?"

My apologies to those who hate long posts, but this Unabomber-like letter deserves even more excerpting, so this post will grow, or I'll continue on another date....

Given his penchant for long, rambling, multi-pronged missives, perhaps Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber) is writing under Ahmadinejad's name....

And given the Iranian president's copious facial hair, I'll heretofore reference him as Unibrower. (It's easier to spell, mainly.)

Brad

The Unseen Hand, all too visible

2006-05-02T09:30:00.000-07:00

Once again we see the results of liberal social-engineering backfiring (if one cares to see it that way), with the disparity between female and male college graduation rates.

57 percent are women. That would leave, oh-let's say around 43 percent: men.
If it were 55/45 would they be happy? 53/47? 51/49? Or, will only a 50/50 ratio satisfy?

Why, exactly, is it necessary that we even have equitable representation of both genders (and mark my words: liberals will eventually demand graduation/employment ratios for G/L/B/T's too-- you know it's coming!) for awarding degrees? As long as everyone has the same OPPORTUNITY to attend college- legally the same opportunity - then our government and colleges have done their jobs, in this matter.

Perhaps it's time for the establishment liberals in academia to STOP TINKERING with the damn enrollment process, hoping to achieve a college population to fit some dreamy formula they have. Let the best students (regardless of race, creed, color, gender, age, or physical ability) get the opportunity at the limited openings available at most colleges.

And then there's this unsurprising (to some folks) analysis of the educational outcomes between the sexes: "In a new Manhattan Institute study we find that females graduate high school at substantially higher rates than males." (National Review Online, 04-19-06) And both genders are struggling somewhat, as the study reports, "...while an already low 72 percent of female students graduate from high school, only 65 percent of male students earned a diploma."

Brad

Racism in America, 2006

2006-04-28T09:30:00.000-07:00

(written April 5 but not posted)

It's very interesting that Rep. Cynthia McKinney's congressional website has a link to this hyper-racist and leftist-filled website. It appears to be a website dedicated to Louis Farrakhan, who was just one of several racists that joined McKinney at her April 3, 2006 press conference to cry "Wolf! Wolf!" once again. Egads, but this crap gets tiresome after awhile.

It's time to leave the damn plantation, folks! It's 2006. Move ON with your lives and stop seeing a bigot under every bed.

Brad

Is Islam the "hockey" of religions?

2006-03-13T15:30:00.000-08:00

(See "Why more violence in hockey?" post for some background.)

(The crowd is smiling in the picture on the right because they've strung up the burned
and desecrated corpse of an American. Otherwise, smiles are HARD to find in radical Islam.)

The routine frustrations of the impoverished daily life for so many Muslims who are shackled to, and indoctrinated by, the 7th century-like regimes that run their countries, may be a key factor in producing the volatile, powderkeg fanatics that can be ignited over something as banal as a cartoon of their prophet Mohammad.

According to Freedom House, of the world's 47 Muslim-majority countries, only Mali is free, and 7 of the 10 worst (most oppressive) are Islamic states. (HT to Prager)

Fundamentalist Muslims exhibit more intolerance for non-Muslims (and for less fundamentalist Muslims within Islam) than other religionists do toward those of other faiths and the non-religious. Radicalized Muslims seem to demonstrate an excessive adherence to the interpretation of "Islam" as obedience, when they attempt to impose their version of Sharia on non-Muslim neighbors within their countries. The self-inflicted frustration they experience due to their unreasonable demand that Islam "be the religion followed by the entire world" (#3 references Reliance of the Traveler) , is a stark contrast to the Christian's hope for others to "know Christ", and their peaceful, self-sacrificing, charitable missionary efforts.

Now, I must point out that many "Christians" can be as humorless as a child's funeral. And some are even bitter grumps. They don't radiate the light of a genuinely vibrant personal relationship with a loving God...their lives are not a witness to the presence of the Holy Spirit dwelling within them...their actions and attitudes are not fruitful examples of the gracious gratitude of a sinner saved by grace...they haven't broken the bondage of old prejudices and bad habits...and (like it or not) the fact is that even people with lousy personalities can become Christians. And then we're stuck with them contributing to some people's perceptions of "Christians". It's a big tent.

There are also some people who are so weak or confused (even twisted) in their understanding of God's expectations of them, that they barely qualify. And then there are outright frauds.

With that caveat, it must be recognized that the public image of any particular group is created by the most visible of it's members.

Though Islam is a religion practiced (as varied, within itself, in style and fervor as Christianity and Judaism) by some 1.2 billion to 1.4 billion peoples across the globe, the face of Islam for most of the non-Muslim world is increasingly that of the radically violent Islamofascist. And it is up to the rest of Islam to change that.

Returning to this post's question, it would seem the answer is "Yes", based upon the aggregate public expression of Islam in relation to other major religions.

Ancient history notwithstanding, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and others do not behead, blowup, burn, and otherways kill the non-adherents around them.

Brad

...and nobody got hurt

2006-02-22T14:28:00.000-08:00

This bank heist yesterday netted the crooks about $43,500,000 and these guys managed to pull it off without cutting anybody's head off, or blowing them up, or torching the building, even!

The clean, efficient execution of this well-planned job makes one almost wish that Al-Queida would emulate them, and start robbing banks. Just take the money, and leave people alone.

Brad

George Washington's cherry tree

2006-02-20T09:30:00.000-08:00

One of the simplest and most enduring stories from the personal histories of great Americans is the familiar tale of George Washington and the cherry tree. As one of the very first history lessons that most of us were taught in school, it presented an example of honesty and integrity, virtues that few, if any, historians (and even his rivals) ever denied our first president embodied.

Some voices in today's media and academic elite, however, seem to take great pleasure in dismissing this traditional tale as sentimental folklore. Some jaded intellectuals express cynicism about the story, denying its veracity as historical propaganda aimed at creating a false image of Washington's character, of almost deifying him as ever-virtuous and true.

Why?

Is the story really so unbelievable? What facet of it is beyond belief? Is it absurd that a kid would cut down a tree on his family's land? Is it preposterous that his father might have a "favorite tree"? (As the story is sometimes told.) Does it stretch credulity that, when confronted about the incident by his father, a boy would tell the truth about it?

Or, is it the traditional wording of Washington's response: "Father, I cannot tell a lie..." that goads the cynics?
Do these fools actually think that we believe this to be an exact quote? (Even that is not unlikely, given the proper english common to that day.) Or do they think that George was saying that he was incapable of telling a lie, any lie? Is that the rub?

Whatever the criticism, what's to be gained by rejecting this tale?
Do we not want to instill our youth with a sense of honesty, an expectation of taking responsibility for one's actions? Is personal integrity a character trait we'd rather our children not develop? For, the tale has more than mere historical value. It's a lesson in personal virtue.
By holding George Washington up as a great American, worthy of emulation, we give our kids something to shoot for when we share the simple tale of his boyhood honesty. They are able to identify with the concept of a thoughtless act committed, and the natural temptation to avoid punishment by lying about it.

Have we become so jaded in our own time of well-publicized dishonestly by our elected officials that we cannot believe a simple story about a boy 'fessing-up to something?

This is a very humourous retelling of the famous tale, circa Bill Clinton...

It's bad enough that we've diminished the memories of both Washington and Lincoln by concocting "President's Day" so government employee's can have another 3-day weekend.

Brad

Why more violence in hockey?

2006-02-09T16:00:00.000-08:00

For those who've wondered why it is that hockey players are involved in more scuffles during games than athletes in other sports, and why games often erupt into violence, I have a theory: frustration.

Frustration: an act of hindering someone's plans or efforts; a feeling of annoyance at being hindered or criticized; the feeling that accompanies an experience of being thwarted in attaining your goals.

We all know that feeling; what it's like to be frustrated in something we try to accomplish.
The anxiety of an unmet goal can be very oppressive, even defeating.

The main source of frustration in hockey is the difficulty of handling the puck with your stick. The constant inevitability of losing control of the puck, combined with the fast pace of the game and the near chaos of the arrangement of players on the ice, creates an environment of frustration. Unlike in basketball, football, and baseball (even soccer affords more control over the ball), hockey players are continually thwarted in simply getting from point-A to point-B (a short distance in a short amount of time, too) with the very object of their game, using the main modes of conveyance in their sport, stick-handling and passing.

As a basketball player, if I constantly had the ball stolen from me while I was playing, I would get very frustrated!
This frustration, I believe, is the single greatest source of the edginess, short tempers, and uncontrolled aggression that is so characteristic of hockey and many of it's players.

Which brings us to the subject of violently fanatical Muslims, and their frustrations...

Brad

Real blaphsemy vs. imaged ones

2006-02-08T17:00:00.000-08:00

While fundamentalist Muslims riot, destroy, and kill people
over the noninflammatory cartoons in Europe, this image ->->
of REAL blasphemy should never leave our consciousness.

Do Muslims worry about what THIS tells the world about Islam?

How does this treatment of a REAL human being compare to
cartoon images of the "prophet" Mohammad?

This Wikipedia page shows the cartoons that have sparked the massive Muslim protests, riots, destruction, threats of violence, and several murders. And here's another link, to a page from Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonists Index, a fairly useful clearinghouse of political cartoons.

I especially like the clarity of this item by John Sherffius:

This entire ordeal makes me want to go out and see Albert Brooks' latest film, Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, to see if he actually found any. I'm doubtful.

Brad

Not just a day off with no mail...

2006-01-16T14:00:00.000-08:00

Take time today to remember Dr. Martin Luther King properly. Read his magnificent "I Have a Dream" speech. Better yet, allow yourself the less than twelve minutes it takes to watch the speech here. (The text is also available there.)
It is one of the most powerful displays of rhetoric in the history of mankind.

Absorb the message.

Ponder on it.

Ask yourself what it is that you are doing to realize this truly American dream for yourself or those around you.

Dr. King deserves at least that much consideration today.

Brad

2006-01-14T12:30:00.000-08:00

This is what can happen when you don't watch where you're driving!

And be sure you have an accurate map; the USS San Fransisco hit an uncharted undersea mountain while travelling at high speed about 500 ft below surface, near Guam. Sadly, one sailor died, while 23 were treated by SEAL medics.

Brad

The essence of OUR Military

2006-01-12T17:30:00.000-08:00

I write this from a cyber-cafe at the Marine Corp Recruit Depot in San Diego, CA., the night before my son, Daniel, graduates from Marine Recruit Training. Unfortunately, this morning was the "more important ceremony", according to Dan. And the flight he booked for me was too late to catch both the Motivational Run and the "Eagle, Globe and Anchor Ceremony". Drat! I'll have to relish the Graduation Ceremony tomorrow.

It's inspiring and very encouraging to see so many fine, fit, disciplined, and respectful young men, willing to literally put their lives on the line in the service of this greatest nation on God's green Earth. (HT to Medved)

I'll post more about this later, but for now I'll leave you with this:

"...they stand on a wall, and they say 'nothing is going to harm you tonight- not on my watch' "

This complelling quote from "A Few Good Men" captures the essence of the United States military mission, it's very purpose for being.

Brad

Intelligent Design (and Pat Robertson)

2006-01-06T17:10:00.000-08:00

....from Nov. 10...more draft-cleanup....

He put his foot in his mouth again. Pat Robertson went too far in warning the citizens of Dover, PA that God "might not be there" if they ask for His help in a disaster, simply because a majority of citizens voted their school board out of office for allowing Intelligent Design concepts in public school.

This is all that the school board actually did, by the way: The board ordered schools to read students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it.
The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternate theory and recommended students read a book that explained the theory further. That's it. That's all.
A statement, and a book recommendation.

Followed by teaching evolution.

I mean, it's not as if they were handing out condoms and running an in-school health clinic to help pregnant teens get abortions without their folks finding out. Now that would be out of bounds...

Brad

Intelligent Design court ruling observations

2006-01-06T17:00:00.000-08:00

.....Cleaning up unfinished drafts...

This story on MSNBC.com reveals how the American Left will continue to erode the historical culture of our society, and will further ensure the aimlessness and hedonism of our youth.

Salient quotes from the article:

"Intelligent design" is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory ..."

"Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said. "

“We conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child."

Jones blasted the disclaimer, saying it "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry (??) in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

And this is a very interesting presumptive statement about the Dover Board that proposed the Disclaimer: "several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs." (Emphasis added)
They professed religious beliefs... The editorializing in that statement implies that professing religious beliefs is in conflict with lying. That's not surprising, of course. TRUTH is a hallmark of Christianity. (I didn't use religion because some religions don't give a wit about Truth. In fact, some don't even accept the notion.)
But, isn't it expected of everyone to tell the truth? Not just those who profess religious beliefs. Naively expected, I suppose.

Judge Jones is clearly injecting his over-reactive personal opinion into the court decision when he claims that the Dover school board disclaimer "instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry" in the classroom, or anywhere else. Another idiotic accusation about the intent and effect of including some mention of Intelligent Design in science class. Including it, not replacing evolution theory with it.

Brad

World War Four

2006-01-06T16:00:00.000-08:00

(( I started this post May 4, and, in looking over my Drafts, decided to just bang out a conclusion and get it posted, forwhatitsworth.))

The continuing ignorance or obstinance (I don't know which is more troubling) by the Left of not recognizing that the Vietnam war was really just a theater of World War III, the war against Communist expansion, is being repeated now in World War IV, the war against Islamofascist terrorism.
They've been at war with us for decades. We've finally responded, under the leadership of George W. Bush.

Timeline:

1979 Tehran US Embassy seized
1983 Beirut US Embassy bombed 63 killed
1983 Beirut US Marine Hdqtrs bombed 241 killed
1983 Kuwait US Embassy bombed
1984 Beirut US Embassy bombed
1985 Madrid restuarant/soldiers bombed
1985 Rhein-Main US AF bombed 22 killed
1985 Achille Lauro hijacked (Leon Klinghoffer murdered)
1986 TWA flight 840 bombed 4 killed
1988 Pan Am flight 103 Lockerbie bombed 259 killed
1993 Langley VA CIA Hdqtrs shooting 2 CIA agents killed
1993 NY WTC garage bombed 6 killed and over 1000 injured
1995 Riyadh US military complex bombed 7 killed
1996 Dhahran the Khobar Towers destroyed,

........19 killed and over 500 injured
2000 Yemen USS Cole bombed 17 sailors killed

2001 September 11 WTC destroyed, Pentagon attacked.... almost 3000 killed

Over a year ago, Norman Podhoretz published a comprehensive analysis of this battle in the pages of Commentary magazine, comprehensively titled "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win". It is well worth the investment of time it will take you to read and absorb. (Print it, punch the pages, and bind it) Consider it as an assignment of citizenship.

Brad

CONGRATULATIONS Iraq!

2005-12-15T09:30:00.000-08:00

Once again, the Iraqi peoples are practicing democracy, celebrating it in fact, as they turn out in record numbers to cast their votes for their choices of leadership.

The march of liberty and democracy continues, as more of our fellow world citizens realize that this is the way of the future of mankind, with occasional disruptions by madmen and evil ones.
Too bad that this chap doesn't quite get it yet:

“It’s an extremist government we would like an end to the occupation,” said Ahmed Majid, 31. “Really the only true solution is through politics. But there is the occupation and the only way that will end is with weapons.”

Wrong, sir. Our "occupation" will end when your military is ready to keep the peace and order in your country. And we will do so peacably. And gladly.

Brad

Gerald Ford: a compelling figure

2005-12-13T18:30:00.000-08:00

Compelling is not an adjective that's usually applied to a description of our 38th president, but it seems to fit when one considers a few of the following facets of his life:

1935 Turns down contract offers from the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers of the National Football League, deciding instead to attend Yale University Law School. Despite Chevy Chase's caricature of him during his term in office, he chose the more cerebral profession of law over the hero-status of football. (Interestingly, in '35 the Lions were NFL champs, and in '36 the Packers were, so he was sought by two of the best in league.)

1948 Elected to the House of Representatives. In that election and his 12 subsequent re-elections, always receives more than 60 percent of the vote. Only 35 years old then, and always a clear favorite.

Nov. 29, 1963 Appointed by President Johnson to the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He is the last remaining member of the commission.
Now, I have to admit that this particular item is one that prompted me to post. One wonders what he knows about that fateful day in American history...

Aug 9, 1974 He is the only president not to have been elected either president or vice president.
A singular distinction that assures his place in presidential trivia for generations henceforth.

Sept. 5, 1975 Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, a follower of imprisoned cult leader Charles Manson, points a gun at Ford as he shakes hands in Sacramento, Calif. No shots are fired.
Sept. 22, 1975 Radical Sara Jane Moore tries unsuccessfully to shoot Ford outside the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco Again I admit, this item surprised me. I recall "Squeaky" Fromme (frequently, in fact, for some as-yet unexplored reason..) and her attempt on the president's life, but I had forgotten about Sara Jane Moore. This guy had two attempts on his life! (Both by women, interestingly... What's that all about?)

Anyway, I wish him and his family Godspeed and a blessed CHRISTmas to them all.
Be well, Mr. President!

Brad

A minor personal regret

2005-12-12T22:00:00.000-08:00

I wish that I had routinely worn any particular cologne when my children were young.

Almost any brand would have worked. Nothing expensive or hip, necessarily, and even something as common as Brut or Old Spice would suffice. Just some particular scent for my kids to connect me with. Rather, one distinct aroma which they could one day connect to me.

Even better, one pleasantly distinct aroma with which my kids could one day connect with me, across the miles and years, eventually even crossing the spiritual strata between this and the afterlife. (Them here, me there.)

The third paragraph of this post by James Lileks got me thinking about this, and it's something which I've pondered before. The incredible memory-trigger of scent, and one which I've deprived my children of: Dad's cologne. A masculine aroma they would've come to know as mine, and might occasionally happen across as their lives unfold over the passing years, which would instantly transport them to that mental-emotional realm of memory.

And it's precisely why I would differ with James on the criteria for choosing a scent, which he comments on in his piece, "... mostly I don’t like cologne. It fades. It turns. In the end it all ends up smelling like Brut or some fresh citrusy anti-Brut, and it gets on your shirts... I’ll stick with my Eucalyptus-Spearmint profile, gathered from Bath & Body Works soaps and shampoos. I know that someday they will stop making it, and I will cease to have the same faint aroma I have today. That’s an odd thought, but true. Whereas guys will smell like some variant of Brut forever. They may call it something else...but it's...favored by too many gents to ever go out of style."

It's just that sort of popularity I'd be counting on, to keep my scent unexpectedly available. A serendipity awaiting discovery. An aromatic trigger to unlock dormant memories of dear ol' Dad, brought vividly to the present moment for them; hopefully to prompt a warm smile of fondness, and happy anticipation of reunion on the other side.

Perhaps it's not entirely too late- I'm still around and plan to be for awhile. Perhaps I'll go out and pick a cologne, or let my daughter select one for me. One that my kids can someday fondly recall me by, whenever they get a whiff of that aroma they could come to know as... Dad's cologne.

Brad

Lileks on Vonnegut

2005-12-12T15:27:00.000-08:00

As an addendum to my post on Kurt Vonnegut, here are some excerpts from a blog post by James Lileks (although it's not normally advisable to quote Lileks incompletely-because the flow of his prose is often so crucial to the full impact of his writing- I thought these particular points worth sharing) :

“…all it would take is a few book editors in a few magazines to say “to hell with the old coot; I have a cousin serving in Iraq, and I’ll be goddamned if I give this hairy old fool a pass because he wrote a book my brother loved in college. What’s the matter with us? Do we excuse everything because it kicks Bush in the nuts?”

“Vonnegut is an addled old fool whose brain has rusted in the antiestablishment default position for so long he cannot distinguish between suicide bombers and people who stage a sit-in at a Woolworth’s counter.”

“…seems to think that suicide bombings literally happen in a vacuum, an unpopulated space where the bombers just pop like soap bubbles. It may be painless for them – alas – but it is not painless for the victims.”

“Personally, I think it’s a worse thing to deprive someone of their own self-life.” (NOTE: Vonnegut accused the US of depriving the Islamofascist terrorists of their self-respect. Here's his quote: "They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect.")

With tongue firmly-planted in cheek: “It goes without saying he (Vonnegut) will be spending his senior years naked in a cell, fighting rats for a scrap of bread, writing brave quatrains on the wall with a shoelace-tip dipped in rat’s blood, awakened daily at 4 AM with bright lights and the national anthem. Such is life in Chimpsuit McHaillihitler’s America.”

Thanks for the usual stellar wordsmith work, James.

Brad

Vonnegut going senile?

2005-12-07T21:30:00.000-08:00

It's very sad to learn that the brilliant mind that crafted the world of Harrison Bergeron, with such scathingly humorous insight, has atrophied into the cliched amoral grey matter of the feverswamp Left.

Although he was always a darling of the Left, Kurt Vonnegut's classic short story, Harrison Bergeron, expresses a conservative perspective, not a liberal one. (In some people's formulas the inconsistency qualifies him as a moderate.) At least in 1961, Vonnegut had a moment of clarity about the foolish and unjust pursuit of equality-as-a-virtue to be valued above freedom and excellence. The liberal dream to "level the playing field" knows no end, and doesn't acknowledge or factor-in differing degrees of individual talent, effort, and goals. Although anyone who reads the story would recognize the cruel madness of the Bergeron's 2081 world, liberalism, as it's manifested today, would be the seed from which such a brier patch of twisted logic would sprout.
The opening sentence, "The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal", sounds like a liberal utopia.
The satirical story stealthily embraces and promotes the very essence of liberty: being allowed to follow your talents and determination as far as they can take you, and to reap the fruits of your labor.
It was a brief, isolated excursion into reality for Vonnegut. But I digress...

This "grand old man of American letters" (as David Nason calls him in the story from The Australian) has compared our government, or rather, the Bush Administration, to Hitler's Reichstag, in which Vonnegut sees Bush taking unaccountable power unto himself and abusing it.

Interviewed in his own publication, "In These Times", the 80 year old socialist said " I myself feel that our country has been taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d’etat imaginable. And those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities."

Implying that President Bush is one of these psychopathic personalities ("P.P."), Vonnegut says ""With a P.P., decisiveness is all. Or, to put it another way, we now have a Reichstag fire of our own."
Translation: BushCheneyRoveRumsfeldWolfowitz and the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy were behind 9/11.
Paranoia will destroy ya.

"..I'm mad about being American", he says, and "I don't want to belong to a country that attacks little countries. I don't want to belong to that kind of a country." So, is that the criteria he chooses to define Iraq? Little? By that measurement, the police should never go after anyone littler than their department. It isn't fair; it makes them bullies, I guess.
Vonnegut said of the captured Iraqi soldiers in the Gulf War: "Those men are my brothers. All soldiers are". Regardless, apparently, of whose side their on, and for what cause they'll kill.

Referring to the Islamofascist terrorists we're fighting, he says it was "sweet and honorable" to die for what you believe in, and said "I regard them as very brave people". "He rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs". Also, according to Nason, Vonnegut "equated the actions of suicide bombers with...Truman's 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima". And in 2003, reports Nason, Vonnegut wrote that "the US was hated around the world "because our corporations have been the principal deliverers and imposers of new technologies and economic schemes that have wrecked the self-respect, the cultures of men, women and children in so many other societies".

True to form for so many "enlightened" and "progressive" liberal hypocrites, Vonnegut doesn't hold women, in general, in very high regard, either. Referring to psychopathic personalities, he says "Women are attracted to them. I mean, this is a defect, but women are attracted to them because they are so confident. But this is a serious defect..."
I thought Lefties were supposed to be such great feminists? Those don't strike me as very respectful sentiments.
And on a related note, he describes Gordon Parks as "a black genius". Why mention his skin color? Is his pigmentation related to his genius? Should he be more admired for it?

Finally, while comparing Socialism's ideal of "economic justice" to The Sermon on the Mount, Vonnegut claims that "the religious right will not acknowledge what a merciful person Jesus was."

Kurt Vonnegut better hope that He is.

Brad

"Like Joseph fleeing Potiphar's wife"

2005-12-01T16:15:00.000-08:00

For years now, that phrase pops into my head when trying to communicate the need for urgent evacuation from a non-emergency situation that is, none-the-less, an impending potential crisis. (The need to flee could be mine or someone else's.) I say non-emergency because the phrase sounds too flippant to use in an actual emergency.
In an actual emergency, the Attention Signal you just heard...whoa, got a crossed-message there. Sorry about that! In an actual emergency, it might undermine the sense of urgency needed to respond quickly. It might even stop someone in their tracks (or at least put a quizzical look on their biblically-illiterate face, while they try...) to decipher an increasingly obscure allusion to one chapter in the Book of Genesis. The pertinent passages are here, in case you need a refresher. Or if you have no idea what I'm babbling about.

I said the phrase pops into my head. I haven't actually given it voice very often, probably to avoid being viewed as a total geek. But it's there, just the same. I love the picture it paints in my head. I can actually see Joseph tearing away (perhaps with a spin move ala Barry Sanders or Chuck Foreman) from his master's wife, leaving his empty garment in her hand, and unquenched lust in her heart.
The image it creates is akin to a cartoon character (Roadrunner is a perfect example) departing so quickly (with the accompanying bullet-ricochet sound) that his hat is suspended midair where his head once was, (Roadrunner, of course, didn't wear a hat, but you know what I mean.) fleeing post-haste.

And what on earth, you ask, prompts me to bring this up? (Glad you finally asked!) Well, someone left an April 2002 copy of Catholic Digest in the breakroom at work (no, it's not a Jesuit dentist's waiting room), and I was reading a very well-written article by Bill Dodds titled "The Easy Way to Heaven". A humorous and utterly digestible piece, yet with such striking clarity for such a celestial topic that it's downright revelatory.
Subtitled "A cowardly, thieving plan that will send you straight to paradise", Dodds lists three steps: 1. Be a coward 2. Cheat often 3. Steal if you possibly can.

One of the passages highlighted reads: "Sometimes fighting temptation by fighting temptation is foolish. It isn't that you're overmatched; you have God on your side. But why fight when you can run. Upon reading that line, that image of Joseph fleeing temptation (we at least hope that this righteous servant was fleeing temptation, not just an ugly shrew) popped into my head again. (This time I believe I actually did say it out loud, to noone there.)
If he were about 12 yrs old at the time, it might have looked something like this. Minus the two comrades and a dog.
And the garments.
And the sign would read "No sinning".
And his friends wouldn't be half-naked, either. What was going on back there, anyway? Joseph?!

My kids (and a brother or two) have accused me of thinking too much. Maybe they're right.

Brad

Rescuers again

2005-11-29T16:45:00.000-08:00

That's what we're doing in Iraq: rescuing people

from the evil of others.

Seems familiar?

You have seen this before....

.....Oklahoma, 1995...

Tragically, Baylee Almon died from her injuries

after firefighter Chris Fields carried her away

from Timothy McVeigh's (and who else...?) carnage.

And so too, little Farah died shortly after

Major Mark Bieger rushed to our hospital.

(He wanted her to have American surgeons.)

The top photo is the work of Michael Yon. Perhaps he'll be awarded a Pulitzer, like Charles H. Porter IV.

Brad

The image of OUR soldiers

2005-11-29T09:24:00.000-08:00

This is a beautiful image of one of our brave lads cradling an Iraqi child in his arms. If it doesn't choke you up to see this, you must be a Bush-hating, America-blaming leftist, or worse.

The photo was taken by Michael Yon, one of the BEST journalists working in Iraq. The photo is posted on his blog, linked above, and a limited number of framed/matted reprints can be purchased there. I'm not getting paid for this mention; I just love the photo and appreciate Michael's work.

Brad

France's predictable dilemma

2005-11-07T18:15:00.000-08:00

"...understood, heard and respected..."

That's what Jacques Chirac wants the vandalising immigrant youths of France to feel.

France “has not done everything possible for these youths, supported them so they feel understood, heard and respected,” according to the European-socialist president.

With appeasing, spineless talk like that, the scofflaws have him right where they want him.

...rioting has spread out of Paris’ suburbs and across the country.....worst civil unrest in decades entered a 12th night... rioters setting fire to a bus... pelting police with gasoline bombs and rocks...a junior high school was set ablaze...youths threw gasoline bombs at a hospital...a 61-year-old retired auto worker died of wounds from an attack last week...foreign governments warned their citizens to be careful in France...

Vandals burned more than 1,400 vehicles overnight into Monday, as well as churches, schools and businesses, and injured 36 police officers in clashes around the country, setting a new high for arson and violence.... Attacks were reported in 274 towns...

Apparent copycat attacks took place outside France, with five cars torched outside the main train station in Brussels, Belgium. German police were investigating the burning of five cars in Berlin.

An interesting bullet-point and line from the AP story I'm excerpting: Neglected suburbs
The mayhem is forcing France to confront anger building for decades in neglected suburbs...
Neglected? How so, and by whom? Peddling the socialist viewpoint (which is creeping ever-more into the subconscience of America) that people, neighborhoods, communities require "attention" from a central government (New Orleans ring any bells?) or they cannot function, cannot sustain themselves from within, cannot provide for their own needs and govern themselves, the writer of this story unwittingly reveals his collectivist bias. The people and businesses that comprise these suburbs are the ones, in concert with their local governments, that are responsible to care for and administrate their own affairs.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister seems to be paying part of the blackmail that Socialist opposition leader, Francois Hollande, is pushing for: He said Villepin should have put more emphasis on improving life in tough neighborhoods...

And sure enough: Villepin said he wanted to speed up a $35.5 billion urban redevelopment plan, triple the number of merit scholarships for talented students and offer jobs, training or internships to disadvantaged young people.
“We must offer them hope and a future,” he said.

On the other hand, he did say this, as well:

“The multiplying acts of destruction, the destruction of schools and sports centers, thousands of cars set on fire, all of this is unacceptable and inexcusable,” Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said. “To all in France who are watching me, who are disturbed by this, who are shocked, who want to see a return to normalcy, a return to security, the state’s response — I say it tonight forcefully — will be firm and just.”

Well, we shall see. Oui, oui, we shall see.

Brad

And Here we go Again. . .

2005-11-01T06:57:00.000-08:00

Our great leader no more than opened his mouth, and the negative talkingpoints started rollling in from the left. (Which is interesting since they didn't even have the chance to learn anything about him, or talk to Alito yet!?!) But I digress. The worst thing is the comments coming from the likes of Schumer and Clinton. They both of course speak about the idea that Alito will divide this nation, and that Bush should have nominated someone that would have united the nation. When will they get it? The supreme court has one role and one role only. They strictly interpret the constitution on national matters, and pay attention to nothing else. (except occasionally sneaking a peek at international policies, but thats for a different post) That is something we have all learned in eight grade history, and has not changed for 230 years!!

Adam

Scrappleface humorous wisdom

2005-10-27T18:00:00.000-07:00

If you haven't discovered Scott Ott's satirical topical "news" articles website yet, then you missed this tongue-in-cheek "criticism" of President Bush, on the occasion of the Iraq Constitution approval:

"...according to an unnamed expert from a non-partisan, progressive political think-tank..."

"The Bush foreign policy continues to be fatally-wounded by clarity of purpose, dogged persistence and a pathetic failure to capitulate in the face of opposition," the source said. "At a time when a real leader would be paralyzed with self-doubt over the meaningless deaths of 2,000 American troops, Bush continues to act as if freeing 25 million Iraqis from decades of oppression, torture and death is somehow worth the price paid by those who volunteered to fight."

Bitingly-funny, Scott Ott consistently illuminates the truth of an issue by using his first-rate sense of humor. Indeed, our President is doggedly persistent, has a clarity of purpose in this war on terror, and he isn't paralyzed with self-doubt, despite the arbitrary "milestone" of 2000 brave souls who voluntarily helped free 25 million Iraqis.

Brad

Thoughts on Miers' nomination withdrawl

2005-10-27T16:00:00.000-07:00

This too shall pass.
This was not just a fine example of vigorous and principled debate within the body politic, but ample proof that the Republican party, especially conservatives, do not march in lock-step to this President. (No matter how much we love him.)

After progressive Ed Schultz (on his Oct. 12 show) accused the anti-Meirs brigade of being insincere, I sent him this letter:

Dear Big Ed,
On Wednesday's show you warned your listeners that the conservative pundit's attacks on the President's nomination of Harriet Meirs were "just a conservative smokescreen" to "defang" the Democrat's opposition; to sort of lull them into a false sense of ease about her likelyhood of being confirmed do to (insincere) criticism from the rightwing punditry.
Could you tell us (on air, please) how this works? What are the machinations involved with orchestating this sort of prank? How does the vast rightwing conspiracy determine who's turn it is to play critic, and who gets to play advocate?
Do they draw staws at one of the smokefilled gatherings at Karl Rove's house in the wee hours of the morning? Is there some random-selection generating software that everyone has on their super-secure laptops, and they each get their marching orders, per each event? Or, as some football teams do occasionally, do they "call the plays", in advance, with each party executing their assigned duties on cue?
How did George Will, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, and Robert Bork, etc learn that it was their turn to criticize, and others' to support, the prez?
I think your listeners would LOVE to learn of the secret arrangements that result in this current in-house fracas, as fabricated and insincere as it may be.
Sincerely, Brad

I haven't heard back from him yet...

Diane Feinstein's false accusation of gender-bias by Republicans reveals an empty quiver on her part: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of 14 women in the Senate, had challenged Miers’ nomination yet criticized Republicans for derailing it: “I don’t believe they would have attacked a man the way she was attacked.”

That's the best criticism she can muster? Well, when you pretty much agree with a decision or some action taken by your enemy, you're not left with much, are you? Why the hell couldn't she just say she's pleased about Miers' withdrawl, and hopes that the president's next choice will be more qualified or experienced? She sounds more like the lesser half of California's Senate Duo, Barbara Boxer.
And just to show you how wrong you are, Senator, I hope that the President will nominate Janice Rogers Brown to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. Then, when there isn't an avalanche of opposition from Republicans, you'll be shown the foolishness of your claim.

Brad

AirAmerica host jokes that his cat told him to...

2005-10-26T08:15:00.000-07:00

KILL THE PRESIDENT. Now, is that funny,

or what?! Why, it's a real knee-slapper, it is.

That would be Marc Moron at it again this morning. On the 19th he suggested that "Dick Cheney should be executed for treason". (And he probably considers himself nonviolent.)

Gosh, I only wish that we right-wingers could get some talent like that for our obscure talk shows. Sadly, we're stuck with the likes of Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Michael Reagan, Bill Bennett, Michael Savage. Ya know, people you've actually heard of.

I wonder if Marc Maron is on the watch list for the Secret Service....?

Brad

Condi on the Hill

2005-10-24T23:30:00.000-07:00

I happened to recently catch some of CSPAN's broadcast of our Secretary of State being grilled by lesser intellects of the Senate. Particularly lesser is Barbara Boxer. Man, but I pity California! (Wait a minute-I better reserve some of that pity!) But I digress.
While Secretary Rice was explaining the progress we're making in Iraq, and how we're helping the Iraqis in their struggle to establish self government where it never existed, Senator Box-O-Rocks renewed the liberal lament that the administration's focus in Iraq has changed.

Condi might have replied: "Yes, Senator, much as the focus on a baby changes from the birth process to neonatal care, our involvement has to adapt to the changing needs of an infant democracy, not quite viable yet-to use a term you're fond of, Senator-without the aid of a mature and experienced party who has their best interest in mind." But she didn't.

Instead, she voiced a truism. Rice answered that this is the way the world works.

I was reminded of that when The Dennis Prager Show alerted us to a rare occurance for the LA Times: a good piece of commentary by a regular contributor! David Gelernter retells the Boxer-Rice exchange as an intro to a discussion about the history of our nation's expansion-of-vision during war. I especially like this excerpt: "...once a war is underway, free peoples tend to think things over deeply. Casualties concentrate the mind. We refuse to let our soldiers die for too little. America at war has lifted its sights again and again from danger, self-interest and self-defense to a larger, nobler goal."

Writes Gelernter: "At first, Colonial America made war on Britain to loosen the British grip on commerce and society, not to create an independent state. Only as the war dragged on and costs and casualties mounted did public opinion swing round toward independence. In 1861, the North reluctantly made war on the Confederacy to hold the Union together. President Lincoln was painfully aware that, at the start of the fighting, freedom for the slaves would not have commanded popular support as a cause for war. Only later, as casualties mounted and blood ran in rivers, did freeing the slaves become the Union's ultimate goal."
And then he points out: "We marched into World War I behind an idealistic war message from President Wilson to Congress. But the U.S. was in a fighting mood because of Germany's threat to sink unarmed American merchant ships and a German secret message (intercepted by Britain) offering Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico if it joined Germany against the U.S. Only later did self-determination in Europe and the creation of a League of Nations become American war goals."

In the Senate hearing, Secretary Rice tried to explain to Box-O-Rocks "...that this is the way the world works. For example, we did not go into World War II to build a democratic Germany…. Here Boxer interrupted. World War II, she told Rice curtly, has nothing to do with Iraq."
As Ronald Reagan once famously said, "There you go again!": a liberal refusing to learn from history.
As Condi was trying to illuminate, and as Gelernter points out about WWII: "Once the war was over, we spent years cultivating democracy in Japan and Germany. But we entered the war because Japan attacked us and, four days later, Adolf Hitler declared war on us."

Likewise, Al Qaeda attacked us and we began hunting them down in Afghanistan. This GWOT then turned to Iraq, with the ouster of a murderous UN-defiant tyrant who openly supported terrorism, especially against us and our ally, Israel.
As Gelernter put it: "America at war has lifted its sights again and again from danger, self-interest and self-defense to a larger, nobler goal. Same story, war after war. Iraq fits perfectly."

We've liberated 50 million peoples.
The seeds of democracy have been sown in the heart of the Middle East, in a desert where once the Hanging Gardens of Babylon flourished. Let us hope that liberty will flourish there as the Gardens once did.

Brad

Ed Schultz accuses Defense Dept of fraud on air

2005-10-20T22:00:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Ed Schultz accused the Defense Department of lying to active duty Reservists (by offering bonuses for extending their committments, and then renigging on the bonuses) in order to beef up recruitment numbers.
If this actually happened, it couldn't possibly be a simple error on somebody's part, now could it? It would have to be a premeditated scam. Because, well...this is Bush's military. And they're evil.
In his tale, Big Ed said that the bonuses were cancelled because the Pentagon claimed that they were a duplication of bonus programs already in place. Any offer/retraction incident couldn't be a result of poor communication or coordination. In Big Ed's fever-swamp mind, it must be a BushCheneyRoveRumsfeldWolfowitz conspiracy.

I've tried, to no avail, to find a story about this claim.

I've searched The Nation website for this- one must presume that they would love to herald a story that embarrasses the military. The wealth of military-dissing articles and columns there boggles the mind. The open contempt for our military is there for all the world to see.
But I found no articles about Big Ed's outrage, using "military bonuses" (that phrase would obviously be used) for the search. This is the most recent, but no cigar. This screed from the editor, from four months ago, gets me no kewpie doll, either. Neither does this or this.

I searched Drudge and came up empty. (His search tools for both Reuters and AP linked to WAPO search option. Weird.)

I looked in The Washington Times, MSN, Yahoo, and Google. No story about promised military bonuses being cancelled anywhere that I could find.

I wonder what Big Ed was spewing about....

Brad

Al Franken backs Vermont Socialist

2005-10-19T12:22:00.000-07:00

On today's Frankenfactless show, Al said of Vermont Senate candidate, Bernie Sanders, "...he's a Socialist, and he's great."

No shocker there of course.

Brad

"Dick Cheney should be executed for treason"

2005-10-19T09:30:00.000-07:00

So said Marc Moron, of the Morning Sedition on deadAir America, shortly before 5:30AM CST today.

Now, he'll either prove to be a sage and prescient political commentator, or another wacked-out, fever swamp, hate-filled leftist. I'm guessing the latter.

He believes that the Vice President was behind the whole Valerie Plame "outing". I hope not, but we'll see...

Brad

Strange bedfellows support Miers nomination

2005-10-08T14:30:00.000-07:00

I feel a little like Dorothy after reading this AP article on Yahoo!News about some Senate Democrats rushing to defend Republican President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court.
And it's got me questioning my own support of the President's decision on this issue.
We know so little about this stealth selection, that I was simply going to trust his judgement. He knows what's at stake. He understands how important this is, how lasting will be the impact.

But, when Tom Harkin and Barbara Mikulski appear to be offering support of the President's choice, it's time to rethink that trust. What game are they playing by condemning the criticism, by some conservatives, of Miers' nomination?
Says Harkin: "All the trashing is coming from the right wing of the Republican Party...I really think it's despicable what they're doing."
And Mikulski protests: "They're saying a woman who was one of the first to head up a major law firm with over 400 lawyers doesn't have intellectual heft. I find this a double standard."
What's next?!

This doesn't mean, of course, that they're going to actually vote to confirm Miers for the bench. Perhaps, like pro wrestling fans, they're just enjoying the fray, and can't resist feigning outrage at the symbolism of a little old lady being picked on by bullies. If that's the way they see it.

Brad

"Tolerance and acceptance" in England

2005-10-07T22:30:00.000-07:00

One Muslim worker in a town council office in the UK manages to force a twisted distortion of Islamic law down the throats of non-Muslim coworkers.

This story from the West Midlands/Staffordshire Express and Star News, (HT to Dennis Prager) tells how a Muslim's complaint about pig-shaped stress relievers prompted the bosses to require workers "...to remove or cover up all pig products including toys, porcelain, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet."

Lest anyone be offended.

By Piglet.

Now, it's bad enough that some ignorant Muslim doesn't quite understand a basic tenet of his own faith: Muslims can't eat pork. Seeing a pig-shaped toy isn't eating pork! (As Alf says...) But, for the timid and overly sensitive supervisors to be cowed into this game is shameful.

As one of the Brits said, this is "political correctness gone barmy".

How does the human mind manage to create such obviously twisted deviations from an original intent or principle?

Brad

More proof that appeasment doesn't work

2005-09-24T09:30:00.000-07:00

The recent violence against Israel by Hamas is yet more evidence against the usual liberal policy of appeasment toward those who want nothing less than your total destruction.

Here's the predictable lies from the perpertrators: "Hamas blamed Israel and said it fired rockets on Israeli border towns in retaliation."
Thank God for this bit of honesty, at least: "But the Palestinian Authority said the blast was an accident resulting from militants mishandling explosives."

That's what you get for trying to negotiate with terrorists, more terror.

Brad

Goodbye, Gilligan. You did Stan Laurel proud.

2005-09-06T19:00:00.000-07:00

For those of us who grew up watching the short-lived but long-remembered Gilligan's Island, we realized only later what a fond and talented homage was being given to The Boys.

And Bob Denver reincarnated Stan Laurel's innocence and humility as lovingly as the long-suffering mentorship of Alan Hale Jr.'s Oliver Hardy.

The first couple episodes, with Gilligan and the Skipper trying to sail a raft to find help and then trying to repair the S.S.Minnow shortly after shipwreck are nearly as funny as almost anything The Boys ever did.

Rest in peace, Little Buddy.

Brad

Tragic and ironic death tolls

2005-09-01T09:30:00.000-07:00

That more Iraqi citizens would be killed in one non-military exercise of religious freedom (though this particular practice had been allowed and is part of the Muslim tradition) than in any war related event is indeed as ironic as it is tragic. And, predictably, one of Muqtada al-Sadr's supporters would be quick to blame the new government, which he opposes, for the high death toll after the panic-driven stampede in 110-degree heat amongst a religious procession of about one million Shiites on Wednesday. Furthermore, it was probably one of his boys that ignited the whole thing.

And, coincidently, the natural disaster of hurricane Katrina has caused more widespread and costly devastation than the worst attack on our country.
And Cindy Sheehan is predictably irritated that she's been bumped off the front page, so she's got to blame President Bush for the hurricane, further demonstration that she is not of sound mind.

Then Robert Kennedy Jr. has to even further embarass the Democrats with his fever swamp accusations.
"Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a (that's ONE) renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming." (Hey, Bobby Jr., we puny human beings are too insignificant to effect the globe like this!)

"Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children." (What an embarassment! If his name wasn't Kennedy, he'd be busing tables in some vegan deli in Greenwich Village.)

And to think that he knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was an uncle of his. "Congressman, you're no Jack Kennedy." (Thank you, Lloyd Bentsen )

Brad

Thank God Katrina weakened and shifted!

2005-08-30T18:01:00.000-07:00

Despite the loss of precious lives so far and to come, as well as the destruction in Mississippi and the massive water damage to New Orleans, I'm thankful that Hurricane Katrina got weaker and veered east of New Orleans before landfall. The devestation would have been, and was predicted to be, much worse.

Seeing the people in boats on the flooded streets of downtown New Orleans reminded me of a story about recognizing God's providence in a time of need. I'll see if I can retell it tersely:

The mayor of a town ordered the residents to evacuate as the nearby river threatened to overflow it's banks and flood the town. A rescue bus that was going thru town to pick up stranded citizens stopped at one man's house as he sat on the porch, awaiting the floodwaters. "Get in!" the driver yelled to the man. "Let's get outa here!"

"No thanks", replied the man, "God will take care of me. I'm staying right here, trusting in the Lord." And the bus sped off to pick up other people.

Awhile later, as the floodwaters rose to the first floor window sills, the man was looking out a second story window when a rescue boat pulled up to his house. "Jump in and let's get outa here!", hollered the boatman.

"Thanks anyway, but I'm trusting in the Lord to see me thru this flood. I'm sure He'll take care of me and spare me from harm. God bless you, though!" The bewildered boatman pulled away to look for others to help.

As the flood waters rose to cover most of the roof, the man was clinging to the chimney at the peak of the house when he heard a rescue helicopter approaching him. As it hovered above him, the pilot lowered a harness to the man and told him to strap it on and he would pull the man to rescue.

"Thank you very kindly, but I'm going to trust God to rescue me. I just need to wait on the Lord", said the man. "Are you crazy?!", the pilot shouted. "Get in the harness!"

But the man persisted, "I've been a faithful servant all my life, and I know that the Lord won't abandon me in my time of need. Thanks anyway, and Godspeed to you!" The pilot shook his head and flew away to help somebody else.

As the swirling torrent of water rose above the house, the man clung to the top of the chimney, and drowned.

When he got to Heaven, the man earnestly sought the Lord for an explanation to his abandonment and demise. "Lord, even after trusting in you so faithfully to rescue me in my time of need, why did you abandon me?"

"But my son, I sent you a bus, a boat, and a helicopter!"

We are His hands and feet in this world. It is we whom He has called upon to help those less fortunate around us, wherever we may be.
"We" can take may forms: churches and synagogues, the Red Cross, civic organizations like the Jaycees, the Lions, and the Shriners, or large outreaches like Samaritan's Purse or Feed the Children, etc. Even- as a last resort- the government.

So, when you are in a jam and pray to God for help, expect it to come through human hands.

Brad

Now I REALLY hope Bush won't see Sheehan...

2005-08-29T17:30:00.000-07:00

...because Martin Sheen "arrived in President Bush’s adopted hometown Aug. 6 and promised to stay until she could question Bush about the war..."

I want him to eat his words if/when the president rightly refuses to give the radical leftist an undeserved second meeting. He's obviously not going to put his career on hold for too long for this foolishness. He's just not that principled.

I thought Sheen said he would leave the country if Bush was re-elected, and he's still here. I may be mistakenly lumping him in with Johnny Depp, but I kinda remember him saying something during the campaign about fleeing the US. Unless it was Sean Penn- but he's still here, too...

Brad

Testimony to progress in Iraq

2005-08-22T16:30:00.000-07:00

This is a great reminder of the progress being made in Iraq:

"We are disagreeing. We are failing to reach compromises. But we are not killing each other." ~Barham Salih, a Kurd who is Iraq's minister of planning and development cooperation. (Source: Ashraf Khalil and Caesar Ahmed, "Iraqis Extend Deadline for Constitution", Los Angeles Times, August 16, 2005)

Context being everything, that is a welcome statement. Do the Dems and Repubs agree on much? So, neither do these adversarial factions. That's democracy.

On one of the Sunday news shows, Sen. Chuck Hagel reportedly said something like: The war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East.

And, like most people I'm sure, I immediately thought of the Israeli-Palastinian conflict of decades length; and the Iraq-Iran war; and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait; and the conflicts in Lebanon as well as the conflicts within Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey...

The Middle East destabilized by our current war against terrorism? When was it stable?!

More on this soon...

Brad

It may be too late to help Cindy Sheehan

2005-08-18T17:30:00.000-07:00

Wow.

This stuff just gets worse. The more we learn about Mrs. Sheehan's radical campaign against our war on Islamofascist terror, the more bizarre she appears, and it may be too late for any kind of grief counseling to help. I thought we were dealing with a normal mother who'd painfully lost a son in war. But the more I read of her extensive history of radicalism, the less hope I hold out for her.

Here are some more comments by her, from the Aug. 15 "Best of the Web Today" column by James Taranto on OpinionJournal.com :

"Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state."
"...the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government."

"America has been killing people . . . since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for'. "
"...this morally repugnant system we have."

"We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through..."

"...they're saying... it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It's okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It's okay for the countries that we say it's okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

"It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, ...and it's okay for... the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon."

"As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country whose skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks?"

"In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants."

So much for well-reasoned civil discourse. She seems rather unhinged, to me. Whose writing her script, I wonder. Perhaps Michael Moore or George Soros. Or Howard Dean. Maybe even Ward Churchill?

Well, she has plenty of likeminded supporters, to be sure. And who wouldn't want David Duke on their side, eh?

Brad

Cindy Sheehan needs help

2005-08-12T16:00:00.000-07:00

I say that, from a compassionate heart, not scorn or ridicule. She clearly is not dealing with the loss of her son very well. (courtesy of Veteransforpeace.org) To make matters worse, her anguish is being fueled by the worst sort of feverswamp malcontents, from MoveOn to Michael Moore to Maureen Dowd, and is being exploited by many other Leftists for their own political gain.

Losing a child is the toughest thing to endure that I can imagine, especially when you feel it was in a useless cause, or worse. Grief can do very damaging and unpredictable things to the mind and the soul. Especially when the shoulders you lean on are pulling away from you.
I can't presume to fully understand exactly how she feels, or to be able to empathize with her, but one needn't to have lost a child to be able to sympathize with her loss, and her struggle to deal with the grief.

However, Cindy Sheehan's exagerated slanders of the President and his administration indicate something besides an emotionally healthy person struck with grief. These are just some of the excerpts from a speech she gave Aug. 8, 2005 to a Veterans For Peace convention:

"...somebody's gotta stop those lying bastards. Somebody has to stop them."

"...the war criminals in Washington, D.C., they don't even lose a night's sleep."

"They sent these honorable people to die, and are so dishonorable themselves. "

"Then we have this lying bastard, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war. You know what? I'm never going to get to enjoy another vacation, because of him. My vacation probably - -this is really sad because I have a really cute dress I was going to wear to the banquet tomorrow night, but I'm either gonna be in jail or in a tent in Crawford, waiting until that jerk comes out and tells me why my son died."

"So what really gets me is these chickenhawks, who sent our kids to die, without ever serving in a war themselves. They don't know what it's all about. "

"... they put Terry Schiavo on, and I wrote something then called The Amazing Hypocrites and I asked why does she deserve life more than my son, and the Iraqi people?"

"... he (President Bush) doesn't care, he doesn't have a heart. That's not enough to stop his little playing cowboy' game in Crawford for 5 weeks.

"So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush..."

"... if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop til it was dead."

"... I'm gonna tell them, "You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who's blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."

" You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy."

"You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine." **(Tellingly, this was the only place in the transcript of her speech where the editor commented, with: "(massive round of applause)" I say that's a telling point, because leftist organizations always seem to condemn Israel and support the Palestinians)**

"What can we do to get him out of power? And I'm gonna say the I' word. Impeach.
And we have to have everybody impeached that lied to the American public, and that's the executive branch, and any people in congress, and we gotta go all the way down and we might have to go all the way down to the person who picks up the dogshit in Washington because
we can't let somebody rise to the top who will pardon these war criminals.
Because they need to go to prison for what they've done in this world. We can't have a pardon. They need to pay for what they've done. "

"...my son was killed in 2004, so I'm not paying my taxes for 2004. If I get a letter from the IRS, I'm gonna say, you know what, this war is illegal; this is why this war is illegal. This war is immoral; this is why this war is immoral. You killed my son for this. I don't owe you anything. And if I live to be a million, I won't owe you a penny. " "You give me my son, and I'll pay your taxes."

As I said, and I mean it sincerely, I don't want to ridicule Mrs. Sheehan, but her family needs to get her some serious grief counseling, before she loses her mind. The bitterness and anger can fester and grow, if not addressed, and could destroy her. It's not healthy for her to be encouraged by the looney lefties that are exploiting her loss for their own political gain.

Brad

Parents, here's the story you've been waiting for...

2005-08-11T18:30:00.000-07:00

Computer games can kill you afterall! If taken to extremes.

Ben Franklin was right again: "All things in moderation..." I think it was ol' Ben.

Brad

UN Oil for Food scandal finally breaking

2005-08-08T22:30:00.000-07:00

At least my Senator, Norm Coleman, is all over the largest monetary scandal of all time. Claudia Rosett has doggedly been working on this for long time. Why, oh why would most of the media not be going after this?

Thu UN is one of the most corrupt organizations in history, precisely because it's very existence is supposed to prevent the kind of corruption many of it's members practice. But this shouldn't surprise us, really; look at the list of nations that comprise the UN. So many of them are dictatorships or socialist states, monarchies and other non-democratic systems.

Brad

What ARE they looking for??

2005-08-04T14:25:00.000-07:00

Drudge has reported that the NYTtime is "looking into the adoption records" of John Roberts' children. (TOTH to Hugh Hewitt)

What, one wonders, are they hoping, hoping, hoping to discover? What "irregularities" might be unearthed; what favoritism may have been shown; what shortcuts may have been taken; whose palms may have been greased; what pressure may have been applied to whom, etc., etc., etc.? Is that what they're after?

Who the hell knows. They're certainly not content to simply review Roberts' public job performance record, his education, and so on, of course. There must be some evil deeds lurking in the past, awaiting discovery by some earnest young WoodwardBernstein wannabe.

Well, let's see where this goes, I guess.....

Brad

Timeless quote on "armchair quarterbacking" the war

2005-08-03T14:20:00.000-07:00

"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee (TOTH to The Federalist)

This great quote would apply, today, to the talking heads on TV, as well as liberals in the Congress and Senate. I'm sure that Teddy "Quagmire" Kennedy and his ilk think they could command a military campaign far better than the President and the Pentagon have done so far.

Clueless fools!

Brad

This is a "news" article?

2005-08-02T21:30:00.000-07:00

Even though it's on Page One of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, this NYTimes article (free subscription req'd) by Jason Deparle is an exquisite example of opinionated commentary masquerading as news. I ache for access to high school and college journalism classes in which I could dissect this biased writing, sentence by sentence, loaded adjective by loaded adjective.

The article is about The Federalist Society , whose- well, let's use Deparle's terminology: "whose influence is the source of swelling myth, mystery, insinuation, denial and debate", around which there is "intrigue" due to it's "exercising secret influence", "behind the scenes".

The article begins with a Senate hearing quote from a U.S. Assistant Attorney General, Viet D. Dinh, "I am a member of the Federalist Society, and I do not know, quite frankly, what it stands for."
Deparle then sarcastically reports that the transcript for the hearing "does not say how many people...responded to (Dinh's comment) with disbelief". As if it would?! Or even could convey such a thing to us? Does Deparle infer that a Senate hearing transcript should register audience groans, gasps, head-shakes, eye-rollings, and smirks? How juvenile! This is not news reporting!

Deparle labels President Bush's selection of some FS members as Cabinet members, senior aides and federal judges "a new Washington ritual". Ritual? What the hell is an emotive word like that doing in a Page One news article? This isn't supposed to be creative writing! Deparle then conjectures "perhaps to deflect what many conservatives call unfair attacks by liberals, the nominees have repeatedly claimed to know little about the group's beliefs." He tries to see into the minds of the nominees. That's not news reporting. And, the phrase "repeatedly claimed" is one which, the most common usage of, implies insincerity, and is usually in the context of a proven or near-proven falsehood. That's not news reporting.

When he continues: "In the latest version of this routine, White House aides have worked hard to put distance between the society and John Roberts," in what way would he quantify how hard they've worked, the degree of effort they've exerted? That's subjective judgement he's sharing with us, not news reporting. I don't personally consider phone calls, sending emails or letters, issuing press releases, or even giving a press conference to be hard work, especially for those people. That's what they do.
But Deparle wants to paint a picture in your mind; "White House aides have worked hard to put distance between..." I picture four or five very concerned guys in suits trapped in a canoe, frantically trying to paddle away from a raging waterfall ahead, or the swift torrent near a dam that threatens to suck them over the edge...they're paddling to beat hell..paddling to save their lives, trying to put distance between themselves and catastrophe...

Deparle cites three lawyers, members of FS, who helped Paula Jones sue Bill Clinton, but claims they "played..covert roles", and "also worked behind the scenes to disclose Clinton's affair with... Monica Lewinsky". How many of us had any knowledge of who was working on these issues? We rarely know the names of background contributors to legal matters, especially civil suits. And especially before they break into the news.

He cites Bush v. Gore as having "stopped the Florida recount and ensured Bush's election" when referring to, now Solicitor General, Ted Olson, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, and is a member.

At least he labels democrats.com as a "liberal blog", then says they called the FS "the conservative cabal that is attacking America from within."

All in all, Mr. Deparle should try to write in a more straightforward news style, and the editors should not place such obviously biased opinion-writing on Page One in the news section.
And I'll try to consider the source: the New York Times, the same people who gave us Jason Blair.

Brad

Blogging gaining respect and might be at it again..

2005-07-30T22:00:00.000-07:00

This article from PCWorld.com still uses the qualifier "so-called bloggers", but maybe it's just reflecting what the perception was way back in January, when bloggers notched another victory for new-media power vs. MSM, after CBS canned 4 people for Rathergate/Memogate.

At any rate, it's nice to read some positive press about the growth in popularity of blogging, even though this line sounds a little too enthusiatic: "In less than a half hour--and for free--you, too, can create your own online media empire and affect the world." (underscore added) A little like those lottery and casino adds that try to entice you with their promises of almost-guaranteed riches..."it could happen to you!

The article's got some really helpful info for people who are wondering what all the buzz is about. I found at least one good lead on another source for interesting reading, perhaps even as a resource: this blog by and for mothers is a great example of the connectedness of blogging for people not so politically and news oriented, but with something interesting to write, and very-well, at that.

Finally, this is the breaking of yet another big story-to-be by the blogosphere, I'm sure. At least in the realm of the media, and politics, although not necessarily a government scandal on the scale of Memogate. It's about the possible misuse of public funds to benefit Al Franken's Air America (the lead-zeppelin liberal radio network) , at the expense of children and Alzheimer's sufferers. [ I know Al Franken doesn't own Air America..it's not his, but he is the big name there.]

It'll be very interesting (to quote Arte Johnson) to watch this one develop, since it involves talk radio, which is closely linked with the blogosphere....

Brad

Lutherans hope to address sexuality issues w/o tension? GOOD LUCK!

2005-07-27T18:30:00.000-07:00

This article on pioneerplanet.com (free subscription req'd) explains that the ELCA's mid-August Churchwide Assembly "will consider adopting a blessing ceremony for same-gender couples, and ordaining gay and lesbian pastors", and it discusses the tensions that accompany the debates around these issues.
Bishop Mark Hanson hopes: "We can live with some ambiguity around these kinds of questions and not take the tensions they create as signs of a divided church". I sincerely wish them luck, but it's awfully hard to reconcile the competeing values represented in "the simmering cultural controversy over human sexuality", as Pioneer Press' Steve Scott writes.

The article offers that "..since his years as bishop of the St. Paul Area Synod, Hanson has questioned why sexuality should be a church-defining, church-dividing issue." Well, that's easily explained: it's because one side of this controversy keeps bringing it up!
According to Bishop Hanson, however: "There are two vocal positions, but...there is a continuum of positions in this church...I expect the continuum...to be reflected in Orlando, and not the two vocal ends.'' (emphasis added)

Well, we know what one of those positions wants, as stated before: a blessing ceremony for same-gender couples and ordination of gay and lesbian pastors. No big deal, eh?

What does the other position call for? Tying gays to a post at the edge of town and stoning them to death? Dragging gays behind a pickup to their death? Arson, abuse, and assaults on gays and their property? Open persecution of homosexuals? Any persecution? Criminal prosecution? Discrimination in hiring, housing, health care, education? Suspension of civil rights and civic participation? Excommunication from the Church? Disfellowshipping of gay members? Rude treatment even? Of course not!
What then?

How about, just.. oh, I dunno, ..maybe.. no ordination of practicing homosexuals as pastors, and no blessing ceremony for relationships that The Bible condemns. That's all.

Because, and remember that we're talking about the religious community (not secular society or our government) of the ELCA here- a supposedly Christian church, supposedly founded in and guided by God's Word, as the Bible proclaims:

God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear-He opposes it in every age.
In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)
In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)
In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 1:7-8)

That list is from a respectful, lovingly reasonable article by John MacArthur on Crosswalk.com.

The Bishop says he's "hoping the 'diverse middle' of the church can call the left and the right to an acceptable stand" and that the first resolution on this issue up for a vote next month urges the ELCA to "concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements.'' Well, what is the position of "the right" on this matter? I would argue that it's the same position that the Church has always had. And always should. We didn't write "the rules", and we're not authorized to rewrite them. And we can't ignore them, either.

As Bishop Hanson soberly recalls, "Tension was a reality as that small band of followers of Jesus began to grow, and with growth came diversity, and with diversity came questions of who is welcome among us and on what terms.'' I would contend that the latter question is the true source of the tension. We're all sinners, of course, but within the Church we're called to repent, and to renounce our sin-- not wear it like a badge of honor.

Again, nobody's suggesting mistreatment of gays by the Church or it's followers, or even just the cold shoulder treatment- to say nothing of harm of any kind! (It's embarassing that I even feel compelled to have to state such an obvious point, but it seems that if you don't, activists tend to assign dark, unspoken motives to you.) In fact, those who keep pushing an agenda of "affirmation, acceptance, and full participation" of behaviors and lifestyles that are in direct defiance of God's clear message are the ones that risk dividing the Church by demanding acceptance of the unacceptable.

As Billy Joel put it, "We didn't start the fire".

Brad

Get ready for the fireworks!

2005-07-26T19:00:00.000-07:00

Oh my, but this is precious:

A twelve-year-old girl was
arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were
removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear
compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing
center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained
until released to her mother some three hours later — all for
eating a single french fry in a D.C. Metrorail station. The child
was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal.
The district court described the policies that led to her
arrest as ‘‘foolish,’’ and indeed the policies were changed after
those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for
adults who make young girls cry. (TOTH to Hugh Hewitt)

And the court affirmed.

Precious, because the Left may try to use this case to paint Judge John Roberts (who wrote the 3-0 opinion in the Hedgepeth case for the DC Court of Appeals) as a mean-spirited, heartless, intrusive, misogynist threat to American citizen's rights and civil liberties. Especially so, of course to: women and children, minorities, the poor and underclass, "workers", and the environment. "Round up the usual suspects", as it were...

But, as is often the case, the facts in the matter (I hope you tried the above link; you DO want to have an informed opinion on the matter, don't you? It's not a hard read, luckily.) stand in stark contrast to the knee-jerk emotion prompted by the first-glance. The facts make it clear that the DC court made the right decision in affirming the "foolish arrest" of Ansche Hedgepeth.
(A quick aside: The case also demonstrates the problems all-too common with "zero-tolerance" rules, e.g.: a butter knife left in a car in a school parking lot violates a "zero-tolerance" weapons ban.)

The Hedgepeth case, on the other hand, may not be complicated and intricate enough for Lefties Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy, Feinstein, and Durbin to contort and exploit.

The Rust v. Sullivan case, however, will probably get plenty of review and distortion. Most assuredly this particular line from a brief (of which, Roberts was one of eight authors) for the case:

"We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Them's fightin' words, to pro-aborts!
As Colonel Blacker said: "Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry!"

Brad

Cogratulations NASA and Discovery crew!!

2005-07-26T11:10:00.000-07:00

As we breath a sigh of relief for a fine lift-off this morning, we pray for continued success on this mission, and Godspeed for their safe return in 12 days.

Brad

Sir Winston's wisdom

2005-07-25T19:30:00.000-07:00

Ahhh, Churchill. What a man. What a man-for-the-time, he was!
Every now and then, God sends us a person to fill a need, to fulfill a destiny. The right person at the right time, with just the particular talents and temperament, vision and initiative, and the character and courage that are demanded for by the challenge at hand.

He saved a continent. With a little help from Uncle Sam, he saved a continent.

And his wisdom in the face of evil, counsels us with timeless insight today:

"What would happen if all these neutral nations...were with one spontaneous impulse to do their duty...and were to stand together...against aggression and wrong? At present their plight is lamentable; and it will become much worse. They bow humbly and in fear to...threats of violence. ... Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear...the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar, ever more loudly, ever more widely... There is no chance of a speedy end except through united action." (courtesy of The Federalist Patriot Brief)

With increasing attacks on the innocent, across a widening battlefield of peaceful nations, our Islamofascist enemies are not going to slink off into the darkness from which they crawled. They must be vanquished! We face not an enemy of nations, but of ideology. And it's proponents are in our midst.

Though judicious use of force is required to protect the innocent, here and abroad, we mustn't tolerate irresolution masquerading as restraint.

And the sooner the weak and cowardly world leaders get about the task, the sooner it'll be finished, the fewer lives will be lost, and Islam can regain the respect it's lost at the hands of the fanatics.

Brad

Sorry for the absence...

2005-07-23T19:03:00.000-07:00

The Following was sent to me via E-mail, and credited to Andy Rooney. While (I doubt this was said by that man on national television (or anywhere else), it certainly sums up some very important points:

I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America; and see what happens...Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door.

Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.

I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! ARE YOU LISTENING MARTHA BURKE?

I have the right "NOT" to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability.

I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen, you should have to speak English!

My father and grandfather didn't die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come over and disrespect ours. I think the police should have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you threaten them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word "freeze" or "stop" in English, see the above lines.

I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business.

We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms, so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document; and open to their interpretations.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.

I know pro wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television. That doesn't stop you from watching them.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system that's better, and put your name on the building.

It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid; and smack their little behinds when necessary, and say "NO!"

I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement.And, please, stay home until that new lip ring heals. I don't want to look at your ugly infected mouth as you serve me French fries!I am sick of

"Political Correctness." I know a lot of black people, and not a single one of them was born in Africa;so how can they be "African-Americans"? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was from Europe. I am proud to be from America and nowhere else.

And if you don't like my point of view, tough...

Adam

Pavarotti quote

2005-07-22T16:20:00.000-07:00

"One of very nicest things about life is the way we must regularly stop whatever it is we are doing, and devote our attention to eating." Pavarotti

Early hopeful hint for Roberts?

2005-07-20T21:20:00.000-07:00

NPR's (no conservative ally, usually) political editor, Ken Rudin, wrote this about Judge John Roberts today in a Q&A piece on npr.org :

"He is known to have a brilliant legal mind with impeccable credentials and unquestioned integrity."

And,David Boies, who argued before the court on behalf of Al Gore during the disputed 2000 presidential election, called Roberts "a brilliant lawyer, a brilliant judge," and a "decent man."

BUT, if this doesn't demonstrate how partisan certain groups are, regardless of ANY decision by President Bush- even if they favor those groups, then not much else will:

"Just after learning that President Bush planned to nominate federal appellate judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court, NARAL Pro-Choice America sent an electronic action alert yesterday to its 800,000-person network, encouraging members to call their senators and talk to friends about their opposition." [from WAPO]

They didn't even have to know WHO Bush would nominate! They had their "Defeat ____________ for Supreme Court" memos and bumper stickers all primed for distribution; just needed to fill in the blank, is all. Isn't that convenient?

BRAD

A comment on Ruth Bader Ginsburg's bio

2005-07-20T17:30:00.000-07:00

In doing research for a better understanding of judicial confirmation precedents (for the upcoming likely donnybrook over Judge John Roberts' confirmation), I ran across an interesting tidbit about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. At least, the presumptuous allusion in the biography is interesting (courtesy of Jewish Virtual Library.org) :

"After earning her B.A. degree in government, in 1954, she married Martin D. Ginsburg, who had graduated Cornell the year before. He was called for military service the same year and they lived at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for two years. It was during this period that Ruth Ginsburg experienced sex discrimination.
She applied for a job with the local social security office while she was pregnant. She was appointed to a position and when she told them that she was pregnant, they demoted her three levels in pay. Another woman, who was appointed and never told them of her pregnancy, received no demotion in the pay scale." (emphasis added)

That's not sex discrimination. It's not gender bias. It's not disability discrimination, either.
Her reduced pay was a consequence, however shortsighted or provincial, of her predictable upcoming absence or even potential resignation. This was the mid 1950's fercryin'outloud! When motherhood was still esteemed and honored. When our society rightly understood the vital contribution, to all of posterity, that full-time mothering made to the fabric of our culture. Motherhood didn't begin being denigrated by feminists until several years later.

Given the "enlightened" perspective with which liberals like to label their living/breathing and diverse and always evolving interpretation of the Constitution as an expression of our nation's values at any given moment in time, their rejection of the social norms of that era seems rather ungracious and intolerant, does it not?

Brad

Dems: "Well, how do we demonize Roberts?"

2005-07-20T11:30:00.000-07:00

That's the challenge they'll be trying to tackle with DC appeals court Judge John Roberts as the president's nominee for the Supreme Court.

This make's them look at least a little bit disingenuous when they start tearing into him (if they do) : Judge Roberts was confirmed by the Senate for the Washington D.C. Circuit Court by unanimous consent by Democrats and Republicans alike as a qualified nominee.

From MSNBC: Democrats will demand “straight answers” from Roberts on the abortion issue, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will holding hearings on the nomination, said Wednesday.
“If he wants to be on the Supreme Court, he has to be more forthcoming .... to convince the American people that a man who could serve on the court for 20 to 30 years really is in the mainstream of American thinking,” he said.

Oh, really. It seems that they weren't so insistent for answers from Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she refused to answer about anything that might actually come before her on the court.

(Whitepaper link courtesy of The Federalist Society. TOTH to Hugh Hewitt)

Where's the consistency?

Brad

You might be a Catholic if...

2005-07-19T11:25:00.000-07:00

While playing Pictionary, your item to draw is: saint bernard and you try in vain get your teammates to guess what-in-the-world your drawing of a man praying at a kneeler, and a crown on a head mean, and you wonder-even if you could get them to guess that it's a saint-
how-in-the-world you could get them to zero in on St. Bernard!

That actually happened to my neice, Lisa, and gave us all a good chuckle. And some insight unto her world-view...

Brad

Yet another pointless critique of GWOT

2005-07-18T19:10:00.000-07:00

It gets a bit tiresome to continually be confronted with these pointless, often self-conflicting reports of how we're more at risk because we're actually doing something about terrorism.
This Reuters article on MSNBC says "an influential British think tank" has released a report that says that Great Britain "played pillion" (for us non-Brits that's akin to riding behind someone on the seat of a bike) to the U.S. lately in gathering intelligence and responding to Islamic terrorism, and it "has proved costly in terms of British and U.S. military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign".

Luckily, their Defense Secretary had this to say about the report: “One of the lessons of history is that if you run away from this it doesn’t actually get better,” Reid told the British Broadcasting Corp.
“Every child in the playground knows the idea that 'if you just avoid the bully, the bully will not come for you' is refuted by every piece of historical experience,” he added.

We had better keep that thought in mind as we go forward to meet the inevitable battle that lie ahead, both abroad and on our own soil. And this is part of the reason we fight:

From OpinionJournal.com, by Arthur Chrenkoff:
This is the perspective of 20-yr. old specialist Christopher Bean with the 101st Airborne, after a year in Baghdad: "In Iraq, we're not fighting for ourselves," said Bean, from his home base in Fort Campbell, Ky. "We're over there fighting so the Iraqis can have their own Fourth of July."
One of the things that struck Bean most about his time in Iraq was the people themselves. Most of the Iraqis he met were proud to have the Americans there, he said, and watching them go through their daily lives made him appreciate the historic significance of our Independence Day.
Being there really opens your eyes to what our forefathers went through to get the freedom we have today," he said.

Nation building is never quick and never easy; hard work and heartache are today, and the results often years if not decades ahead. But the Iraqi people, with the assistance of the coalition, have commenced their journey, and despite all the hardships, every day is another step forward.

Brad