Midnight Rantings

The End of the Experiment

2005-06-27T23:42:00.000-04:00

Meet the SCOTUS. With the wonderful decision of the Kelo case, the Republic can now be called officially dead. The Executive Branch rules by executive order, the Legislative Branch needs a health dose of Cialis, and the SCOTUS believes it is ok to take personal property away from someone and give it someone else. The wrong side won the War of Secession.

I Weep for the Future

2005-06-03T11:39:00.000-04:00

In my peer group there are a lot of children that are, well, little shits. The parents have no concept of discipline. They seem to want to be their children's friends. I cannot stand to be with their children for more than 10 minutes. This article at Salon.com by Neal Pollock gives a good example of today's child rearing. Mr. Pollock's child has been expelled from preschool for bad behaviour, especially biting. The parents, for the most part, work out of their house.

Except for the few hours a week when she teaches a class at the local community college, my wife and I both work at home. The house is small. I write in a corner of the living room, and Regina, when she can, goes to paint in the garage. Even if we hired an inexperienced nanny on the cheap, the kid would still be underfoot most of the day, screeching. We're in a strangely common situation: If we don't put our kid in preschool, we can't afford to send him to preschool.

Freakin' waaaah! Look, either have kids and make them your priority or don't. I'm sorry, but despite the tripe put forth by pop culture, you cannot have it both ways. Oh yeah, you can try, but you end up getting an Elijah: a demon-child that no sane person wants to be around. As I read the article, the couple wants a child, but someone else to raise it. It does not work that way. How selfish can a couple get? They even want the state to get involved:

The Yale study recommends that states prohibit pre-K expulsion, develop clear policies for dealing with children with behavorial problems, and require training for all preschool teachers to deal with these problems.

WTF? The state should require all of this. People are complaining about the cost of daycare now. Just add more expensive training and more teachers.

The responsibility of a child's actions lie with the parents. Period. If my child came home with bite marks (like Sophia in the article), I would be going after the school, the boy, and the especially the parents. Elijah does not get a pass just because his parents bought into the "touch-feely" method of child raising.

I Love Comics

2005-05-19T10:22:00.000-04:00

I took off the Day by Day cartoon today. It was starting to get on my nerves. I may revisit that, or I may try another comic later.

I always new it!

2005-05-18T10:12:00.000-04:00

English Genius
You scored 92% Beginner, 100% Intermediate, 86% Advanced, and 80% Expert!

You did so extremely well, even I
can't find a word to describe your excellence! You have the uncommon
intelligence necessary to understand things that most people don't. You
have an extensive vocabulary, and you're not afraid to use it properly!
Way to go!

Thank you so much for taking my test. I hope you enjoyed it!

For the complete Answer Key, visit my blog: http://shortredhead78.blogspot.com/.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 29% on Beginner
You scored higher than 56% on Intermediate
You scored higher than 20% on Advanced
You scored higher than 67% on Expert

Link: The Commonly Confused Words Test written by shortredhead78 on Ok Cupid

Colorful

2005-05-08T08:07:00.000-04:00

Although I may have a problem with interpersonal relationships, I am a really cool color:

I am
a Crayola six color finger paint set (ages 3-6)
For that really spontaneous interior design.

Which house paint are you?

My Interpersonal Relationships Suck

2005-04-27T16:33:00.000-04:00

Your brain: 40% interpersonal, 160% visual, 100% verbal, and 100% mathematical!

Congratulations on being 400% smart! Actually, on my test, everyone is. The above score breaks down what kind of thinking you most enjoy
doing. A score above 100% means you use that kind of thinking more than
average, and a score below 100% means you use it less. It says nothing
about how good you are at any one, just how interested you are in each, relatively. A substantial difference in scores between two people means, conclusively, that they are different kinds of thinkers.

Matching Summary: Each of us has different tastes. Still, I offer the following advice, which I think is obvious:

Don't date someone if your interpersonal percentages differ by more than 80%.
Don't be friends with someone if your verbal percentages differ by more than 100%.
Don't have sex with someone if their math percentage is over 200%.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 58% on interpersonal
You scored higher than 87% on visual
You scored higher than 87% on verbal
You scored higher than 63% on mathematical

Link: The 4-Variable IQ Test written by chriscoyne on Ok Cupid

Modern Day Twits

2005-04-24T02:51:00.000-04:00

Should be BIZARRE?

It seems that some in Hollywood thinks that we should all go back to the Stone Age. Why do these people even open their mouths? They spew such stupidity that one actually feels sorry for them. Do we really want to return to a time when life was short? There are sooooo many money quotes in this article; I don't know where to begin.

Thanks to Radley Balko and In the Agora for pointing this out.

Pope Benedict XVI

2005-04-19T15:44:00.000-04:00

Well, the Catholic faithful have a new leader. The throne of Saint Peter is, once again, filled. As a Protestant, I hope his leadership can right the Catholic ship. Of course, some are already trying to figure out what he will stand for. To quote the author, William J. Cole, he might upset a few folks:

On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the College of Cardinals, used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn the faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism - the ideology that there are no absolute truths.

This following quote from his homily at Mass:

"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism," he said, speaking in Italian. "Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards.

Christians need to understand that they are not of this world. If this world accepts them, then they are doing it wrong.

You can't make this stuff up!

2005-04-15T14:24:00.000-04:00

Apparently the tax code is so bad that even the "professionals" working in the IRS cannot make heads or tails of it. In this story from MSNBC, we find out the best way to get answers is a phone call. However, they were right only 86% of the time. That means 14 times out of a hundred, you had better watch it. The rest of the article reveals that often the answers were correct less than that.

Hello! Is there anybody at home in Washington? If these "professionals" cannot get it right, what chance do us mere mortals have? The system is set up to definitely make us criminals.

Remember: "We're from the government; we here to help."

Jane meet Sean

2005-04-01T09:39:00.000-05:00

Hanoi Jane regrets her visit to North Vietnam. No doubt about it. I'm sure she regrets it. Her action effectively killed her career. In her left handed apology she says:

But she said she did not regret visiting Hanoi, or being photographed with American prisoners of war there.

Well, thanks for apologizing there Jane. Meanwhile, you aided the enemy and turned in POW's messages. You should be sorry.

I wonder if Sean Penn will ever feel this apologetic?

UPDATE: It seems I'm not the only one with distaste for Jane. It seems someone doesn't like the taste she leaves in his mouth.

I Guess I'm Out of the Closet

2005-03-28T10:32:00.000-05:00

According to this quiz, I am 83% Christian, but in that 83% I am 2/3 Muslem? Interesting how the top three religions worship the same God. That little bit of difference, regarding Jesus' Divinity, makes a big difference.

You scored as Christianity. Your views are most similar to those of Christianity. Do more research on Christianity and possibly consider being baptized and accepting Jesus, if you aren't already Christian.

Christianity is the second of the Abrahamic faiths; it follows Judaism and is followed by Islam. It differs in its belief of Jesus, as not a prophet nor historical figure, but as God in human form. The Holy Trinity is the concept that God takes three forms: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (sometimes called Holy Spirit). Jesus taught the idea of instead of seeking revenge, one should love his or her neighbors and enemies. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to save humankind and forgive people's sins.

Christianity

83%

Islam

67%

Judaism

46%

Buddhism

46%

Hinduism

29%

Satanism

29%

Paganism

29%

agnosticism

21%

atheism

Which religion is the right one for you? (new version)
created with QuizFarm.com

Thanks to Vox Day for pointing me to this quiz.

Someone Makes Sense of it All

2005-03-22T16:20:00.000-05:00

Steve H. at Hog on Ice makes a good point in this post. The Terry Schiavo case has become the conservative (ie Republican) battle cry. Although I am against state-assisted death, this has shown the GOP for what it is: a mirror image of the Democratic Party. The Republicans in Congress, no less, want to take up the cause for her life. Like the steroid issue, Congress does not need to get involved in a state matter. We did not elected these buffoons to pontificate about whether or not someone should have the right to live. Although my heart goes out to the parents of Schiavo, this is not a federal case.

So much for limited government.

Another article. Personally, Congress should only be allowed (and paid) to work six weeks. That way it would stay on task.

The Born-Again Individualist Judge

2005-03-14T16:50:00.000-05:00

In this article in Reason, Judge Napolitano lays out,succinctly, the myriad of problems with current affairs. As the power becomes more centralized, we will see our rights and freedoms diminish. After all, why would someone in Washington listen to someone a thousand miles away? The problem is too much power in the hands of too few. This is exactly not what the framers of the Constitution wanted. They had a healthy fear of tyrrany.

Unfortunately, we are just idealists, if we believe we'll ever return to the pre-FDR days. Too many have been totally indoctrinated that Federal Government should fix their problems.

The Reason I Will Not Vote Republican Ever Again

2005-03-10T06:51:00.000-05:00

The New York Times > Washington > G.O.P. Senators Balk at Tax Cuts in Bush's Budget

It seems the GOP has decided that I should not be able to keep more of my money. The GOP has decided that cutting spending on the bloated federal government was not a good idea. No wonder the Democrats are losing elections; they have been replaced by the GOP.

Screw 'em both.

"Cotton Kills"

2005-03-09T23:14:00.000-05:00

These hikers learned a valuable lesson about the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. If you don't like the weather, stick around it'll change. I cannot fathom what made them think they could hike the AT this time of year without the proper gear. Any backpacker that has been out more than once will tell that cotton is a big no-no. Cotton will not hold in body heat, especially if it gets wet. With proper gear, this would have been a fun trip. Instead, they almost died from hypothermia.

On a side note, when will the Department of Interior allow cell towers in the national park? If it weren't for blind luck, these men would have died. However, a cell phone would have lessened that likelihood. Oh well, next time maybe.

I'm Joining the Flat Tax Bandwagon

2005-03-08T15:59:00.000-05:00

Bruce Bartlett at the National Review makes a compelling case in favor of the flat tax. He spells out many reasons why it works. For me personally, it boils down to fear. Why should I fear my government? Why should I have to worry about how my tax return is seen by the IRS. Although I would probably have to pay more taxes with a flat tax, I would rather go through it than the machinations necessary to keep the government from getting my money. The government did not create my money; therefore, it should not get first dibs on it. Using an index card to fill out my return sounds too good to be true.

I know many "progressives" see the progressively draconian tax code as fair. After all, why should someone making minimum wage have to pay the same tax as some making six figures? If someone is in the upper tax brackets, then he should pay a larger percentage of his wealth because he is rich.

Really, the debate boils down to class envy/warfare. "Progressives" are like the 20th century communists in that they see the world divided up along class lines. They view the world as a feudal place with the rich "lording" over everyone else. That is the reason I will always put that word in quotations. They yet to wake up to the realization that overcoming one's class is not about government interference and more about what is inside a person. Therefore, their whole position is flawed because they have a flawed foundation. A flat tax is for anyone wanting true fairness (actually a national sales tax is the fairest way, another debate later).

A person making six figures will find every means necessary to keep from giving the government any more money. He will not save it. He will find ways to spend it to alleviate some of his burden. By taking all of the stupid deductions out of the tax code, a person in the higher of the tax bracket will gladly pay more in tax because it less of a burden.

Unfortunately, the axis of evil (media, politicians, knuckleheads) will not allow this to happen. Ask Steve Forbes how a flat tax debate worked for him. Using class envy to divide and conquer will confirm their power over us. My question to "progressives" is this: if a former communist country can make a flat tax work, why can't we?

One Reason to Get Out of the UN

2005-03-06T10:04:00.000-05:00

In this article from Reuters we see how the UN is against those of any kind of faith. No matter what one says about abortion, it should not be in the UN jurisdiction as to what or who can have an abortion. There is no justifiable reason to have an abortion. The strawman of a woman's health is just that. With today's modern medicine, a woman dying in childbirth is much lower than ever. No, the real reason is population control. Look at China and other repressive countries. Look at the "pro-choice" side and one sees them in the same boat as those believing in man's overpopulation of the world. A woman's right to her own body deprives another living entity to life, period. As time marches on, more and more Americans will come to the realization that the UN has outlived any usefulness it once had. The time has come for us to get out of the UN.

2005-03-05T13:55:00.000-05:00

I Am A: Lawful Neutral Dwarf Ranger Fighter

Alignment:
Lawful Neutral characters believe in the triumph of law and order above all else. It does not matter whether the leader is for good or evil; the leader will be followed, because the order they provide is the most important thing.

Race:
Dwarves are short and stout, and easily recognizable by their well-cared-for beards. They are hard workers, and adept at stonework and engineering. They tend to live apart from other races; generally in deep, underground excavated systems, and as such tend to be distant from other races.

Primary Class:
Rangers are the defenders of nature and the elements. They are in tune with the Earth, and work to keep it safe and healthy.

Secondary Class:
Fighters are the warriors. They use weapons to accomplish their goals. This isn't to say that they aren't intelligent, but that they do, in fact, believe that violence is frequently the answer.

Deity:
Silvanus is the True Neutral god of nature. He is also known as the Patron of Druids. His followers believe in the perfect balance of nature, and believe that nature's bounty is preferable to any other 'civilizing' method. They wear leather or metallic scale mail, constructed of leaf-shaped scales. Silvanus's symbol is an oak leaf.

Find out What D&D Character Are You?, courtesy ofNeppyMan (e-mail)

Thanks to Jason at IRAQNOW for pointing me to this interesting site.

Whoop Dee Doo!

2005-02-25T17:05:00.000-05:00

Finally, here is proof that "progressives" are pushing back those evil conservatives from hurting our nation's young ones. It seems the nation's premier flight school is no place for the evil conservatives. After all, it would be terrible, if all of our nation's pilots were on the side of that warmonger GWB. All kidding aside, I doubt too many pilots, once out in the real world, will fall in line with the "progressives." Why? Well, aviation careers tend to promote a more conservative mindset. Either the pilots will go into the military (not many "progressives" there), own and fly his/her own aircraft (did you ever see the list of laws passed by the government, not to mention the taxes paid), work for an airline (oh yeah, a lot of high wage earners love the "progressive" tax code...it seems so far).

Like many things in today's world, the government intrudes far too much. Although the conservatives are terrible managers of the people's wealth, the "progressives" are far worse. General aviation is a highly regulated field. One thing we can all agree on is that "progressives" have no problem regulating some more. I think the DNC is very excited about this "in road" due to the debate on liberal college professors. Personally, I do not have a problem with liberal college professors. Many of us tend to lean liberal in college. However, many of us grow up and realize liberals are just plain wrong. We have an epiphany that no matter what a liberal says, life is not nor cannot be fair. All of the government intervention and feel good policies will not change that.

I distinctly remember, when I became a conservative. I was a typical poor college student. My usual diet consisted of Ramen Noodles, spaghetti noodles and Ragu. As I was in the line to check out at a grocery store, a young guy wearing nice clothes, gold hanging off his wrists paid for his bountiful food with food stamps. That was when I decided the system was broken and never to be repaired.

The Problem with Republicans

2005-02-21T13:29:00.000-05:00

In this articile at Tech Central Station, we see the coming problem of the Republicans. As I have stated before, the GOP is not the party of liberty and individualism. Instead, it is a party that Lyndon Johnson could be proud of. It is going to be very interesting to see how well the Executive and Legistlative branches do, since both are under Republican control. My guess: very little will change. We'll see how the new budget shakes out. I would not be surprised if Republicans and Demoracts merge into a single party.

I am becoming more and more pessimistic. In the end USA and France will look strikingly similar. The only difference will be that France will have reached that place first.

The Emporess's New Clothes

2005-01-31T14:13:00.000-05:00

The Great Lie put forth by the society is that "you can have it all." Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that is not true. This article by James Miller points out the problem of Modern Feminism. I think the point should be that men do not care, necessarily, about whether or not a woman is willing to give up her career to raise children. The point is that men do not want to have to compete in the workplace and compete at home. The message given about feminism is that women can do anything a man can do. That is true. But, so what? Does a woman really think a man (or woman) wants to marry another person just as driven as himself (herself)? No. There is no room in a marriage for two over-achievers, who work 50+ hours a week, and children. Children demand too much time and effort to raise while climbing the professional ladder.

In my peer group, many women give up their careers to marry and raise children. With children's activities taking up so much of one's time, running kids from one activity to another can be a full-time job. These women sacrificed their careers to raise human beings. In my opinion, many believe that children complete the ensemble, yet never realize the demands that raising a child is all about.

That is the great lie about feminism. No one disputes that men and women are equal in many ways. Unfortunately, modern day feminism does not address the fact that overachieving women have to either marry someone in a lower economic bracket, quit their job, have a surrogate parent raise their children, or not have kids. I guess they have not matured to the realization that, in life, you cannot have it all.

Burn Out

2005-01-10T01:00:00.000-05:00

In one of my favorite movies, the antagonist yells, "it's better to burn out than to fade away!"

Well, I am beginning to feel the burn out. I think it all started with the election. The 2 major parties totally killed any other challengers. Libertarians? It seems that almost more people show up at a football game than vote libertarian. Conservatives? I have not seen any. It seems that it is more of the same.

The holidays were a major drain. Not because of the rushing around trying to finish everything, but because of the time I had off from work. I had two 4 day weekends in a row. I haven't had that much time off in a decade. I LOVED IT! The day I went back to work was the worst day I have had in along time.

Tsunami relief is now the topic du jour. I want to donate and help out. It is my Christian duty. But, I do not want to willy-nilly give to any organization. After looking at Charity Watch, I see that the none of the Red Cross organizations are got an "A" or "B" rating. The top was Americares. Food for thought. Alas, it is hard to get fired up about giving money to people, who totally dislike us. As this photo shows.

I will probably donate through UMCOR. On the political hand, I am not naive enough to believe the massive outpouring (I'm sure Americans will lead the charge, again) of monetary support will be unbelievable. It will not change anything. We will continue to be the Great Satan. Using us as the whipping boy helps keep despotic regimes in power. Sigh.

Update: Sorry, I wanted to keep the picture large to see it better. Unfortunately, it moved all of my links to the bottom.

Mea Culpa

2004-12-22T13:44:00.000-05:00

I have definitely decreased by blogging of late. I am too busy with work and kids to do much more than hit or miss writing. I do try to read the blogs in my blogroll on a regular basis. Maybe part of the problem is I don't have much to say.

The election went like I thought. The Democrats have no clue as to what this country is about. The more they move left the more they will lose. That's all I will say about that.

Iraq is, well, Iraq. The brouhaha about armor is silly. Anyone who knows anything about military technique (I am not saying I do) knows that you cannot have a light, mobile force and a heavily armored force. IEDs are deadly, but in the scheme of things not important. The marine killing the unarmed combatant. Well, good. As Clint Eastwood said, "he should have armed himself." If your are dumb enough to go at it with our military and fight using guerrilla tactics, do you really expect to be given any quarter? In my opinion, we have been pussyfooting around too much. Either fight the war to kill the terrorists (they are not insurgents), or bring the troops home. Political correctness has no place on a battlefield.

The other day the Pope asked everyone not to be materialistic this year during Christmas. I could not agree more. One cannot serve two masters. Either one loves God with his heart, body and soul or he does not. Stuff cannot love one back. However, I think it a little disingenuous that the man living in gilded box tells us not to be materialistic. The Vatican is nothing but materialism.

This time of year we celebrate Christmas, not Hanukkah (a lesser Jewish holiday) nor Kwanza (is that really a holiday?). If one does not believe in the Christ Mass, then one should not get that day off. Period. I have taken it upon myself to correct everyone that says, "Happy holidays." If you are someone that is offended because I said, "Merry Christmas," then you have the problem not me. I am getting tired of the PC doublespeak. George Orwell was onto something.

Anyway...I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Thanksgiving

2004-11-24T10:44:00.000-05:00

Well, the season is upon us. From now until the first of January we will be deluged with all of the trappings of the season. As I gear up for the season (I tend to be a bit of a humbug until right about now), I want to pause and give thanks.
In our country we do not give thanks for the bounty we are so fortunate to have. We have the best healthcare (not to be confused with health insurance), the best and most bountiful food, the best economy, our poor live better than middle class Europeans, etc. We need to quit criping and see how good we truly have it.

Personally, I am thankful for loving parents, a wonderful wife, three great children and opportunities my forefathers did not have.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Memo to the Left

2004-11-09T16:57:00.000-05:00

This article by Christopher Hitchens nicely sums up the problem of today's Liberal. Today's Liberal can apologize for anything and taken moral relativism to a high art. The "blame America first" crowd placed George Bush in the White House. By blaming this country before blaming the actual perpetrators, they have firmly ushered in the neocon way (which is actually the same as 1960s Democrats). Unfortunately, today's Liberal with his quasi-intellectualism over thinks the problem. The problem is why the rest of the world hates us. Who the heck cares? The problem is some in the world want us dead. Until Liberals come to grips with that hand join the effort, the GOP will be in power for a long time.

Whom to Vote For?

2004-10-26T00:00:00.000-04:00

This whole election cycle I have grappled with whom to vote for. Should it be John Kerry? George Bush? A relatively unknown third party? In elections past it seemed I was voting against someone rather than for him. I voted for Clinton, because I could not fathom a Bob Dole presidency. I voted for Bush, because I could not stand Al Gore. This year might have come down to the same thing. But, I had an epiphany. After much thought and consternation, I voted for Michael Badnarik.

Some in the "blogosphere" have called him a raving moonbat (here, here, and here). He claims to not have paid income taxes for nearly a decade; he does not use zip codes; etc. I voted for him because he was not Bush and he certainly was not Kerry. I think a large number of people are going to vote for Kerry not because they like him or his ideas, but because they cannot stand Bush. I totally sympathize. That is the reason I voted for Bush in '00. I could not bring myself to vote for Gore. Although Bush did not energize me, I voted for him (or rather against Gore). Faced with the same internal debate, I was left with two choices: vote for Bush or vote for Kerry (thereby voting against Bush).

The "out" was voting for the Libertarian party. I still voted against Bush. I voted for a group that shares many of my ideals (but not all by any means). The main reason was to let the GOP know (in my small fashion) that I do not approve. I cannot approve of a party that would be considered left of the Democrats just 30 years ago. Bush is the present day LBJ, so I guess I have joined the coalition of moonbats. I voted for them. I know in my heart of hearts that a Libertarian will never get elected. I hope the Republicans will understand why they have lost my vote (and millions of others). We would rather vote for one of the major parties (after all, we want to be on the winning side), but we could bring ourselves to vote them.

Therefore, I used my one, lonely, little vote to try to send a message to the Republicans to start moving more to the right. The Democrats? Well...there's a part of moonbats!

Good news

2004-10-11T13:36:00.000-04:00

In this election cycle, the biggest topic is the war on terror and, specifically, the war in Iraq. This post from Iraq the Model puts the al Sadr developments into an interesting light. It seems that the "insurrection" is losing steam, because there is no local support. The first rule of guerrilla warfare is to get the populace on your side. Al-Sadr did not get the Iraqi people behind him. As a matter of fact, he as totally alienated them. One cannot be a successful "insurrection" leader without a base of support.

While I am on it, as tragic as every death in Iraq is, we must remember that we lost more in D-Day in the first wave. We need to put casualties in perspective. As in Viet Nam, the doomsayers will eventually sap our resolve, if we let them. Boy, I can't wait for the elections to be over.

Slippery Slope

2004-09-29T00:00:00.000-04:00

Of all of the problems facing our country, I think the biggest is the loss of private ownership. This article by Walter Williams puts into words a great problem facing our country.
The question is are we a socialistic country? In this context I use socialism to mean the rights of the government trump the rights of the individual. With a little more time I probably could come up with hundreds of instances of "land grab" by a government. A government that promises the moon and stars has to find a way to pay for those programs. Instead of raising property taxes, a government can buy land and develop it thereby receiving more money than it collected before. There is no problem with a government doing all it can to foster economic growth in an area. However, the problem arises when the government tries an "end around" tactic to get the land. By using the power of condemnation, the government can condemn an area and then buy it for pennies on the dollar. This is used whenever a landowner decides the land is worth more to him than any amount of money.

Also, the government can tell us what we can and cannot do with the land we bought and paid for. How does this square with the sovereignty of the individual? The founders thought that government that governed best, also governed least. By telling someone that he cannot clear cut his land, fill in marshy areas, etc., the government is overstepping its bounds.

With loss of property rights, the slippery slope to socialism will be complete. Socialists never will understand that the power of the individual is what has made this country great in so many ways. Individualism is the spark for the entrepreneurial spirit and our military is built on the ability of flexible leadership. Self-reliance is a wonderful thing. It also comes with responsibilities. Unfortunately our executive branch with the aid of our judiciary has decided they know what is best for us. When will Americans wake up?

Dan Blather

2004-09-12T00:00:00.000-04:00

By now everyone has heard about the memos supposedly written by George Bush's National Guard commander. CBS has done a huge special on the memos. Unfortunately, the memos were written about 15 years before Microsoft Word was around. So, we are left with the possibility of either sloppy reporting or out and out bias.

We all know the major media outlets are biased. I am not just talking about left-leaning journalists, but also biased against ideas that do not fit into their world view. A few examples are the flat tax debate, aviation security, SUVs, global warming, etc. It seems that modern day journalists are not very bright and cannot do research for a story.

For me, I have stopped watching nearly all TV and reading newspapers. I still listen to the radio for local stuff, but for national news I get it from the internet. The problem for major media is their audience. Most of them are of the baby boom generation and older. Gen-Xers and younger get their news from other sources.

That is why reading other blogs on the Blather's journalist expertise is amusing. Anyone who is not a card carrying member of the socialist party recognized the media bias a long time ago.

A Global Community

2004-09-03T00:00:00.000-04:00

As we mourn with the Russians after their ordeal, it is a grim reminder that we are not dealing with a law enforcement issue. We are dealing with those against freedom and life. Instead of engaging military units, as is usual in a time of war, these murderers choose to go after soft targets. They do not think this single incident will achieve much, but many more of these incidents may weaken Russian resolve in fight against evil. Time will tell.

Comparing the Two Parties Cont.

2004-08-30T00:00:00.000-04:00

I know that it's been over six weeks since my last post. I have been extremely busy both at work and at home. My original intention was to compare the various people trying to get elected for president. My last post dealt with Bush v. Kerry. Below is my rantings on Bush v. Badnarik.

Well, last time I looked at the differences between Bush and Kerry. Although
Bush and I agreed ~50% of the time, Kerry and I never agreed. Does
this
mean I should vote for a candidate I agree with only 50% of the time?
Isn't
there a better choice for the leadership of the free world? Maybe.

I
have always considered myself libertarian/conservative.
Unfortunately, the
modern Republican Party looks more like the Democratic
Party and vice-versa.
Let's focus on "third party candidates." Today, I am
focusing on George Bush versus Michael
Badnarik. Let's begin.

Trade-
Badnarik wants to end tariffs
and
institute free trade to usher in peace and freedom. He points to
government
restrictions and bureaucratic red tape as hampering trade.
Bush really does
not address this specifically. However, he has
instituted tariffs and policies
that are not free trade, steel tariff and
Chinese import tariffs.
My
assessment is that Badnarik is a little
naive. Yes, free trade would be a
wonderful thing. Unfortunately, we are not
playing on a level field. Other
countries do tack on tariffs on imports.
Therefore, we should have free trade
with only countries willing to have free
trade with us.
Score:
Bush 0.5
Badnarik 0.5

National
Security-
Badnarik favors withdrawing the
troops from Iraq. He would
like us to become much less intrusive in other
countries. If elected, we
would return to the ideal of trading with countries but
not getting involved.
Bush actively sees our role as dispensers of freedom.
The US should
actively help others gain the blessings of freedom we have.
My
assessment is that Badnarik sounds nice but may no longer be practical. We are hated in some corners of the world for various reasons: jealousy, affluence, attitudes, etc.
Score:
Bush 1.5 Badnarik 1.0

Healthcare-
Badnarik wants
to decrease red tape and
thereby decrease costs of healthcare. By
reducing hurdles to new
medicines, they would have a lower price tag.
By reducing paperwork for
physicians, doctors could more with less.
Less office overhead will mean
the physician still gets his/her net income
without seeing more patients or
charging more per patient.
Bush overseen
a huge entitlement expansion in the
Medicare drug benefit. He wants to
use the tax code to encourage people to
buy health insurance. He wants
to expand Medicare coverage and make sure
people do not lose any
benefits.
My assessment is that Bush's plan has
little to like for
fiscal conservatives. He does nothing to change
healthcare costs. His plan is like a band-aid, pun
intended.
Badnarik seems to want to get to the root of the problem.
Although his
ideas may not work, at least they seem reasonable. Bush wants
to
rehash old "fixes."
Score:
Bush 1.5 Badnarik 2.0

By going to the candidate's website, these issues are about all I
can directly compare.

As you can see, I did not get far. I found it hard to directly compare each candidate's platforms. Also, with the Libertarian philosophy in general, I have become less enthusiastic. Although I still think Bush has traded our financial future for short term gains, I cannot endorse any candidate, who would not actively fight against our enemies. The Libertarian Party's philosophy of staying out of the world's politics sounds nice, but this philosophy gave rise to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. As someone who believes this country is a beacon for what is good and right in the world, I must say we must remain engaged. There is no way we can ever go back to the days of isolationism. Therefore, I must reject the Libertarian Party.

Having said all of that, I am no fan of the Republican Party. I believe the Republican and Democrats are different sides of the same coin. However, this still has not solved my quandary of who to vote for this November. I am still labeling myself as an independent, undecided. Many have actively hoped for a Kerry win, because of gridlock in the government. This is atractive, but I shudder to think how a staunch liberal would run the executive branch.

Comparing the Two Parties

2004-07-13T00:00:00.000-04:00

Ok, vacation is now over.

During this exciting (?) political season, I thought I would try to look at each candidate's platform and see how it meshes with my own philosophies. I thought of this exercise as a way to determine the best candidate and cut through the rhetoric. Let's get started:

Jobs-
Kerry promises to create 10 million jobs by changing the tax code.
Bush promises to create 2.1 million jobs by changing the tax code.
Both want to use the tax code to create jobs by increasing domestic investment.
Score: Bush 1 Kerry 0
My assessment: Neither excites me very much. I think Bush's numbers are a little more realistic than Kerry's. Therefore, I have to agree with Bush.

Economy-
Kerry promises to roll back the tax cut for the rich (which are never defined) to spur healthcare and education spending.
Bush wants to speed up the tax cuts to speed up the economy.
Score: Bush 2 Kerry 0
My assessment: Nearly everyone agrees that cutting taxes is the best way to encourage consumer spending. Our economy is based on consumer spending and consumer lending. Increasing taxes on those who pay them is like killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Defense-
Kerry wants to spend more on "first defenders." He uses a poll by the nation's mayors that say

(a) study last fall by the U.S. Conference of Mayors showed 90 percent of cities had not received their share of $1.5 billion allocated by the nation's largest homeland security funding program. Moreover, an informal poll in 43 states recently showed that a third of counties nationwide still have not seen any federal funding for first responders, said Larry Naake, executive director of the National Association of Counties." [Associated Press, 2/12/04].

Bush created the Homeland Defense Agency. A cabinet level post which is responsible for homeland defense. He has provided

$7.8 billion in grants between 2002 and 2003 to help state and local responders and emergency managers prepare for terrorist attacks.

Score: Bush 2 Kerry 0
My assessment: Both want to be tough on protecting the nation from another attack. My common sense tells me that this is impossible. In a free society, we will always have a risk of attack. The only way to stop this is to make our society less free. All of this talk of protecting each individual gives the me the feeling of a chicken running around with its head cut off. Therefore, neither gets any points.

Education-
Well, each candidate wants to throw money at the problem. Kerry just says the No Child Left Behind Act is bad he would change it and spend more money. Bush says the Act is good and see how much money we have spent to prove it.
Score: Bush 2 Kerry 0
My assessment: I cannot give either any points. I really do not see much difference. Kerry makes a good point by saying there should be more discipline in schools, but ruins it by wanting to throw money at the problem. Bush wants to make the schools perform better on tests and wants to throw money at the problem. Again, neither gets any points.

Social Security-
Kerry has no statement.
Bush wants to take the social security funds out of the general fund. He is in favor of personal retirement accounts and allowing the person to decide. He against another tax increase.
Score: Bush 3 Kerry 0
My assessment: I totally agree with Bush. As I have blogged, the well will run dry unless something is done. Raising taxes is not a long term solution.

Foreign Policy (or National Defense)-
Kerry wants to improve intelligence faculties, improve port defense and ensure fairness to veterans.
Bush wants to

defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes.
We will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the world's great powers.
And we will extend the peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe.

Score: Bush 3 Kerry 0
My assessment: I want a president, who talks softly but carries a big stick. I do not want someone concerned about world opinion. The president does not answer to the UN or France; he/she answers to me.

Well, I do not think I will be voting for Kerry under any circumstance. I cannot vote for someone promising to raise taxes on any segment of the population. Taxation is a loss freedom. The more taxes the less freedom. I cannot vote for someone, who wants to be friendly to the world. The world hates us. That is a good thing. It means we are doing something right. Lastly, I trust Bush. I do not agree with all of his policies (he scored 3 out a possible 6), but I feel that he is honest (as politicians go). I do not get that feeling with Kerry.

Next time: Bush versus Badnarik (for those of you who do not know we have more than two parties).

A Breath of Fresh Air

2004-06-29T00:00:00.000-04:00

At last a breath of fresh air from the Communist...er Democrat from New York (or was it Chicago, Arkansas...where's my scorecard?) She actually came out and said that, essentially, the government knows better how to spend your money than you. Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2008. She is the up and comer of the Democratic Party. She has shown herself to be a communist in her domestic agenda. But, at least she is being honest.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Is this why our country was founded? "(O)n behalf of the common good." How nice. I believe we are in a battle for the soul of our country. On one side we have the Left wanting to redistribute wealth, which has always failed in the long run and on the other side we have the Right, who believe in personal responsibility and earning what you get. I think it is time we reflect on how our country was founded. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! We were not founded on mob rule. Our founders did not believe in democracy. They knew full well that democracies fail, because the public votes themselves "stuff." Or, the mob becomes willing to give up their rights for "security." We are witnessing both in this country today. As I stated we were not founded as a democracy, but we are fast becoming one. Senators are no longer there to pull for his/her state but for the individual voter. Presidents pander to the electorate and sign bills they know full well to be unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justices look across the Atlantic for guidance. The electorate would rather vote for "bread and circuses" entitlements than realize that the money comes from somewhere.

Yes, I am a little pessimistic. I feel the "Great Experiment" is failing. Each election only prolongs the patient on life support. Ultimately, the plug will have to be pulled.

Irrelevancy: thy name is UN

2004-06-18T17:28:00.000-04:00

The new catch phrase: "Whatever!" applies to the UN in so many ways. This august body has the cajones to point fingers at the US. This time it is the world court. If we had been a member of the court, our citizens would be tried by an international court. Just because the Europeans have no problem with giving away their sovereignty, does not mean Americans should. We are not Europe. Therefore, whatever Europe is doing does not mean we should. Kind of like what a parent tells his kid: if everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you?

Let's look at how the UN is able to sit in judgment of us: oil for food scandal; sex for food scandal; antisemitism, etc. The way I see it, being different from the UN is a good thing. Like communism, the UN is fast moving to the trash heap of history.

A Subject I've Always Wondered About

2004-06-16T17:16:00.000-04:00

As a Christian in America, I have always wondered why Jews are typically liberal (even Leftist). How can someone, who believes in God, buy into the philosophy that any religion and philosophy is the same. In reading the Old Testament, the Hebrews have always set themselves apart from the rest of the world and went the way God told them. When the Hebrews did not, they paid the price (Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, etc.). I have never been able to understand how a religious people could be counted among people lacking a moral compass.

In my opinion, the Left in this country has lost any sense of right and wrong. Somehow, they are trapped in the "feel good sixties." If something feels good, it must be right. As a Christian and as a Conservative (Rightist), I believe there are absolutes: right and wrong. The War on Terror is a war of good versus evil. Those fighting against us are aligned with the powers of darkness and death. We have not done anything to provoke them. We did not attack their cities and kill thousands of their citizens. We have spent blood and treasure defending them (see Bosnia). Yet, Jihadists (Islamofascists, whatever) are attempting to hijack the Islamic faith. Unfortunately, I see no Muslims vocally denouncing them. In this country we have those on the left saying we are the bad guys and this not a war of good versus evil. Wrong!

This brings me to my point. Israel has been fighting this war for decades. As a lone outpost in a sea of hostility, she alone as been the bulwark of what is right. The UN and most of the world has been actively against her. Only the United States has consistently been her friend. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons given for the Muslim world's animosity towards us is our siding with Israel.Ben Shapiro offers a wake up call to his fellow Jews. If the light of the US is allowed to be snuffed out, where will the good in the world turn? France? Germany? These countries are hardly bastions of what is right and wrong. Their history of hating all things Jewish is not too shiny. Of all the countries in the world, the US is the least anti-semitic.

I wish someone would take the time to explain this phenomenon to me.

An Interesting Perspective

2004-06-15T17:38:00.000-04:00

After reading this, I see that our media is not so bad. If this one man's voice is any indication, we must stay the course in Iraq.

The Buck Never Stops

2004-06-15T14:40:00.000-04:00

Truman had a sign on his desk saying, "The Buck Stops Here." He knew that as Commander-in-Chief, he was ultimately responsible. So far, the Abu Graihb scandal has no stoppage. The blame keeps floating around. The commander, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, still believes she is not blame. She has said that it was military intelligence (MI) that was in charge of the prisoners. She is trying to get the spot light off of her by saying that her successor, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, said the prisoners should be treated like dogs.

Is this how a responsible person takes responsibility? All I have read says she refuses to take any blame for the actions of those under her command. I will grant that she may have not know, but as I have said before, she should have. Her and her underlings' careers should be terminated. In my opinion, they are not fit to command.

Is there no one able to take responsibility for a mistake. If she had said, "I'm sorry." She would still be in hot water, but most of us would have a lot more respect for her. Americans have a huge capacity for forgiveness. Shifting blame is not the way to achieve it.

Reagan, the Libertarian?

2004-06-08T00:00:00.000-04:00

As a child of the 1980s, I never fully appreciated Ronald Reagan and his ideals. He was portrayed in the media as a doddering fool. Therefore, the image was of a buffoon about to start another world war. Now that I am older(and hopefully wiser), I see a different side of the 40th president. With his passing and the attention his presidency has gathered, I have re-evaluated my take on Reagan. After reading this article in Reason, I see him in a different light.

The interview shows a very thoughtful, lucid man grappling with the conflict of libertarianism and conservatism. Reagan was very much about personal responsibility, but rejected the libertarian notion of total non-governmental interference. He does see positive aspects of government, such as firefighters, police, etc. However, like a libertarian, he notes that governments become too big and too intrusive into lives. Government tends to gobble up wealth and not create it.

As I stroll along my philosophical political path, I totally relate to his quandary. Although libertarianism sounds great, I think that in the long run it would go the way of communism. Nowadays, people have shirked their personal responsibility and given it to the government. I cannot agree with libertarians in saying that all governmental programs must be abolished. We have the highest standard of living, ever. Our standard of living continues upward despite governmental inroads into our lives. Therefore, I must agree with conservatives that a limited government that does not get in the way is the best government. Unfortunately, of all of the two major political parties, none are truly conservative.

Update Just like I said there are no truly conservative Republicans.

Madness

2004-06-04T06:00:00.000-04:00

Rising oil prices are the big concern d'jour. The attack in Saudi Arabia only confirms our need to find a more secure producer. It seems al Qaida wants the price of oil to go up. In this purported statement from that group, the attack will help stave off the "the tyrants" who "plunder the wealth of Muslims." I would say that is very short sighted. For an organization that patiently trained and waited to attack us on 9/11, I expected more. Decreasing supply of oil will have many more drawbacks to the Muslim world:

1. Technological advances will produce systems to take the place of oil. These include nuclear and coal for electricity and fuel cells, etc. for transportation.
2. Other countries (ie. non-Muslim) countries will gain in selling more oil than the less secure Muslim countries.
3. If supplies become scarce enough, war could erupt. This country must have energy to survive.

We are already seeing number 2. Russia is poised to become the 800 pound gorilla in oil exportation.

If the Muslim world continues to coddle animals, the eventual loser will be themselves. As the rest of the world marches on and becomes more prosperous, the Muslim world (specifically the Middle East) will remain stuck in the 14th century.

Has Bill Cosby Become a Rascist?

2004-05-28T08:51:00.000-04:00

By now many on the web have heard about the comments Bill Cosby made at an engagement celebrating Brown v. Board of Education. After reading this article, I see what all of the hubbub is about. We read about the problems with Afrincan-American society. We hear him rant about the loss of positive leadership. If a white person had said it, he would have immediately be branded a rascist. The fact that Bill Cosby, who is black, said it makes it more telling.

Eugene Kane: "Given his record as a philanthropist who had donated millions to black colleges and black causes in general, Cosby has certainly earned the right to speak his mind." He continued, "Still, there's a sense of uneasiness whenever somebody like Cosby uses the same language some whites use to justify their racism....Particularly, the idea that poor blacks and their children weigh down the rest of society, or that every black person behind bars deserves to be incarcerated. Sure, some blacks may fit that description, not all. Some white people, too."

Coming from Bill Cosby makes these cristiscms more important. How can the "leaders" demogogue him? Unfortunately, nothing will happen. When most Americans have trouble knowing anything which is not on Entertainment Tonight, why would this weighty issue be discussed?

Here's Some Good News From Iraq

2004-05-27T00:00:00.000-04:00

The great thing about the internet is the ability to circumvent Big Media. To hear from Big Media, we are losing the war of in Iraq, not only the actual battles but also the war for hearts and minds. I have linked to Iraq the Model. Today's post has to deal with the mostly positive Arab response to our actions in Iraq. Between that and the disavowing of al-Sadr, the situation appears doable.

This country must maintain its vigilence. We cannot allow a minority view (islamofascists) to dictate the lives of the majority. Just as in the country the shrill voices of the minority seem to drown out the majority. We must never waver.

War Crimes by the UN?

2004-05-25T11:27:00.000-04:00

Now the UN is involved in a sex crimes scandal. Using the plight of starving rape victims, UN soldiers buy sex with food. How nice. This is the same organization that has the balls to try to tell us what to do.

Here's the money quote: Dominique McAdams, the head of the UN in Bunia, said she believed that there was sexual violence in the camp, but said she had yet to see any evidence.

The author of the article had talked to 20 women with the same story. Can we leave the UN yet?

Educational ineptitude?

2004-05-19T16:51:00.000-04:00

Walter Williamswrites about teacher ineptitude. Citing SAT scores for education majors, he posits that education majors tend to be the bottom of the barrel, academically. Although the teachers in my family tend to be bright, articulate and enjoy teaching, I saw first hand what Williams is talking about. While in college, the folks getting education degrees were the ones at the bars and generally having a good time, whereas, those in the hard sciences were not. However, getting smarter teachers does not necessarily mean getting better teachers. The best teachers (like doctors and ministers) are the ones who have a calling. In my educational career, the best instructors were not necessarily the smartest. Intelligence, like other areas of life, has less to do with it. The problems in our public education are many. Teacher intelligence, in my opinion, has less to do with it than parental apathy, loss of discipline and lower expectations. Until the leftist mind set of no culpability is taken out of public schools, there will be no improvement.

Left Guilt

2004-05-19T16:24:00.000-04:00

Read this. Interesting view of the differences between liberal and conservative. I will say that those, who are middle class, are more conservative than those of upper class. Therefore, guilt does seem to be a driving force.

IRAQ THE MODEL

2004-05-19T15:17:00.000-04:00

Read this to see some good news out of Iraq. The doom and gloom spouted by our media is becoming too much. I am tired of it. Things are never as bad as they claim, and they wonder why they are losing viewership.

Sounding the Marriage Death Knell?

2004-05-17T16:07:00.000-04:00

With all of the hoopla over gay marriage this should be more cause for alarm. Traditional marriage has been on the ropes for decades. Homosexuals wanting to get married have not destroyed marriage; heterosexuals did. One out of two marriages end in divorce. How about this: (i)n 1980, 77 percent of all children under 18 lived with two parents; 73 percent did in 1990 and 69 percent did by 2000? As I get older, I realize these statistics have some basis in reality. When I count up the people in my peer group in a conservative part of the country (East Tennessee), I see these statistics born out.

The issue I have is with the conservatives wringing their hands. Marriage has been nearly destroyed in this country and now they care?!? Married couples are taxed more, have less benefits and somehow are supposed to keep taking it on the chin. With all of the societal changes, marriages will continue to evolve. Listening to those on the right, it seems a little like chicken little. Conservatives: the sky has already fallen.

What does that mean about gay marriage? Personally, I think we are going about it wrong. If the people want gay marriage, then ok. I have stated my feelings on the issue. As I have blogged here, the process will sort itself out. I do not like is judicial activism. These justices are not elected nor are they accountable to anyone. Unfortunately, the whole thing will have to be decided by the SCOTUS. I am no legal scholar, but how can a couple be married one state and not in another? We will not adding any amendments to the Constitution anytime soon. The country is too evenly divided (see red states vs blue states or look at the US Senate). Could this be a form of "divide and conquer?"

Apparently Some Stereotypes are OK

2004-05-12T00:00:00.000-04:00

Wendy McElroy writes on Foxnews.com about fraternity perceptions on college campuses. A concerted effort on many college campuses is being made to remove them. The reasons cited deal with drinking, date rape and general bad behavior.

During college I joined Kappa Alpha Order. It was one of the best things I did. Were we a bunch of drunken neanderthals? Some of us. Were any different from guys outside of the fraternal system? No. I saw guys, who were non-Greek, getting into bar fights, picking up women, etc. We were no different than others of our gender.

The reason non-Greeks do not like those inside fraternities(and sororities) are more because of stereotypes. Animal House is the usual example of what a fraternity is like. Greek organizations tend to be selective and secretive. They tend to pull in people similar to themselves. That is really the problem non-Greeks have. The feeling of being excluded has more to do with it than what goes on inside. Secret initiations, pledging, etc. in any organization leads to outsiders fearing them. See the Free Masons, Knights Templar, etc.

I hope fraternal organizations are not done away with. Although there are negatives as with any organization, the positives far outweigh them.

Negotiation is Out of the Question

2004-05-11T16:56:00.000-04:00

The horrible reality of the Middle East should be starkly evident. With the beheading of Nick Berg by Islamofascists should serve as a wake up call for renewed effort. We simply cannot lose this war.

My heart, thoughts and prayers go out to the family. To lose a loved one in such a manner is a terrible thing to go through. Unfortunately, Nick Berg's family seems to be blaming the US for their son's murder. This headline:Pa. family angry with American government over son's brutal death. I do not understand how they can blame the government for their son's death. Did we hand him over to the Islamofascists? Are those Americans in the photo? I seriously doubt it. Ahh, this quote: Michael Berg described himself as fervently anti-war, but said his son disagreed with him.
"He was a Bush supporter," Berg said. "He looked at it as bringing democracy to a country that didn't have it."
I hope the family is not using this for political gain.

As for the murders using the abuse at Iraqi prison, what a crock. Those people have hated us since the '80s. They are cousins to the suicide bombers at the Marine barracks. Does anyone, without an agenda, really believe they are that angry about Iraqi prisoner abuse?

Isn't She Supposed to Know?

2004-05-07T16:54:00.000-04:00

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinksi said the Army is trying to make her the scapegoat. "I am confident we did and have done everything possible in an earnest effort to do the right things," she wrote Bryant in the March 31 e-mail. "Some things are simply out of my control. We do not always have the advantage of knowing the real objective so we have to trust there are others who will do the right things." Out of my control?!? A general officer has no control over her troops? She should be sacked. With the brouhaha over whether or not Rumsfeld should resign, we have a general officer with out of control troops. If anyone should resign, she should. From my perspective, her unit seems to be poorly led and poorly trained. She seems totally unable to command. Is this a case of promoting to the highest level of incompetence?

Brigadier Karpinski will be given a slap on the wrist compared to the NCOs under her. Her career is, effectively, over. Not many officers survive being relieved of their command. Grant did it, Patton did it. I doubt Karpinksi will do it. There is too much of a firestorm, too much screeching, justifiably so. She will not see any jail time, but she will not survive intact. Being called a "scapegoat" is an insult to the hard-working, dedicated military personnel, who know better than to abuse prisoners, especially when we are trying to win hearts and minds. Her unit has done more to set us back than any Fallujah. By turning a blind eye to the goings on, she gave tacit approval. Tacitus offered to disband the unit. I would have to agree. They have dishonored us all.

The Debate is Over

2004-05-04T23:08:00.000-04:00

The United Methodist Church (UMC)rejected acknowledging any disagreement on homosexuality. By rejecting the statement "We recognize that Christians disagree on the compatibility of homosexual practice with Christian teaching," the UMC stopped any attempt at becoming like the Episcopalians. As I wrote before, allowing homosexual pastors in churches is a slippery slope. Yes, Jesus Christ came to teach about the God of love and taught us that we must our neighbor. By not allowing homosexual pastors, the UMC is not saying homosexuals should not be loved. We are simply saying that we love the sinner and hate the sin. No homosexual would be asked to leave a UMC church.

Some Christian denominations will outright say that homosexuals have no place in God's kingdom. I do believe homosexuals are loved by God and are a part of God's creation. However, living in sin is still sin. Although Jesus hung around with disreputable people, he still wanted them to stop their sinful ways. That is why gay pastors and church leaders are wrong. Pastors have an awesome responsibility. They are the shepherd of the flock. They are there to tend God's people. Any pastor that causes one to lose sight of God has committed a mighty sin.

Ok...Ok He says it Better

2004-05-04T13:36:00.000-04:00

Joseph Farah makes an excellent point about scrapping the whole Social Security charade. It is time for someone to look behind the curtain and see it for what it really is: terribly unjust. I urge anyone 40 and younger to seriously read the article and ask yourself what can I do? I do not know, yet. I am not totally ready to break from the Republican Party, but I am getting closer and closer.

Conservatives do not believe that government is evil. Conservatives believe that too much government is evil and counterproductive. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is becoming more worried about getting and maintaining power, rather living up to its ideals. Frankly, I am becoming disgusted with the GOP.

What am I to do? Although I am not registered as anything, I tend to vote Republican. There is no way I can vote for the Democrats. Although they were the voice of the middle class, they have moved to embrace extremists and cannot be trusted. Should I vote Libertarian?

Many of the Libertarian tenets sound very appealing. I do think the government has become a force against the people. Power has become too centralized. Taxes have become too onerous. Intervention and nannying has become too much. But, I still believe a limited government can be a force to help everyone. I do think the government has done some things that the private sector would never have invested in.

As the election draws near and the rhetoric becomes more shrill, I will have to make some tough decisions. I can no longer vote for the "lesser of the two evils." I can no longer vote for evil.

Sudan is now an Expert on Human Rights

2004-05-04T00:00:00.000-04:00

The UN in its infinite wisdom has elected Sudan to its Human Rights Council according to this article from Reuters. Isn't Sudan responsible ethnic and religous clensing? How can anyone with a straight face accept Sudan as a full member of this council? The money quote:
Sudan's deputy U.N. ambassador, Omar Bashir Mohamed Manis, said the United States had no right to accuse anyone of human rights violations, after allegations of abuses in Iraq including mistreatment of Iraqis held in U.S.-run prisons
Images of the Iraqi prisoners "are fresh in the minds of all justice-loving people around the world," he said.
I guess the fact that several heads will role is not important. Although grossly inhumane, the Iraqis were enemy combatants and not civilians. The US did not target an ethnic group or a religion. We did not kill over 10,000 people and displace millions just because they are the wrong color or religion.

The UN continues to make itself irrelevant to the world. For those wanting a one world government, this is the product of your wishes. When will the United States wake up to the fact the UN is the most vile, evil force on the planet? The UN has no moral or legal authority over anyone. Why do we even send delagates?

If Our Neighbors to the North get it, Why Can't We?

2004-04-30T00:00:00.000-04:00

Apparently, some Canadians are beginning to see how utterly useless the UN is. This article may help wake up those UNophiles. Not only is the UN effectual in keeping world peace, but also corrupt. With the Oil-for-Food scandal, UN corruption is being brought to light. I have said it over and over: it is time to leave the UN.

Let Me Outta This Pyramid Scheme

2004-04-29T08:57:00.000-04:00

The news for the younger than Baby Boom crowd is grim. This article by Michael Tanner points out the problems facing that crowd in regards to Social Security (SS). As I have blogged before, the news about SS is grim. Reading this article put in stark numbers the problems that will be faced in the not too distant future.

As usual our so called leaders will not doing anything about it. It has become a political football. One of the reasons I voted for GWB is because of his talk of privatization of SS. I fervently believe the only way to save it to allow some form of private investment. With mutual fund returns averaging around 10% versus the less than 2% with SS returns, it would seem to be no brainer. I have seen GWB be on long talk. He has talked a lot about possibly allowing people the right to invest their money. Unfortunately, he is short on action. What does his political opponent have to say? The silence is deafening. Democrats, as usual, refuse to offer any alternatives. They will use scare tactics to frighten seniors into voting against anyone proposing changes.

I blame FDR. He set us onto this path of socialism. No socialist country can provide the services promised and be economically viable. Look at heavily socialist countries, such as France, Germany, etc., and one sees stagnation. The people come to demand and rely more on the State instead of themselves. This gives the State more power, and that is what it is all about. The reason our elected "leaders" will never change the status quo is precisely due to potential loss of power.

I feverently hope for someone to step forward and be a leader rather than be directed by focus groups and polls.

What is Up with This?

2004-04-28T15:40:00.000-04:00

CBS News | Abuse Of Iraqi Prisoners Probed

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the press try to turn it into another My Lai? I doubt it. The military has become much too PC to let this be swept under the rug. If anyone doubts the PC nature of the military, see what is going on in Fallujah. Instead of giving the terrorists (they are not insurgents no matter what the media says) time, we should have given them 24 hours to surrender and then gone in. After that ultimatum passed total carnage must begin. The most successful campaigns are the ones fought with vigor not afraid of "collateral damage." Yes, we would have received casualties. Yes, that is horrible. Yes, my thought and prayers go out to their families. Yes, civilians will get killed and maimed. How else do you stop another Falujah? If we are to leave Iraq better than we found it, we must kill the enemy.

Anyway back to the 60 Minutes II report. "We had no support, no training whatsoever, and I kept asking my chain of command for certain things, rules and regulations, and it just wasn't happening," said Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick. What kind of excuse is that? Someone needed a time out. Mistreating the enemy is the sure way to propagate the enemy. The dozen soldiers singled out will be made an example of, if the charges are true.

The military must tighten it up. The press is looking for an excuse to make a point.

The More Kerry Talks the More He Helps Bush

2004-04-27T20:27:00.000-04:00

The Village Voice: Nation: Mondo Washington: John Kerry Must Go by James Ridgeway

John Kerry meet Bob Dole. It seems John Kerry's slipperiness is starting to cost him. Even Good Morning America is starting to question Kerry's veracity. Look, Americans can put up with alot, even lying. When one is this contradictory during a presidential campaign, turn out the lights the party's over. Most do not care what Kerry did with his medals. They are his; he earned them. Lying about what you did with your medals is the sure way to get your campaign off track.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is busy rearranging deck chairs while SS Kerry sinks. Time to man the life boats.

Can We Win the War on Terror?

2004-04-26T00:00:00.000-04:00

The War on Terror (WoT) is becoming an all consuming thought for us today. The news is filled with the goings on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can we win the WoT? After reading this article it may be unlikely. When newspapers and governments malign a group of people (Jews) instead of seeing the ugly truth, we have our work cut out for us. Arab countries seem to want to blame the Jews for their problems rather than grab the bull by the horns and make changes. I used to believe that Islam needed its own "Protestant Reformation" to be viable in the 21st century. I do not think that "Islamic Reformation" will be enough. We may be in for a long, unwinnable fight.

Are We Wage Slaves?

2004-04-23T14:19:00.000-04:00

Alan Reynolds: How to slash your taxes is a column that should scare the Generation X. What he is advocating is for everyone to work less to cut taxes. In a sense this is true. Our progressive income tax system penalizes productive people. People at the upper ends of the tax brackets must not only pay their "fair share" but also someone else's. If someone has the misfortune to have a adjusted gross income of $150,000 or more (not too difficult with two wage earners), then they have almost no deductions. Why should someone work harder to provide more for their family and have it taken by the government(s) at gun point?

In the book Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand took this to its eventual conclusion. People were castigated for wanting to keep their money, instead of giving it to the government. For those, who have not read the book, the system crashed because no one was left to produce. Think of a pyramid scheme with the base smaller than the pinnacle. The producers of the society left the society and the society crashed like a run away locomotive. Is that the future we want?

We are starting to see this in action. In this country we have the Prescription Drug Benefit, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Unfortunately, we are going to be running low on producers. Baby Boomers are going to suck the government dry. Even the more conservative Boomers believe people should give to the government first and keep whatever is left over. The only way this will work is to open our borders to migrant workers.

I Now Agree with a "Talking Head"

2004-04-21T14:43:00.000-04:00

Koppel Says News, Entertainment a Dangerous Mix. I totally agree. The morning shows are the worst. I cannot watch any of them. Although I like Fox the best, because it is more news driven, it still tends to get under my skin. The other alphabet soups could dry up and blow away, and I would not miss them. Apparently, many of my generation agree. I watched the Dateline program mentioned (not my choice). How can I take these "journalists" seriously, when much of what they do is commercially driven (see 60 Minutes and Richard Clarke)?

Another Reason to Get Out of the UN

2004-04-21T09:32:00.000-04:00

ABCNEWS.com : U.N. Officials Bribed by Saddam? Say it ain't so, Joe. The United Nations is investigating the vaunted "oil for food" program. It seems people in high places were taking bribes to keep the oil flowing to the proper people. When are we going to wake up and get out of the UN? What will it take? The UN did not want us to invade Iraq, despite flaunting numerous resolutions; the UN appoints countries with terrible human rights records to human rights committees; the UN is staunchly anti-Israel; and the UN is, I believe, actively working to form a one world government. The UN is at best ineffectual. At worst it is inept. The UN has not done anything to foster world peace. As I have said before, it is time to politely ask the UN to leave (here).

We Were not put on This Earth for Them

2004-04-20T13:50:00.000-04:00

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak says that Arabs hate Americans more now than ever. First of all, so what? How has intentionally America hurt any Arab? If America was not the economic powerhouse that we are, the oil rich countries would have the money to support Wabbism. We were ATTACKED! Are we supposed to take it and ask for more? Were we supposed to let it slide? Although there is legitimate debate regarding the war on terror, there can be no debate that we are in a war. If Muslims hate us for attacking the extremists in their midst, then so be it. If the Arab street wants to relive the Crusades, then they may be biting off more than they can chew. After World War II this country said never again to allowing madmen threaten the world.

Happy Birthday to Me

2004-04-13T12:18:00.000-04:00

Yesterday was my birthday. I managed to have a very laid back birthday. I even took a few days off. Not much blogging going on. We went out of town for the weekend. I am in the process of updating the blogroll to the right.

The Smokies are opening this week at home. Nothing like AA baseball.

Iraq is not Viet Nam!

2004-04-07T11:18:00.000-04:00

A mini-Tet offensive in Iraq? No. Ted Kennedy said that Iraq was Bush's Viet Nam. Any rational comparison fails miserabily. Kennedy uses the current unrest to paint it as the same as the Tet Offensive.

Tet was only a victory due to the anti-war movement's ability to paint it so. The media, with its usual left bent, told the country the war was lost. Just like the Battle of the Bulge, the Tet Offensive nearly destroyed the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army. Both took huge casualties. The VC disapeared as a fighting force. Due to the liberal media (it does exist), we were told the US had lost Viet Nam. This was in no way the truth.

We need to ignore the anti-war crowd and turn off the media. Maybe Kennedy is off of the sauce and having a "problem."

What are They Thinking?

2004-04-07T10:44:00.000-04:00

Houston may promote failing kids to cut dropouts. Oh yeah, this will help them earn their education. I'll bet this is more to do with tax dollars than students' education. Each student counted present is money for that school. Therefore, the more bodies the more money. I would not send my kids to any school that advocated this. These kids should not be in school. They will be a drain and a distraction from the kids trying to become educated.

Busy, Busy, Busy

2004-04-07T08:29:00.000-04:00

I have been "blogging" less. Things are real hectic for me right now. As everyone knows, jobs, kids, etc. can make things interesting. As things come up, I will still be there.

Blogroll note: Tacitus has changed to another address. The link has been updated. One has to register to post comments to his site. I believe there was a feud between him and LGF. LGF tends to be very militant and some have said anti-Islam. I may be taking it off my blogroll. I have not been keeping up with LGF, but I had noticed a certain "snarkiness" about it. I keep the site because it tended to be amusing in a scary way.

Are We That Stupid?

2004-04-02T15:53:00.000-05:00

This from the leading contender, John Kerry, is astounding. He is saying that he will produce 10 million jobs! The current unemployment rate is ~5.7%. That means we would have 0% unemployment, effectively. That is impossible. Even during the best of economic times, we have umemployment. The current rating is pretty good. During the "salad days" of Clinton it hovered around 6%.

Also, how can the President create jobs? All he can do is not get in the way of job creation. John Kerry is pandering to the ignorance of people.

Can We Go the Distance?

2004-03-29T22:47:00.000-05:00

Victory is the main object in war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. When troops attack cities, their strength will be exhausted.

Sun Tzu The Art of War

We are at war. Although we have not had a formal declaration, we are at war. When our troops are in other cities, we are at war. When our troops are "boots on the ground" in hostile territory, we are at war. When we have troops being wounded and killed, we are at war. We did not ask for this war. By and large we are peaceful nation. We may not be perfect, but we prefer to trade with you than to fight with you. I personally subscribe to the Jacksonian tradition of fighting to win. To utter defeat your enemy, so he cannot wage war again.

Are we capable of doing that now? Can we come together and defeat a common evil: Islamofascim? Let us define Islamofascism. Christopher Hitchens is purported to have coined the phrase. I believe it is a combination of two words: Islam and fascism. First, Islam is the religion that believes in the one God, Heaven and Hell. Sounds eerily similar to Christianity and Judaism. Each believes in the same God. Judaism had many prophets in its millennia. Christianity had the Messiah. All are related, yet different. Second, fascism is a form of government headed by a strong central government and led by strong socioeconomic control. Sounds a lot like communism and socialism. All three disregard the individual in favor of the state.

Therefore an Islamofascist believes the state should control everyone in the tenets of the teachings of Mohammed. All citizens of the state would become Moslem. There is no individual choice, no choosing how to worship God, or even how to dress (see Afghanistan's Taliban). Everything these people want is in direct contrast with our system of government and society. Like all forms of fascism, Islamofascism is evil.

Therefore, I find myself incredulous that the Left in this country would rather treat the enemy as a criminal instead of the enemy. Sure islamofasicts have broken the law, but Hitler did too. How can the Left really be against fighting islamofascists, when they purportedly want a liberal society? With a Talibanesque government, freedom of choice, feminism, death penalty, "right" of education, etc. becomes a moot point. How can the Left side with these people? Are they that much of a political hack?

I will grant that during WWII, the Republicans wanted to remain neutral. They felt the war was Europe's problem. We should stay neutral. After all, our Founding Fathers advised us to trade with Europe but stay out its affairs. However, after December 7th all of that died away. How is it that FDR was able to remain President as long as he did? It was wartime. The country came together and pulled and fought against the common enemy, which ironically was fascism.

Today we have political infighting and posturing. The Richard Clarke debacle, the WMD debacle, etc. is used to discredit this administration. I do not agree with this administration's domestic policies, but I have not seen any better alternatives to the war on terror. If a quick victory was all the American people could stand, then FDR would have been out after Baton and the Philippines. Lincoln lost the first half of the War of Seccession. No, the American people are more patient than that.

Maybe the Left really believes that war is so terrible that it should never be fought. Although I have never seen combat, I am not so naive to believe that it is anything but terrible. However, we were attacked not just on 9/11 but also the USS Cole and the the WTC in 1993. We have been more than patient. We have given peace a chance. This has done nothing except embolden our enemy. The Left needs to understand that the American people want a Commander in Chief that will fight a war when necessary. The American people do not want an investigation. We want blood. We want victory. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.

To see what the power of the Left during a time of war, one has to look no farther than Viet Nam. How could we have possibly lost that war? We probably inflicted 10 times the casualties on the enemy. Vo Nguyen Giap, General of North Viet Nam, is said have claimed that anti-war protests did more to his victory than any battle. That is the power of the Left. The majority of the American people wanted to stop communism. They correctly believed communism to be evil. However, the Left with possible communist ties delayed the victory and ultimately cost us the war. The after effects are still being felt.

It is time for the Left to either "lead, follow or get out of the way." John Kerry's anti-terrorist plan is no better than what was in place pre-9/11. More firefighters and policeman are great. They will help clean up the mess after the next terrorist strike. Unfortunately, they will do little to prevent another attack nor to utterly destroy our enemies.

Hence what is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations. And therefore the general who understands war is the Minister of the people's fate and arbiter of the nation's destiny.

Sun-Tzu The Art of War

New Stuff

2004-03-26T14:51:00.000-05:00

I've added "Day by Day" to our blog. Check it out. I enjoy reading it.

Also, we have linked to another conservative site: Balloon Juice.

Enjoy the weekend!

Whose Lie?

2004-03-24T13:26:00.000-05:00

The whole Richard Clarke debacle is developing a feverish pitch. How you see your political views will determine your take on the matter. However, there are some definite critiques regarding how Clark has handled the whole matter. John Cole at Balloon Juice takes Clarke to task here.

As with most things I am on the fence, when they initially break. My take on it is more pandering by those aligned against Bush. These folks hold up Clarke as the poster-boy for the perfect protagonist and Bush as the perfect antagonist. Upon further study, we see some definite questions regarding Clarke's veracity. I am sure he did try to warn his superiors about the risk of al-Qaida. Unfortunately, the risk tends to be amorphous and hard to define. To say that al-Qaida is planning an attack against America is not enough. Al-Qaida is not the only enemy that the US has. Iraq had to figure prominently also. After all, Saddam did try to assassinate a former President and may have been complicent in the 1993 WTC bombing. Besides if Bush had attacked Afghanistan prior to 9/11, WTC attacks would have still taken place, and the uproar from those on the left would have been deafening.

No. It seems that Clarke is trying to pander to Kerry. Apparently, he works closely with his foreign policy advisor. Also, the timing of the book's release is a little suspect. Clarke in an interview (Good Morning America?) said the Whitehouse delayed the release because of security concerns. That does not matter. The bombing occurred two years before the book was printed. If Clarke had such misgivings, he would have been out banging the gong soon after leaving the government.

The end result is character assassination of Bush. Americans are a little smarter than that. With the choice offered by the other side, Americans know that Bush will relentlessly pursue the War on Terror. This will only inflame the sides of the debate and not settle it. In the coming weeks, months, years, Clarke will be marginalized. Children decades from know will study Bush not Clarke.

Fluffy-Bunny Religion

2004-03-23T14:06:00.000-05:00

Dammann verdict is in. The jury decided that Karen Dammann did not break any church laws. She is an avowed lesbian and is living with her "partner." The statement by the jury spokesman:
We searched the Discipline and did not find a declaration that 'the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings,' the statement read. Although the jurors found passages containing the "incompatible..." phrasing, they said they "did not find that any of them constitute a declaration" that homosexuality is a chargeable offense. Let me get this straight. The Old and New Testaments talk about homosexuality as an "abomination," yet the United Methodist Church (UMC)'s book of Discipline says nothing about it. What about this section?

What someone does in his or her home does not concern me, and I do not care. However, clergy have to be able to at least try to follow the Bible's teachings. We are all sinners. We should all love one another, but to let someone continue sinning and to let them be in a position of authority is wrong. I do not want the same problems as the Roman Catholic Church. In the 60s the Roman Catholic Church liberalized many of its tenets. One of the side effects was allowing homosexual priests. We are seeing the legacy of that today. Much of the abuse being done by the clergy was done decades ago and is now seeing the light of day. Will we see this in the UMC decades from now? I pray we do not.

Fluffy-bunny religion will not get us anywhere. Christians are called to be in the world but not of the world. This means we do not care what the social mores of the day are. We are to be aiming for Heaven not caring about being politically correct. I think the jury in its mis-guided attempt at showing Christian love missed the point. Yes, we are called to love our neighbor. That does not mean we are to be his friend, nor have that person in a leadership position. The jury has let their personal feelings intercede with biblical teachings. Choir member Charlie McKinney said Dammann had taught the congregation about the power of truth. "She did a courageous thing and a difficult thing," McKinney said. "She did this as a way to pull bricks from the age-old wall of prejudice, fear and exclusion." Prejudice, fear and exclusion? The Bible now teaches prejudice, fear and exclusion? Either one is a Christian and believes the Bible is the word of God, or one does not believe the Bible is the word of God and therefore not a Christian. We can debate certain passages of the Bible all day. There is no ambiguity on this topic.

The General Conference is April 27. This subject will be brought up and discussed. I hope the church leaders will make the correct decision. We may already be witnessing the Episcopal schism. If this is allowed to stand, we may witness the Methodist schism.

Thanks to Jack Rich for bringing this to our attention.

The New Prohibition

2004-03-17T16:57:00.000-05:00

First, I am totally against kids smoking. I beleive that tobacco, like anything else, used too much is harmful. However,this new ordinance in Orlando is a little shocking. A $500 fine for smoking in front of children?!? As it stands right now, one is still allowed to smoke in one's home. How can this alw be enforced? Should not the police be more concerned with catching bad guys rather than worrying about someone lighting up? Does anyone think that "underage" smoking will magically disappear because of a new law? I guess the drug war is working because of the laws. When will we stop electing these "do-good" politicians? Just another infringement on someone's rights.

New Link

2004-03-17T16:46:00.000-05:00

To the left is a new link to John Lott's Blog. Some may know him, because of his work debunking the anti-gun voice. I urge you to check it out.

The Best Offense is a Good Defense?

2004-03-17T08:26:00.000-05:00

According to this statement about John Kerry's philosophy on the War on Terror is telling. He feels that we should not be on the offensive but on the defensive. We should be spend our resources preparing for a terrorist attack rather than going after terrorists. Let us take that to the extreme: if we had followed this rational, 9-11 would have still occurred, the bombing in Madrid would still have occurred. By being reactive instead of proactive, we will be doomed to letting events shape us rather than the reverse.

Some may argue whether we are actually at war. Although a formal declaration has not been done, we are, most assuredly, at war. When people are being bombed and buildings blown up, we are at war. George Bush may not being waging the war in a manner that I would necessarily agree with, but he does at least see that we are at war. This is not some police investigation. We can no longer allow others to define our response; we must attack them.

It has been said that a good defense is a good offense. John Kerry needs to get a clue, or he will look like Jimmy Carter.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

2004-03-12T15:39:00.000-05:00

The obese are in the news again. This "epidemic" facing our country is out of control. Steven Milloy points out the problem with the statistics of the obesity problem. Obesity is more than gluttony. To be sure the morbidly obese have problems and will have health problems, but to put overweight and mildly obese in the same category is a little disingenuous. Sandy Szwarc wrote a series of articles for TechCentral Station about obesity. After doing a lot of searching, she basically states that (b)y removing weight as an issue, recognizing the benefit of all foods and letting Americans take responsibility for their own health, there won't be anyone or anything to blame anymore.

The fast food restaurants have already seen the writing on the wall. McDonald's plans to phase out super-sizes. This after only one lawsuit. This will not solve the fundamental problem of freedom choice. Instead of giving people the facts and letting them make an informed decision, we are forcing them to conform. This is similar to the problem over movie popcorn, Chinese food, etc. Sure, if all I did was eat movie popcorn, I would have a problem. How many people do that? If all I did was eat McDonald's, I would have a problem. Not necessarily because of the food in question, but the problem of loss of essential nutrients. If a person has a well-balanced diet, then a Big Mac will not kill them. The clod, who made the movie eating only McDonald's, should have his health ruined. No one, not even obese people, eats McDonald's three meals a day everyday. I am not defending McDonald's. I do not really care for McDonald's. I care about the freedom to choose what to put into my body.

As Mr. Milloy notes, we may be getting heavier, but we are living longer. The "epidemic" does not seem to be causing very many deaths. We should be proud that our society has made our poor people the heaviest in the world. What society in history has done that?

Forces array against your personal freedoms. This is my central rant. If someone wants to shove greasy cheeseburgers down his gullet everyday, how is that my business? If these cheeseburgers cause health problems, then he should accept the consequences. Frankly, it is a little bit insulting for someone to tell me how to live.

Frog and the Boiling Water

2004-03-09T16:56:00.000-05:00

Are we living in a free country? This article makes me wonder. The military has no business in domestic intelligence gathering. The military is there to kill people and break things. That is it. If we have a need to gather domestic intelligence, is not that the reason for the existence of the FBI, DEA, Secret Service and the rest of the alphabet soup? The idea of the military being active in this country is more than a little disquieting. Army intel officers rushing around gathering information sounds a little too much like the Gestapo. Having neighbors spy on their neighbors sounds a little too much like 1984.

Are we witnessing an erosion in our rights? Remember, rights are not granted by the government. All the government can do is trample rights. My fear is the gradual loss of these rights. If the government suddenly took away our rights, there would be justifiable rioting in the streets. By incrementally taking away citizen's rights, by the time the citizenry notices it will be too late. Instead of fighting against Christianity and saving NAMBLA, the ACLU might want to work in actually saving civil liberties. We no longer are safe in our papers and our persons. We no longer have the freedom of speech, because our President signed a bill although he thought it had serious constitutional concerns. With military tribunals, we no longer have the right to a speedy and public trial and face one's accusers. The Constitution has become dated. We are no longer enjoying the rights and freedoms in it. I do not believe we will be any safer against terrorism by making this country a police state. Instead of terrorists without we will have to worry about terrorists within.

But, maybe it is time for a revolution. Maybe the people need to turn off the TV and get involved. When a large segment of the population chooses to not vote or chooses to vote for someone because of party affiliation, we are on a road to nowhere. Am I advocating rebellion or sedition? No. Not yet. It is time for the American people to take back their country before we lose it altogether. The choice is ours: gradual loss or sudden. Without intervention the end result will be the same.

GenXers and Younger are Screwed.

2004-03-08T23:05:00.000-05:00

RetireSafe.org has put out its reaction to the Greenspan statement regarding the state of Social Stupidity...er...Security. Greenspan merely voiced what no politician is willing to say: Social Security will be wiped out by the Baby Boomers. The Boomers bought into the idea of humans overpopulating the world and stopped having kids. By doing so have sown the seeds of Social Security's pyramid scheme to fall like a house of cards. Anyone under the age of 50 should seriously rethink the role of Social Security in their retirement plans. It won't be around.

One of the more astute things Bush has put forward is redoing Social Security. Even if people placed there savings in a savings account, they would have more money to live on. I think the dirty secret is the fact that Social Security is free money to politicians. There is no "Social Security lockbox." There never has been. Our overpaid and underworked representatives have used our contributions as free money. This will not continue. What say you Democrats? Why should the children of the Baby Boomers cover your largesse? Either raise taxes or cut benefits will be the answer put forth. To be "bipartisan" a little of both will pass. How do I get out this scheme? If I had come up with this scheme, I would be locked away.

Babs: Get Over Yourself

2004-03-05T15:39:00.000-05:00

Babs likes to tell everyone to not drive SUVs, save the whales, etc. but when it comes to her own backyard forget about it! The hypocrosy stinks. Why does anyone take her seriously? Better question: does anyone take her seriously?

Greed is Good?

2004-03-05T15:31:00.000-05:00

This is not good news for the diva of good living. Martha Stewart made millions feel insignificant and that is the key to her downfall. A trade of ~$280,000 is a terrible reason for going to prison, especially when one is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It seems the act of lying was worse than the act of insider trading. That is the terrible thing about her action.

We all have the same problem of "it is never enough." We always want more. Well, coveting and wanting more led to Stewart's downfall. A bad decision has cost her plenty and will be costing her plenty. Her reputation is what put her where she is. By ruining that, she has lost credibility. Her going to prison will not be as devastating as her losing credibility.

How sad is the person never happy with what he/she has.

Liberal Talk Radio

2004-03-03T17:02:00.000-05:00

The new face of radio is going to be a reality. The Left has been threatening to start a talk radio show. Well, they have gone and done it with Air America.

Personally, I wish them "Godspeed." I think there is a niche market for it. The more voices in a debate the better it is. Hopefully, the folks on the radio will engage in debate and not name calling and personal destruction. I will not hold my breath. Quiet debate will not hook listeners nor energize the base.

Large urban centers will support them, but smaller cities and more rural area will not. The "Blue States" will help them stay on the air. If left-leaning radio worked, then NPR would be a raving success. However, what the Left always fails to understand is that most of America is neither Left nor Right. For most Americans it depends on the issue.

Also, the irony is killing me. This Air America was a CIA front during the Viet Nam era. So, the Left, which hates the CIA, took the name of a CIA front organization. I guess politics have strange bedfellows.

Separation Between Church and State?

2004-03-01T16:24:00.000-05:00

This from Fox News shows a continuing disregard for traditional values, especially by those on the "left" coast. I do not care if the Catholic Charities provides birth control to its employees or not. The fact that birth control goes against Catholic principles is the matter. The supreme court of California does not care about Catholic, or for that matter, Christian teachings. What is the deal in California? Is it too much sun?

By forcing the Catholic Charities to provide birth control, the choice for the charity is either not offer health coverage for its employees or disobey one of its central tenets. I realize that many Catholics ignore the contraception issue. The point is the State is becoming master and ruler over the people. A government of the people and by the people is gone. Why would the State care, if an employee has covered birth control? How is the employee harmed? If she (we must talking about a female because there are no approved male contraception drugs) wants covered contraception medicines, then she can work elsewhere. Employment is not a "right." No where in any constitution that I am aware of does it say that having a job is a right. Where is the righteous indignation?

Personally, I believe we will witness the State forcing companies to cover abortion before this generation is gone. What will faith based organization do? Either they hold fast to their teachings and by doing so drop health coverage or they cave in and allow abortion. This is a slippery slope these people have set us on.

The Passion

2004-02-29T00:00:00.000-05:00

We saw the The Passion of the Christ last night. By now everyone has commented on the movie. I am going to add my $0.02. After all, what's the use of having one's own blog, if not to satisfy one's narcissism.

The movie was Mel Gibson's best movie. Cinematography was excellent. One felt the streets of Jerusalem, the court of Pilate and the Temple. By having the actors speak the local dialects of the era, one was transported. Authenticity was added. Anyone familiar with the Passion would not need the subtitles.

Jesus, played by Jim Caviezel, was excellent. One got the sensation that his deity grew as the movie progressed. Caviezel gives Jesus a quiet strength. Once he has resigned himself to his burden, he goes about it with a quiet determination.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, is played with hauntingly by Maia Morgentstern. The viewer can see the love that Mary has for her son. She knows he is special and wills her strength to him. The most touching scene involves her flashback to Jesus as a young child. Any parent seeing that scene could not help but be moved to tears.

Mary Magdelene is a small role. Although Monica Belluci is on the screen often, she has few lines. Not much to say. She seems to be more for eye candy.

Pontius Pilate, played by Hristo Naumov Shopov, is one of the most sympathetic characters in the movie. The man is clearly caught between a rock and a hard place. He may think Jesus has committed a small crime, but nothing warranting crucifixion. He pleads with the Jews to not kill Jesus. He finally washes his hands and says that he is innocent of this man's blood.

Caiphas, played by Mattia Sbragia, is the obvious antagonist. He is the one person mainly responsible for the Passion of Jesus Christ. He is portrayed in a poor light, since he is determined to have Jesus executed.

Judas, played by Luca Lionello, is the one poor soul of the whole movie. Much has been said about Judas. In Mel Gibson's interpretation, he is the saddest one. If he had only asked Jesus for forgiveness, he would not have been tormented.

After I first viewed the movie, I felt that I could not watch it ever again. The movie, although gruesome, showed me for my human failings. That is the hardest part. The scourging is terrible, but the knowledge that someone loved me enough to go through that is the worst. How can I live up to that standard? The answer is I cannot. I should try, but I am not God nor the Son. I can never match the sacrifice Jesus did. Our inequities are too much to bear and that is the message of the movie.

Is the movie anti-semitic? I can see how a Jew might believe so. The Jewish crowd screams for Jesus' death, the antagonist is Jewish, but the movie that I saw is not anti-semitic. Anyone familiar with the Gospels knows what role the Jews played in the Passion of Christ. The Jews are all of us. We killed Jesus because of our sin. Unfortunately, many Jewish folks have been offended. The effect is similar to Civil War movies and how they portray the South.

Everyone should see the movie once. It is powerful. Hopefully, the religious debate will go on for years.

Why John Kerry will not be President

2004-02-28T00:00:00.000-05:00

This from the DrudgeReport should put Dems into a quandary. How can someone with a voting record more liberal than Ted Kennedy hope to be elected president? I realize that winning primaries means pandering to the base and talking out of both sides of one's mouth, but how can Kerry hope to win? The last truly liberal president we had was Jimmy Carter. See how well his presidency is regarded. True, Clinton would have liked to be liberal, but he knew the key to getting elected was to stay in the middle.

John Kerry has two things working for him: a sympathetic media and Bush hatred. I do not think either will see him through. Kerry has too many things against him: ultra-liberal voting record, no governing experience and being a senator. I will not say that Bush will win in a land slide, but I do not think "hanging chads" will be an issue.

Bush bashing will get one the nomination, but it will not get one the presidency. The majority of people respect George Bush. The polls are wrong. Neither Kerry nor Edwards are electable. The economy is not doing badly, the war on terror progresses and Bush did cut taxes. When the challenger talks of wanting to roll back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, he has no chance of getting elected because the wealthiest Americans are the only ones paying taxes. When the challenger makes statements about being an "internationalist" and has done little to change his position, he has no chance of getting elected.

Although I am no fan of George Bush as anyone can see from my earlier postings, I am less impressed with John Kerry. I will have to vote third party. That may be "throwing away my vote", but I can no longer vote for the "lesser of two evils."

Is This Really a War?

2004-02-26T00:00:00.000-05:00

In the sixties one of the slogans was "what if someone gave a war and no one came?" It seems that we are supposedly in a cultural war. This by Andrew Sullivan seems to suggest that President Bush has declared war on gays. Not so. Who started the debate? Who started the "civil disobedience"? In fact the homosexual community is one of the better organized groups in the country. How else can a segment of the population that is less than 10% of the population get so much press? Debates are started about the "Homosexual Agenda." By making a mountain out of a molehill, Sullivan and his ilk have done themselves a grave disservice.

Instead of debating the merits of gay marriage, we should be debating why the government has been allowed to regulate it. A relationship between consenting adults should not be regulated by the government. That is the Libertarian point of view, and it makes sense on the surface. The problem is not homosexual marriage per se, but homosexual adoption. I do not agree with homosexual adoption any more than single parent households. A village cannot raise a child. It takes two parents of two different sexes. A father brings a different perspective to child rearing than a mother. I am sure that homosexuals couples want to raise children well. However, a person, who cannot speak for himself, is involved, and I am not willing to take that chance. This, to me, is the hole in the Libertarian case and should be the focus of debate.

Back on topic. Are we dealing with discrimination issues? We are dealing with a small segment of the population wanting to change the face of American society. They are choosing to circumvent the law. Unlike racial discrimination, there are no laws that do not let gays have access to education, drinking fountains, etc. Gays are not forced to sit in the back of the bus. Anyone equating gay marriage issue with racial equality is cheapening the struggle of civil rights people. They say they want the same status as heterosexual couples. Why? Marriage is a contract. If homosexuals really wanted the same statues, then they would need to draw up a contract.

The homosexual community will further alienate much of the population. They will have to resort to the courts, because there is no way legistlation in this country will allow them to be married. If the homosexuals had been willing to be a little more patient, I believe they could have gotten what they wanted. Most of us are a little tired of gay issue being shoved down our throats. I am tired of TV shows having to write in a gay character. Who cares??!!?? This "war" as Sullivan talks about will cause a further division in this country. The "blowback" could be detrimental to Sullivan's group more than he thinks.

More Personal Attacks

2004-02-24T00:00:00.000-05:00

This article explains why more people of faith, especially Christian faith, do not speak out. When someone professes his/her faith, one is marginalized as a "wacko." Therefore, we should not take that person seriously. Here is the link to Rooney's comments. Is Mel Gibson a nutcase? I saw the Diane Sawyer interview. Gibson struck me as someone, who had bottomed out and reached for something to keep him alive. That something was God and his Son, Jesus Christ. Gibson's faith strengthened him and kept him. Andy Rooney may have never bottomed out, but millions of people do. With faith these millions of people are able to overcome anything.

At the end of his piece, Rooney did make a valid point. How much will Gibson make off of his movie? Firstly, making the Passion was a big gamble. No one wanted to finance it, distribute it and many will say it is inflammatory. Gibson spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money to make this movie. He has every right to make money off of this movie. It is not for us to judge his intentions. Secondly, Gibson has had to endure being called anti-semitic and a nutcase by people that have not seen the movie. How is that a fair assessment? If the movie is done well, then it will become a classic (see Ben Hur). If the movie is poorly done it will fade away (see Last Temptation of Christ).

Pat Robertson's prediction about the election may be true. Who is Andy Rooney to say whether or not God talked to Pat Robertson? Does God talk to Andy Rooney? Many see Pat Robertson as a bit of a fundamentalist (read nutcase). By lumping Gibson with Robertson, Rooney is saying Gibson is just as nutty as Robertson. Instead of arguing the movie's merits, we must endure personal attacks. This is a low way to approach a disagreement. Unfortunately, this seems to be the easiest and most popular.

Those Greedy Americans.

2004-02-23T00:00:00.000-05:00

This article from WorldNet Daily shows former President Jimmy Carter at his best. He blames the world's problems on Americans. It seems we do not care about the world's problems. If we would just get out of the way and let the government do its job, then everything would be ok. After all, we are a bunch of selfish, uncaring ingrates.

Personally, I am getting a little tired of holier-than-thou's telling us how horrible we are. No other country has been as generous and forgiving as the United States. We have rebuilt countries, we have given food, and we have spent our blood and treasure to try to help others. Has any other country totally devastated another country and then spent billions to rebuild it? Have we not tried, in vain, to stop atrocities in other countries?

I think this is a classic case of guilt by someone financially successful. The Kerrys, Edwards, Hollywood types, etc. have made tons of money and now feel guilty. We should not feel guilty. We were not handed our success. We earned it. We fought for a concept: freedom. Without freedom, tyranny exists. The reason for other's suffering can be traced back to despotism. If someone is free to pursue his/her own selfish interests, society will benefit. I know that extremes exist. I know that bad people will do bad things. However, most people want to leave the world a little better than when they found it. Freedom allows us to produce wealth. Wealth allows our poor to be richer than the middle class elsewhere in the world.

Jimmy Carter was a horrible president. He is trying to change how history will judge him. He may have good intentions, but he will never understand the root causes of human suffering. The root cause is not another's greed. The root cause is loss of freedom. Sadly, too many people seem to agree him.

Kerry Can't be Liking This

2004-02-20T16:18:00.000-05:00

FOXNews.com: Nader to Jump in Presidential Race. Many claim that Ralph Nader is responsible for Al Gore's defeat (kind of like Ross Perot). Maybe. John Kerry cannot be liking the Green Party having outspoken Ralph Nader as its main competition. Here is the Green's platoform (or ten key values). It reads left of the Democrats.

Important quotes:
1. We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation. (Anytime the word "distribution" is used think socialism/communism.)
2. We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. (Read evil, white men)
3. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work. (Mandatory minimum wage laws, which do nothing).

I Like Chocolate Better Than Vanilla

2004-02-19T00:00:00.000-05:00

I would ask everyone to read Thomas Sowell: Equality, inequality, and fate. It succinctly shows the impossibility of a true equality. We want fairness and the same opportunities. Let's look at a society that everyone was the same.

We all would have the same valued house. The number of bedrooms and bathrooms would, probably, be the same. We would have the same car. We would have the same income. How boring would this be? Freedom would be over. Freedom is not the freedom from mistakes, but the freedom to make mistakes. We all make mistakes. Maturity is the ability to take responsibility for your mistakes. Freedom is the ability to make our own individual choices. If the members of society have the same of everything, then freedom is destroyed. The only guarantees we should have are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All of these are equally important.

Instead, we castigate the rich for having extravagant life styles. If you can invent a better computer operating system than Windows, then you will be richer than Bill Gates. There is no monopoly. Is is fair that Bill Gates is a billionaire? Or Sam Walton? These people developed a novel concept and made it work. Should someone, who chose poorly, be given the same as Bill Gates or Sam Walton? The pervading clarion call of Marx that resources ought to be distributed from each according to his ability to each according to his need. This mantra from our government always leads to an erosion of rights and responsibilities. What is the use of being creative and working hard, if the government is going to take it away and give it to someone else? This is done daily in the name of fairness.

I would submit that the bum (not homeless person) is in his lot in life due to poor choices. By saying the bum is there not by his fault, takes away his free will. We are in our situation because of poor choices throughout our life time. Someone may say he/she has no money, yet smokes two packs of cigarettes a day. That person has money but chooses to spend it on something else. A ~$2000 a year habit can be quite expensive.

Another example is the disgust at professional athlete's salaries. These folks seem to be paid a lot of money just to play a game. However, they are able to play that game better than 99% of the population. When one is in the top 1% of the population in any profession, he/she will make a lot of money. Fairness has nothing to do with it. If we do not like their salary, then do not watch their games. Simple.

Lastly, I do not want everyone to be the same. This world is a rich tapestry of people. By making everyone the same, we will destroy the greatness of us. Many people may like vanilla, but rarely does someone like vanilla by itself.

The Mouse that Roared

2004-02-18T16:43:00.000-05:00

This anouncement should come as no surprise. I always thought Howard Dean was too far outside of the establishment to get the nomination, much less to be elected. Although we do have more than political party in this country, we will never elect one. The media will never take them seriously. To be taken seriously, one needs the media. A Catch-22. Oh well, Howard was fun while it lasted.

Another example of The Sky is Falling

2004-02-18T13:43:00.000-05:00

Another controversial study is commented on:Medpundit

The main idea:Looks like both groups used antibiotics at the same rates, and over the same distribution curve.

Of course, it's never a good idea to take antibiotics needlessly, but that's because of real side effects (bacterial resistance, allergies, diarrhea, etc.) not because they cause cancer. .

The lay press will never get it right.

UPDATE: It seems Steven Milloy is thinking the same thing.

John "Hanoi Jane" Kerry

2004-02-18T13:15:00.000-05:00

Here isKerry's Speech from 1971. I hope the Dems can spin it!

LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD!?

2004-02-18T09:08:00.000-05:00

LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD!?

Another from the Agitator

POE News: Rumsfield Fighting Technique

2004-02-18T08:39:00.000-05:00

POE News: Rumsfield Fighting Technique

I had to chuckle.

(thanks to Agitator)

Useful Idiots

2004-02-18T00:00:00.001-05:00

Supposedly Lenin referred to people defending the Soviet Union as "useful idiots." What does he mean? Unfortunately, a certain segment of the population apologizes and enables evil. The Soviet Union was evil. Between Lenin and Stalin, tens of millions of people died. These two evil people killed more people than Hitler. Yet, we defile Hitler with very little being said about Lenin and Stalin. Communism is a beautiful theory. Everyone is equal. No one wants for anything. We all know our place in the cogs of the societal machine. What happened in practice?

The Soviet Union killed millions of people. The citizens were in bondage to the State. There was no freedom. After visiting a grocery store, Yeltsin was said to known that the USSR has no way of defeating the West. People need the ability to get ahead. Totalitarian regimes never seem to understand that human beings need to feel that they can move up the ladder. In these regimes hard work does not always mean success. Unfortunately, we have people in this country that do not understand how wealth is created.

We are the wealthiest country in the world, because we are free to produce wealth for our own reasons. Currently, we are producing wealth for ourselves and not for the State. I will say that people work harder, when they can keep some of the wealth they are creating. It seems that people born into means in this country do understand from whence the wealth comes. Wealth does not materialize out of the air. Someone had to be creative and work hard to produce and maintain wealth. This is not evil. However, many feel guilty about their wealth, so they launch campaigns to take wealth away from people and give it to someone else. How is that moral? Any wealth I produced should be mine. I am not, yet, an employee of the State.

I was too young to remember all of the controversy surrounding Viet Nam. Being a student of history, I learned that we were trying to stop the spread of Communism. At that particular time, Communism was spreading usually by force. The dream of total equality was very nice. Man has striven for utopia for eons and never acquired it. Man will never acquire utopia, because man is inherently flawed. Once we were committed to Viet Nam, we should have remained for a successful conclusion.

The useful idiots will not face the facts of how many have died in trying to force everyone to society without freedom. How many millions did Stalin murder? Pol Pot? Mao Tse Tung? I guess you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Civil Disobedience of Sedition?

2004-02-18T00:00:00.000-05:00

Well, the mayor of San Francisco has unilaterally allowed gay marriage. As I understand it, California has a law disallowing same-sex marriage (SSM). That means a city mayor is in violation of a state statute. SSM may not lead to the decline and fall of American society, but what if all elected officials decided to circumvent the law? I am not going to debate the merits or fallacy of SSM. That is not up to me. It is not up to the mayor of San Francisco. The voters of California should be the ones to decide. The way our Republic was envisioned was for the People (remember them?) to make the law through proxies (representatives).

If the voters of California want to have SSM, then so be it. The system will work. The executive branch may not disobey a law, nor should it not enforce a law. If Californians want SSM, then let them amend their constitution. Ah, there's the rub. Constitutions are made to be difficult to amend. This allows for debate and cooling off. However, amending the constitution will allow the majority to rule. I think most Americans, as a whole, are fair minded people. By fermenting civil disobedience, lines are drawn, and it makes reconciliation difficult.

The way things are moving the judicial branch will decide the question. That is wrong too. The judiciary should not be making law. We have let them make law instead of interpreting it. Some are saying this will be settled in the courts. How can letting a few people decide this volatile issue be the way our system was set up?

It is time for the people to take back their government! When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Remember that? Our Founders fought over taxes. Yet, we cannot be bothered with something as important as SSM.

Hindsight is 20/20

2004-02-17T00:00:00.000-05:00

This article in the Egyptian Journal castigates Arabs for not taking out Saddam Hussein. As I read it, Americans and her allies added to Arab shame for taking Saddam out. The editor wonders why leaders of Arab countries did not do something about this man, who nearly destroyed one of the more Western Arab countries.

I wonder why too. Is the United States to be the world's policeman? Woodrow Wilson thought so and so has every other globalist. I am tired of spending our blood and treasure trying to keep "the world safe for democracy." Is that our role? Is that the role of the sole remaining superpower?

If Arab countries had been willing to clean up their backyard, we would not have had to do their dirty work. My take on the situation is that Saddam was useful. He thumbed his nose at the world and took our eyes off of the rest of the Middle East. He supported terror against Israel and that made him an ally of sorts. If the Arab world would have spent a little less time trying to wipe Israel off of the map and more time trying to make the world safe, Saddam would never have come to power.

Unfortunately, getting rid of Israel is a fool's errand. If anything the people of Israel are survivors. Not only have they resisted foes for millennia and survived but also remained a separate people with their own identity. No one is going to get rid of Israel. Trying to get rid of Israel is counter-productive. Unfortunately, too much has been put into wiping Israel off of the map.

Will the Arab world grow up and join the progress of the West? I think not for a long time. Too many of the countries are totalitarian regimes. Progress is allowing people to use their natural creativity to better their lot in life. The Arabs would rather point fingers and blame someone than take responsibility.

Interesting tidbit

2004-02-15T19:03:00.000-05:00

This article by Ben Stein (the boring teacher in "Ferris Beuler") is quite an interesting read. It talks about heroism and how Hollywood folks are not. We place these people on pedestals, because we think our lives are so mundane and theirs so much more. When I look at them, I see unhappy, totured people. Maybe that is part of the creative process. I never understood why we look to them for guidance of any sort. The success of "reality TV shows" is remarkable. What is real about getting dumped off onto a deserted island and trying to survive? Escapism is all that it is.

Hollywood types are not heroes. What is brave about acting? Yes, you maybe unpacking your emotions for the world to see. What is that, when compared to policemen, firefighters, parents, etc.? These are the true heroes. Actors help us evade our reality, but that is not bravery.

Happy President's Day

2004-02-14T13:40:00.000-05:00

George Washington's birthday was in February. Abraham Lincoln's birthday, also in February, started being celebrated after his assassination in 1865. In 1968 the holiday created. Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays were lumped together. Comparison of the two men would show vastly differing ways of governing.

George Washington thought the Executive Branch of the federal government had little power. He formed the basics and built the executive branch from scratch. He firmly maintained America's neutrality in European wars. George Washington is not known as the Father of Our Country for nothing.

Abraham Lincoln has achieved near legend status. He was a masterful politician. He felt the question of secession was illegal and was willing to fight a war costing over 600,000 dead. The total US population was 31.5 million. Two percent of the US male population died. As a matter of fact, the population growth went down in the ten years between censuses. Thomas DiLorenzo points out that Lincoln was hated during his Presidency. In his article on LewRockwell.com (admittedly not an objective source), DiLorenzo points out how flawed Lincoln was. In this article DiLorenzo expounds on the myths of Lincoln.

My personal take on Lincoln was a man of naked ambition. He felt that a strong federal government was more important than small independent states. The legacy of the War of Secession continues today. The lasting effects of one group dominating another group is felt in every stereotype of the South. It was not until after World War II that the South began any real Reconstruction. Northerners were more concerned with punishment. Is the US stronger today than prior to the war? On a federal level. Many of the Founders felt the will of the states was more important than the will of the federal government. They feared a concentration of power in any group. They gave us the three branches of government, statehood (rather than provinces), electoral college, representative government. We are seeing a gradual erosion of these safeguards. Lincoln began much of this erosion. He used the executive branch and wielded greater power than any President prior.

As we celebrate President's Day, remember that Lincoln's cult of personality is very different from Lincoln the man. Although I do not advocate a tearing down of our national heroes, I think an honest reevaluation of the man is needed. Only through reevaluation and examination will we ever know the true Lincoln. Sadly, we associate Lincoln and Washington as the greatest Presidents our country has ever seen. The two men could not have more different, nor could they have had a different philosophy on the role of government. I would rather have a boatload of Washingtons to a single Lincoln.

Enemies Among Us

2004-02-13T17:00:00.000-05:00

I have heard the rhetoric. Islam is a peaceful religion. It only wants to get along in the world. We have nothing to fear from muslems. I believe we are deluding ourselves. This article about the Army Specialist at Ft. Lewis shows how wrong we may be. I doubt the Army Specialist had enough sensitive information to be a threat. The point is how do we tell friend from foe?

I do believe that radicals have "hijacked" Islam. However, show me how Islam is a religion of peace. The reason Islam spread so rapidly is because of the sword. Given a choice of dying a gruesom death and "submitting" to Allah, most of us might choose the latter. I do not see examples of a Islamic Mother Theresa. I do not see Islamists exhorting us to be better than our nature. All I see from Islam is hatred of Jews and Death to the West.

Just like the Crusades, we are in a modern day Chrusade. The Crusades may have been dressed up as Christian versus Muslem. However, the Crusades were about politics and imperialism. Comparing today's conflict with the Crusades is very apt. Both are about politics. The bin Laden's on the Muslem side care only about power. By using the Islamic faith, they are able to obtain footsoldiers in their battles.

Unfortunately, Islamic voices are not naysaying bin Laden. Instead, he is elevated to the status of Saladin. Bin Laden is going to rescue the Middle East from the Great Satan. Saladin was a great man. We get most of our chivalric code from Saladin. Bin Laden is no Saladin. Saladin would not have attacked civilians. Bin Laden is evil.

Until Islamofascists are put down just like any other form of fascism, the threat of terrorism will not die.

What is Marriage?

2004-02-13T00:00:00.000-05:00

The issue of gay marriage is becoming the "hot button" issue du jour. This will ad fuel to fire of debate. Homosexuals want to have the same rights and privilages as heterosexuals. Homosexuals want to be able to enter into a "contract" for life. Personally, I do not care. I think homosexual couples will have a higher rate of divorce than heterosexuals. Why? Because homosexuals cannot procreate without some major hurdle-jumping.

When children are involved in a marriage, people tend to work harder making the marriage work. Children are a binding example of marriage. Homosexual couples will not have that bind. They will marry, but most will not last. With heterosexual couples having upwards of 50% divorce rate, homosexual couples will be much higher. Anyone familiar with divorce knows how ugly things can get. Therefore, homosexuals do not know what they are in for.

Be that as it may, I cannot be against homosexual marriage. If two people want to live together for the rest of their days, then who am I to tell them "no?" An agreement, marriage, between two people over the age of 18 is none of my business. I do not think that allowing two people, who profess undying love for each other, to marry is any of my concern. By letting the government regulate this activity, we will be letting the government regulate the most intimate part of our lives.

However, homosexuals being married in a Christian church is wrong. There is no ambiguity about homosexuals in the Bible. A Christian marriage is a covenenant before God. Homosexuality is an abomination before God, as the Bible tells us. Therefore, a Christian marriage between two people of the same sex is an oxymoron. Although homosexuality does not "jive" with my faith, using the might and weight of the government to be against homosexual marriage is wrong.

As this debate continues, we will see alot mud and name calling. I believe our Founders did not want the government in our personal, private lives. We are not, nor should we be, a theocracy.

May the Real John Kerry Please Stand Up

2004-02-11T11:54:00.000-05:00

John Kerry appears to be gaining more and more momentum in the Democratic Primaries. He, basically, has not lost any Primaries. We have seen Howard Dean implode, no surprise. The surprise has been John Edwards. But who is John Kerry? Who is the man who will probably challenge George Bush?

We know he is a decorated Viet Nam war veteran. This has been hyped extensively. Like it matters. The nation elected a draft dodger prior to GWB. The Democrats nominated someone, who went to Viet Nam, but he was surrounded by bodyguards and was there two months. I guess a war record is ancient history. So drop it.

The thing that concerns me about John Kerry, other than him being a socialist (to be polite), is his attitude about the military. He voted against any increases in military spending. He was against modernizing the military. Now, we discover that he wants the US military to be the world's policeman. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

So, Kerry is an internationalist. That, to me, is scarier than being the world's policeman. By the US giving up sovereignty to the UN, we no longer are Americans. Did we elect anyone at the UN? How does the UN have authority over anything? Although the justification for the invasion of Iraq is debatable, the one thing everyone should agree is that the UN ineffectually dealt with Saddam Hussein. Do we want the UN calling the shots?

The more I learn about John Kerry, the more concerned I become. Although I am no conspiracy theorist, statements like the one he made lends credence to the New World Order conspiracy. We need to get out of the UN and kick the UN out of our country. Being an internationalist is tantamount to treason.

UPDATE: This is a little interesting for those familiar with General Giap.