Last week, I was addressing a story pertaining to Mitt Romney's upcoming speech on his faith and how it will fit with his political aspirations and decisions, should he become president. For whatever reason, Romney feels the need to place his private beliefs in the public limelight, similar to JFK, when he spoke about being a Catholic and President. I note that the JFK advisory team kept this issue out of the limelight, save for this speech, however Romney appears to be held to a different standard. Anyway, I digress . . .
I answered a few questions posted by user "QBear", who had lots of time to cut and paste articles written about the Mormon faith and portions of quotes from Church officials, in an attempt to cast the Mormon faith in a bad light. He was implying that the church was false and secrative. I challenged him to send me any question he wanted, and that I would not only answer the question and debate it with him, but I would also post our email conversation(s), unedited (save for profanity or personal names/information), for anyone to see.
As of now, he has not sent me a question or email. Will he step up to the challenge, or remain in the shadows, coming out only to take cheap shots at Republican candidates and conservatives in general?
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The Jenna Bush controversy
I actually became aware of this story when reviewing www.huffingtonpost.com. I was performing my daily ritual of perusing some of my more heavily visited sites for the left, for my daily dose of sane topics and insane conversation. I just had to click on the story because I just knew I would find more than a few gems from the "tolerant", liberal left.
Jenna Bush was a guest on the Ellen DeGeneres show and ended up calling her Mom and Dad during the taping. The receptionist seemed a tad bit hesitant to transfer, then did. She briefly spoke with her Mom, then her Dad, who told the audience hi and said that he loved his daughter.
The response from this was hysterical, sad, and revealing all at the same time. First, I noted the typical comments on how her Dad is a murderer and a warmongerer and all of those types of comments I hear on this site, every day. Whether or not this is true is totally irrelevant. People somehow cannot distinguish the Father from the Daughter and I can never understand that. I always enjoy these type of comments because they completely miss the subject of the story: the child. It is possible to distinguish the fact that Jenna Bush is not George Bush.
I noted the comments about how "if Jenna supports the war, she should enlist" and how she is a "coward" for not serving in the military.
I have yet to see many comments or interviews that ask for her position on the war, and even if she is supportive of her father, and not the war effort, somehow this is a bad thing. I took the liberty of pointing out in a comment that if someone was a total ass in life, I would not hold it against their kids because their parent is one. Why cannot people comprehend this?
My favorite comments were the ones that dealt with her not serving in the military. I saw this quite a bit when Mitt Romney's kids spoke out in support of their Dad. The argument is pretty much as follows: If "parent" is in favor of the war, then his kids should go right out and enlist and they are terrible people for not doing so.
I recall the age of majority in this country as 18, meaning you are no longer beholden to a parent and can choose the path in life you want. So, why is it that a child of someone who supports the war MUST enlist, if that is not what they want to do? I am sure my parents wanted me to do many things, but is it a bad thing that I chose my own way in life? A parent cannot force their child to do anything, in fact a GOOD parent is one who lets them make their own decisions and supports them the best way they can. How is this even an argument?
To show you how idiotic this line of thinking is, consider the following: On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton declared war on Iraq, "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons [Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMDs]". (See link for audio) This became known as Operation Desert Fox. In 1999, Operation Allied Force took effect, with NATO forces (including American soldiers Clinton authorized), commenced bombing on Serbian positions in Yugoslavia. At the time of Operation Desert Fox, Chelsea Clinton was 18 and able to join the military. In 1999, she was 19.
Chelsea Clinton did not serve in the military. According to the argument used against Jenna Bush and the Romney children, this was unacceptable because President Clinton was in favor of war. I have YET to come across a story which calls Chelsea Clinton out on this. Why? Because it is a STUPID argument and has no place in political discussions. But don't tell that to the liberals who argue it.
I reviewed a couple of other videos and found this gem regarding service in the military. This genius believes that serving the country through UNICEF efforts in Latin America is a BAD thing and not a good reason to not serve in the military. I first notice that he says that as she is "so behind the war" when the question never addressed that. I then noticed he makes no mention of his service for the country in any fashion, then resorts to name calling, then he resorts to calling most of the citizens of this country a bunch of idiots.
My next favorite group of comments dealt with the fact that she is still "partying". I remember when it came out that she tried to buy alcohol while she was underage, and that she would go out and drink and have a good time in college. I would be very curious to see how many of the posters on www.huffingtonpost.com did the exact same thing in college. I went to one of the biggest party schools in college and guess what? I would see the College Democrat organization members at some of the biggest parties. I had many of them as my residents when I was a resident advisor. Some of the biggest alcohol offenders were liberal-thinking, yet back then, it was just part of the "college experience". Sure what Jenna did was dumb, but is it really a horrible thing to assert when you find no problem with it for other college students?
I also noted a few comments discussing how this is a P.R. attempt to clean up Bush's name. No facts, no proof, just another baseless accusation which has no real relevance to the story or any shred of truth at this time.
Finally, I noted the comments which said that they will no longer watch the program because of this one guest. Whatever happened to having an open mind and accepting people for their differences? Liberals on these sites claim to love openness and debate. But it appears they love openness and debate as long as it supports their position. One differing opinion, and BAM! It's no longer an option to view or listen to that source of information.
Jenna Bush was a guest on the Ellen DeGeneres show and ended up calling her Mom and Dad during the taping. The receptionist seemed a tad bit hesitant to transfer, then did. She briefly spoke with her Mom, then her Dad, who told the audience hi and said that he loved his daughter.
The response from this was hysterical, sad, and revealing all at the same time. First, I noted the typical comments on how her Dad is a murderer and a warmongerer and all of those types of comments I hear on this site, every day. Whether or not this is true is totally irrelevant. People somehow cannot distinguish the Father from the Daughter and I can never understand that. I always enjoy these type of comments because they completely miss the subject of the story: the child. It is possible to distinguish the fact that Jenna Bush is not George Bush.
I noted the comments about how "if Jenna supports the war, she should enlist" and how she is a "coward" for not serving in the military.
I have yet to see many comments or interviews that ask for her position on the war, and even if she is supportive of her father, and not the war effort, somehow this is a bad thing. I took the liberty of pointing out in a comment that if someone was a total ass in life, I would not hold it against their kids because their parent is one. Why cannot people comprehend this?
My favorite comments were the ones that dealt with her not serving in the military. I saw this quite a bit when Mitt Romney's kids spoke out in support of their Dad. The argument is pretty much as follows: If "parent" is in favor of the war, then his kids should go right out and enlist and they are terrible people for not doing so.
I recall the age of majority in this country as 18, meaning you are no longer beholden to a parent and can choose the path in life you want. So, why is it that a child of someone who supports the war MUST enlist, if that is not what they want to do? I am sure my parents wanted me to do many things, but is it a bad thing that I chose my own way in life? A parent cannot force their child to do anything, in fact a GOOD parent is one who lets them make their own decisions and supports them the best way they can. How is this even an argument?
To show you how idiotic this line of thinking is, consider the following: On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton declared war on Iraq, "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons [Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMDs]". (See link for audio) This became known as Operation Desert Fox. In 1999, Operation Allied Force took effect, with NATO forces (including American soldiers Clinton authorized), commenced bombing on Serbian positions in Yugoslavia. At the time of Operation Desert Fox, Chelsea Clinton was 18 and able to join the military. In 1999, she was 19.
Chelsea Clinton did not serve in the military. According to the argument used against Jenna Bush and the Romney children, this was unacceptable because President Clinton was in favor of war. I have YET to come across a story which calls Chelsea Clinton out on this. Why? Because it is a STUPID argument and has no place in political discussions. But don't tell that to the liberals who argue it.
I reviewed a couple of other videos and found this gem regarding service in the military. This genius believes that serving the country through UNICEF efforts in Latin America is a BAD thing and not a good reason to not serve in the military. I first notice that he says that as she is "so behind the war" when the question never addressed that. I then noticed he makes no mention of his service for the country in any fashion, then resorts to name calling, then he resorts to calling most of the citizens of this country a bunch of idiots.
My next favorite group of comments dealt with the fact that she is still "partying". I remember when it came out that she tried to buy alcohol while she was underage, and that she would go out and drink and have a good time in college. I would be very curious to see how many of the posters on www.huffingtonpost.com did the exact same thing in college. I went to one of the biggest party schools in college and guess what? I would see the College Democrat organization members at some of the biggest parties. I had many of them as my residents when I was a resident advisor. Some of the biggest alcohol offenders were liberal-thinking, yet back then, it was just part of the "college experience". Sure what Jenna did was dumb, but is it really a horrible thing to assert when you find no problem with it for other college students?
I also noted a few comments discussing how this is a P.R. attempt to clean up Bush's name. No facts, no proof, just another baseless accusation which has no real relevance to the story or any shred of truth at this time.
Finally, I noted the comments which said that they will no longer watch the program because of this one guest. Whatever happened to having an open mind and accepting people for their differences? Liberals on these sites claim to love openness and debate. But it appears they love openness and debate as long as it supports their position. One differing opinion, and BAM! It's no longer an option to view or listen to that source of information.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Gee, imagine that!
During 2005's winter season, I heard nothing but praise for Hugo Chavez and his offer of heating oil to the United States.
He is such a great leader!
He offers a true Democracy!
He is so much better than Bush!
Then he closed down an opposition station, (see hugo chavez and venezuela labels) and the defenses rolled in.
They wanted him dead and said so on the air!
He's not really limiting speech!
And now we have this- a referendum which will allow him to run for re-election indefinitely. Oh, and lets not forget his expanded powers, which include control of the central bank, redistricting at his own whim, and holding citizens without charge during an emergency. Does any of this sound familiar? Hmmmm, yes! I have heard these items are things (actual or very similar) which the "evil" George Bush has already done, or is trying to do.
I did not see any updates or stories on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ yet, but they will likely post it (late of course). I did not see a report on CNN. I did not find it on http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/ yet. I have not seen anything on the major newspapers, from what I have been able to find (or not to find). Perhaps there are some reports out there. After all, not all journalists are completely biased.
Oh, and the kicker. He threatens to cut off oil to the United States if there is any "interference" on their part. Guess all those Northeastern residents of the U.S. will have to freeze this year, now that the liberal-loved Chavez is no longer looking like such a nice guy.
He is such a great leader!
He offers a true Democracy!
He is so much better than Bush!
Then he closed down an opposition station, (see hugo chavez and venezuela labels) and the defenses rolled in.
They wanted him dead and said so on the air!
He's not really limiting speech!
And now we have this- a referendum which will allow him to run for re-election indefinitely. Oh, and lets not forget his expanded powers, which include control of the central bank, redistricting at his own whim, and holding citizens without charge during an emergency. Does any of this sound familiar? Hmmmm, yes! I have heard these items are things (actual or very similar) which the "evil" George Bush has already done, or is trying to do.
I did not see any updates or stories on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ yet, but they will likely post it (late of course). I did not see a report on CNN. I did not find it on http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/ yet. I have not seen anything on the major newspapers, from what I have been able to find (or not to find). Perhaps there are some reports out there. After all, not all journalists are completely biased.
Oh, and the kicker. He threatens to cut off oil to the United States if there is any "interference" on their part. Guess all those Northeastern residents of the U.S. will have to freeze this year, now that the liberal-loved Chavez is no longer looking like such a nice guy.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Wounded soldier told to return enlistment bonus
I read this story today and became sick to my stomach. This is only one story of a wounded soldier being told to return his bonus enlistment money, because he cannot serve the rest of his active duty commitment. I am willing to bet there are others out there.
Sometimes government/military bureaucracy actions are deplorable, and I would hope that any official who does not vote yes on the proposal of Congressman Jason Altmire would be voted out of office the next time they run.
Sometimes government/military bureaucracy actions are deplorable, and I would hope that any official who does not vote yes on the proposal of Congressman Jason Altmire would be voted out of office the next time they run.
Monday, November 12, 2007
In celebration of Veteran's Day
I hope everyone who reads this post took time out of their day to thank a Veteran for their service to our great country. Our nation is so wonderful and prosperous due to our fighting forces and the men and women who serve our country.
In celebration of the day, Kathy and I went with her father and brother out to East County to participate in our second amendment right to own and use firearms. It was a clear, crisp, yet warmer morning, and we wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to do something fun. We made a whole morning of it by going to to breakfast to help the local economy, then headed to the shooting range. I had not been to the chosen range before, but enjoyed the facility and the rules they had as standard operating procedure. The location was the Project 2000 Shooting Range.
People often make fun of those of us who live in East County, San Diego, as many of us camp and do many outdoor activities including rifle and pistol sports, as well as hunting. I often note on liberal blogs a story about the occasional idiot who was misusing a firearm and caused a horrible accident. They are always presented as the typical gun owner, and how more gun control laws are needed (I will elaborate more on this at the end). However, upon first arriving, I confirmed yet again that the people who live out here and participate in firearm sports are some of the greatest Americans.
The facility and our experience:
The first thing I noted was the absence of foreign vehicles. Indeed of the 15 cars parked in the lot, there was one Toyota Prius. EVERY other car was American-made. Upon entering, we were greeted by two friendly female counter workers who immediately handed us a safety manual to review, followed by a test which had to be answered perfectly. Once we completed this task, we were informed of the reasonable prices and options for shooting.
I also noted that the shooting range was set in a location between a construction yard and a dump site for the grinding of concrete and base. It was an excellent use of the space and was away from homes and other businesses.
I noted that behind the counter, a large array of supplies were available for purchase and most were American manufacturers. Of the foreign manufactured items, most were related to the rental weapons, which included American firearms and some foreign options. The shop was clean and well-maintained.
The indoor shooting area was clean and well-maintained. The cease fire rules and other maintenance and rules pertaining to use of firearms were strictly adhered to by all shooters. They had a cease fire every hour for target retrieval on the long range course and also shell clean up and a smaller cease fire, I believe every half hour. I conversed with three other men who were shooting during the breaks, and all were very friendly. I also noted a few father/son pairs, and a few women were there to shoot as well. Everyone properly kept their actions open during the cease fire and their weapons were unloaded. No one crossed the barrier except when allowed to retrieve their targets and there was routine cleaning of the discarded shells.
Our firearms consisted of a .22 Ruger pistol, two black powder replica pistols which shot lead balls and a Mossberg shotgun with 8 gauge rounds. We all had the opportunity to shoot the black powder, which was very fun, and a favorite of Jim's. After we went through a few boxes of ammunition and a few black powder pistol reloads, we packed up and secured a booth for the shotgun. During our wait, we went out and watched three people shoot clay pigeon's. The staff were all adorned in safety vests and helped keep score and to release the pigeon's. It was very professional.
There was a well-maintained restroom, plenty of shade and seating, and safety was priority #1. I did not witness one person mishandling their firearm.
In sum, it was nothing like I usually see gun owners and gun enthusiasts portrayed on many liberal blogs. It was a friendly and good experience, and I fully plan on going back very soon.
After we left:
As we were leaving, I noticed something that I think the others in my vehicle missed. There was a car parked on the road across the street, and a guy was obviously protesting the site and/or gun owners. Two signs were posted: "Support stricter gun laws" (is "stricter" a word?) and "Protect Americans, take away all guns!" What made me laugh was his assumption that taking guns away from responsible owners somehow saves more lives, but what really made me chuckle was the large bumper sticker on his car "Buy American and Americans work". Truly a good idea, except his car was a Nissan and the little canopy and chair set he was using was made in China. I know this because I was looking at the exact same set in a catalog a few weeks ago. I doubt his imitation birkenstock sandals were made in America, as I have a pair just like them, and they are made in Indonesia. I doubt many of his clothes were American made as well.
Gun control:
I have weighed on this in the past, yet I feel it is appropriate to make brief mention of some of the debate here, then perhaps weigh in more someday. Gun control is a good thing, and I believe almost all gun owners practice safety first and adhere to gun regulations. The problem I often see with regards to the need for more strict gun control is that measures to ensure the person purchasing is not a criminal are not more thoroughly implemented, but not necessarily by the location where the firearm is being purchased. The government does not have an adequate database and background check, and that needs to be improved. I am fine with waiting periods and mild limits on the type of weapons purchased, but only a few limits. Americans as consumers have the right to purchase items for their own use.
I also believe that limiting gun ownership only gives criminals an advantage because they will not obey gun laws anyway and will seek out firearms which are stolen or smuggled in from another state or country. I remember a blog I read where someone proudly indicated that they have over 20 weapons, including collectibles, and some semi-automatic rifles. The outrage was obvious. Questions were asked, such as Why so many? Why semi-automatic? And of course comments on his intelligence, education and how stupid he was and how it was so unnecessary.
It may very well seem like excess to someone, and that is their opinion and they have a right to it. But do you see the gun owner telling these people that they cannot own certain vehicles, or they have too many of something?
There is more to this topic and perhaps if interest is noted I will comment on it more. These are just some thoughts I decided to put down.
In celebration of the day, Kathy and I went with her father and brother out to East County to participate in our second amendment right to own and use firearms. It was a clear, crisp, yet warmer morning, and we wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to do something fun. We made a whole morning of it by going to to breakfast to help the local economy, then headed to the shooting range. I had not been to the chosen range before, but enjoyed the facility and the rules they had as standard operating procedure. The location was the Project 2000 Shooting Range.
People often make fun of those of us who live in East County, San Diego, as many of us camp and do many outdoor activities including rifle and pistol sports, as well as hunting. I often note on liberal blogs a story about the occasional idiot who was misusing a firearm and caused a horrible accident. They are always presented as the typical gun owner, and how more gun control laws are needed (I will elaborate more on this at the end). However, upon first arriving, I confirmed yet again that the people who live out here and participate in firearm sports are some of the greatest Americans.
The facility and our experience:
The first thing I noted was the absence of foreign vehicles. Indeed of the 15 cars parked in the lot, there was one Toyota Prius. EVERY other car was American-made. Upon entering, we were greeted by two friendly female counter workers who immediately handed us a safety manual to review, followed by a test which had to be answered perfectly. Once we completed this task, we were informed of the reasonable prices and options for shooting.
I also noted that the shooting range was set in a location between a construction yard and a dump site for the grinding of concrete and base. It was an excellent use of the space and was away from homes and other businesses.
I noted that behind the counter, a large array of supplies were available for purchase and most were American manufacturers. Of the foreign manufactured items, most were related to the rental weapons, which included American firearms and some foreign options. The shop was clean and well-maintained.
The indoor shooting area was clean and well-maintained. The cease fire rules and other maintenance and rules pertaining to use of firearms were strictly adhered to by all shooters. They had a cease fire every hour for target retrieval on the long range course and also shell clean up and a smaller cease fire, I believe every half hour. I conversed with three other men who were shooting during the breaks, and all were very friendly. I also noted a few father/son pairs, and a few women were there to shoot as well. Everyone properly kept their actions open during the cease fire and their weapons were unloaded. No one crossed the barrier except when allowed to retrieve their targets and there was routine cleaning of the discarded shells.
Our firearms consisted of a .22 Ruger pistol, two black powder replica pistols which shot lead balls and a Mossberg shotgun with 8 gauge rounds. We all had the opportunity to shoot the black powder, which was very fun, and a favorite of Jim's. After we went through a few boxes of ammunition and a few black powder pistol reloads, we packed up and secured a booth for the shotgun. During our wait, we went out and watched three people shoot clay pigeon's. The staff were all adorned in safety vests and helped keep score and to release the pigeon's. It was very professional.
There was a well-maintained restroom, plenty of shade and seating, and safety was priority #1. I did not witness one person mishandling their firearm.
In sum, it was nothing like I usually see gun owners and gun enthusiasts portrayed on many liberal blogs. It was a friendly and good experience, and I fully plan on going back very soon.
After we left:
As we were leaving, I noticed something that I think the others in my vehicle missed. There was a car parked on the road across the street, and a guy was obviously protesting the site and/or gun owners. Two signs were posted: "Support stricter gun laws" (is "stricter" a word?) and "Protect Americans, take away all guns!" What made me laugh was his assumption that taking guns away from responsible owners somehow saves more lives, but what really made me chuckle was the large bumper sticker on his car "Buy American and Americans work". Truly a good idea, except his car was a Nissan and the little canopy and chair set he was using was made in China. I know this because I was looking at the exact same set in a catalog a few weeks ago. I doubt his imitation birkenstock sandals were made in America, as I have a pair just like them, and they are made in Indonesia. I doubt many of his clothes were American made as well.
Gun control:
I have weighed on this in the past, yet I feel it is appropriate to make brief mention of some of the debate here, then perhaps weigh in more someday. Gun control is a good thing, and I believe almost all gun owners practice safety first and adhere to gun regulations. The problem I often see with regards to the need for more strict gun control is that measures to ensure the person purchasing is not a criminal are not more thoroughly implemented, but not necessarily by the location where the firearm is being purchased. The government does not have an adequate database and background check, and that needs to be improved. I am fine with waiting periods and mild limits on the type of weapons purchased, but only a few limits. Americans as consumers have the right to purchase items for their own use.
I also believe that limiting gun ownership only gives criminals an advantage because they will not obey gun laws anyway and will seek out firearms which are stolen or smuggled in from another state or country. I remember a blog I read where someone proudly indicated that they have over 20 weapons, including collectibles, and some semi-automatic rifles. The outrage was obvious. Questions were asked, such as Why so many? Why semi-automatic? And of course comments on his intelligence, education and how stupid he was and how it was so unnecessary.
It may very well seem like excess to someone, and that is their opinion and they have a right to it. But do you see the gun owner telling these people that they cannot own certain vehicles, or they have too many of something?
There is more to this topic and perhaps if interest is noted I will comment on it more. These are just some thoughts I decided to put down.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Does the bumper sticker make the man?
Now that the fires have died down here in San Diego, it is largely business as usual in our great town and county. I wanted to convey a story about an experience I had with a liberal while driving. I posted this story on KLSD, but I doubt they will play it or mention it over the airwaves.
People who read this blog locally may have heard of AM 1360 KLSD's attempt at right wing bashing with their "sticker wars", which began over an alleged firing of a woman due to her sporting a bumper sticker for the radio station. Assuming the story is true, she has a right to sue her employer and I hope she did. I could not find any updates to the story, but will keep looking.
Anyway, on occasion, I would hear someone call regarding something horrible being done to them, for nothing more than sporting a KLSD bumper sticker on their car. Morning host Stacy Taylor and his band of jovial clowns would eat the story up like it was cake! While I believe some of the stories may have some merit, I have no doubt that many were completely bogus and many were largely over exaggerated. This area has plenty of independent publications which would love to pick up on stories just like this, yet I have not really heard of any others.
About a week ago, around 5pm, I was driving home from a class I am taking. As I merged on the 15 freeway, I began to get ready to cross over the few lanes that are added from the 8 West to 15 North merge about 1/2 a mile after my merge. The first exit is Friars road, and you have to move over to at least one "merge" lane to get off. I have been close to being hit a few times by drivers who merge and do not pay attention to those of us already on the 15, so I am always careful here.
Today was no exception. A van had just moved onto the 15 from the 8 and as he passed me on the right, he began to move into my lane. Now mind you, he saw me as he passed me and when he started to move over, the front of my car was about parallel with the driver side door, so he was not even close to being in front of me. As he rolled into my lane, I had to swerve into the next lane and I honked my horn. He then moved back into his lane and as I pulled next to him, he began shouting inside his card and flipped me the middle finger. I responded by smiling and giving him a hearty wave. Nothing more than a friendly wave.
I then proceeded to pull ahead of him and merged over. Mind you, I did not cut him off, slam on my brakes, nothing of the kind. I then proceeded to exit. So, imagine my surprise, when he exited as well. He was trying to move on to the 15 no more than 30 seconds earlier, so why get off? He followed me as Friars becomes Mission Gorge road and followed me up the hill. When I would switch lanes, he would do so as well, always staying behind me.
I finally elected to pull into a parking lot and confront him if he followed me. Sure enough, he exited and parked near me. I waited a second for the man to get out. I then unfolded my rather "large-6'4"-built-and-overweight" frame from my compact-to-mid-size sedan and walked towards him. The man looked at me and then turned back to the van. He got in and closed the door but before he could roll up the window, I reached the van. I told him that he was lucky because I was letting him go. However, he needs to be careful because the next time he acts like an ass then has the nerve to follow someone to confront them after he made the driving error, he may be messing with the wrong person and could get his ass kicked. He then pulled away.
And wouldn't you know it? The man sported three bumper stickers! An "A.M. 1360 KLSD" sticker, an "Obama 2008" sticker, and a "Republicans Suck" bumper sticker. I was able to find that exact sticker and a whole host of other "anti-Republican" stickers here.
Which makes me wonder . . . . Liberals love to point to idiots like Ted Haggard or other conservatives or Christians who do not practice what they preach and pigeon hole all conservatives. Do I now get to do the same? Are all liberals:
a) Bad drivers
b) Profane speaking idiots who like to use inappropriate symbols
c) Angry jerks who love to pick fights only to,
d) Run away like cowards when they pick on the wrong person
e) Inconsiderate jerks who are non-contributors to society
f) All of the above
I don't believe all liberals are all of these, or even some of the things listed above. However, my experiences on a few sites on the web would cause me to conclude that some are all of these and many more things. Yet, I don't choose to place all people of various political views into one category, or make generalizations. I hope most liberals don't either.
People who read this blog locally may have heard of AM 1360 KLSD's attempt at right wing bashing with their "sticker wars", which began over an alleged firing of a woman due to her sporting a bumper sticker for the radio station. Assuming the story is true, she has a right to sue her employer and I hope she did. I could not find any updates to the story, but will keep looking.
Anyway, on occasion, I would hear someone call regarding something horrible being done to them, for nothing more than sporting a KLSD bumper sticker on their car. Morning host Stacy Taylor and his band of jovial clowns would eat the story up like it was cake! While I believe some of the stories may have some merit, I have no doubt that many were completely bogus and many were largely over exaggerated. This area has plenty of independent publications which would love to pick up on stories just like this, yet I have not really heard of any others.
About a week ago, around 5pm, I was driving home from a class I am taking. As I merged on the 15 freeway, I began to get ready to cross over the few lanes that are added from the 8 West to 15 North merge about 1/2 a mile after my merge. The first exit is Friars road, and you have to move over to at least one "merge" lane to get off. I have been close to being hit a few times by drivers who merge and do not pay attention to those of us already on the 15, so I am always careful here.
Today was no exception. A van had just moved onto the 15 from the 8 and as he passed me on the right, he began to move into my lane. Now mind you, he saw me as he passed me and when he started to move over, the front of my car was about parallel with the driver side door, so he was not even close to being in front of me. As he rolled into my lane, I had to swerve into the next lane and I honked my horn. He then moved back into his lane and as I pulled next to him, he began shouting inside his card and flipped me the middle finger. I responded by smiling and giving him a hearty wave. Nothing more than a friendly wave.
I then proceeded to pull ahead of him and merged over. Mind you, I did not cut him off, slam on my brakes, nothing of the kind. I then proceeded to exit. So, imagine my surprise, when he exited as well. He was trying to move on to the 15 no more than 30 seconds earlier, so why get off? He followed me as Friars becomes Mission Gorge road and followed me up the hill. When I would switch lanes, he would do so as well, always staying behind me.
I finally elected to pull into a parking lot and confront him if he followed me. Sure enough, he exited and parked near me. I waited a second for the man to get out. I then unfolded my rather "large-6'4"-built-and-overweight" frame from my compact-to-mid-size sedan and walked towards him. The man looked at me and then turned back to the van. He got in and closed the door but before he could roll up the window, I reached the van. I told him that he was lucky because I was letting him go. However, he needs to be careful because the next time he acts like an ass then has the nerve to follow someone to confront them after he made the driving error, he may be messing with the wrong person and could get his ass kicked. He then pulled away.
And wouldn't you know it? The man sported three bumper stickers! An "A.M. 1360 KLSD" sticker, an "Obama 2008" sticker, and a "Republicans Suck" bumper sticker. I was able to find that exact sticker and a whole host of other "anti-Republican" stickers here.
Which makes me wonder . . . . Liberals love to point to idiots like Ted Haggard or other conservatives or Christians who do not practice what they preach and pigeon hole all conservatives. Do I now get to do the same? Are all liberals:
a) Bad drivers
b) Profane speaking idiots who like to use inappropriate symbols
c) Angry jerks who love to pick fights only to,
d) Run away like cowards when they pick on the wrong person
e) Inconsiderate jerks who are non-contributors to society
f) All of the above
I don't believe all liberals are all of these, or even some of the things listed above. However, my experiences on a few sites on the web would cause me to conclude that some are all of these and many more things. Yet, I don't choose to place all people of various political views into one category, or make generalizations. I hope most liberals don't either.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
San Diego fire update with comments
I sent the following email to my family (with certain portions deleted/changed on here for privacy). It's long and descriptive, but has my comments on personal reliance v. government reliance at the bottom. I know, comparing this to Katrina is not a complete fit, but it does say a lot.
I have received a few emails from family asking how we are here in fire country, so I figured I would send a mass email out. They have asked a lot of questions, so here is the information, sorry for the length.
First, some geography. We are located in Santee, which is just South and East of the Miramar Air Base extension on the west side of Interstate 15 freeway. From our front door, you can see the back of the base. The section we live next to is a much narrower swatch of land than the actual base. Poway is the first city North the airbase. Lakeside is the first city East of our city.
The Witch creek fire started near Ramona and has moved West and South. It is currently 196k acres, 1% contained with 500 confirmed homes damaged, 250 destroyed and 150 other structures destroyed. The southern line has spread down the 67 freeway and has finally made it to Lakeside outskirts. This is the fire we are concerned with.
The 2003 cedar fire spread this way, then went onto the airbase and down the 52 freeway (right by our home), almost to the ocean. The fire spreading east jumped the 15 and has devastated Rancho Bernardo and moved on to Solana Beach. It may go all the way to the ocean this time.
The other big fire is the Harris which started near Descanso, right on the border and has moved North to Rancho San Diego and West to Eastlake/Chula Vista. It has 72k acres burned and 10% containment. That fire is slowly moving and they have evacuated almost to where we used to live in Spring Valley. There are also fires in San Marcos (contained) and Fallbrook (Rice fire), to the North. The rice fire may hook up with a fire in Temecula and spread. Finally, there is a fire in Imperial Valley which was contained.
The Witch Creek fire has recently moved North to Riverside county and East to Harbison Canyon. We were packed yesterday morning and have spent two days inside due to the horrible air quality.
(Daughter's) school was closed for the week. I am the acting supervisor for my unit, so I had to go in yesterday and they are open tomorrow, which I think is a terrible idea. Today, I left to go to a doctor's appointment and we took a brief trip to get charcoal in case of a power outage, but that has been it for (my daughter). The main power source in the South was knocked out by the Portrero fire (Harris) by the border and the North line is threatened.
Yesterday, my work was dismissed early, so I was home early. I made sure the weatherstripping on the front door was sound and the back door, which has the dog door, was re-stripped. I asked (X) to go to Lowe's very early to get some as I had run out, and the smoke had not yet reached us. She said the masks were all out and there was a lot of activity there. We have replaced the air filter and the house is pretty much air tight.
We already had plenty of food storage, portable food, first aid kits, high rank emergency air masks, emergency packs and our important documents are in one small file cabinet which is easily moved. We also have battery and crank powered flashlights, candles and battery powered radios. We also have a large supply of water as well, and I know how to tap into our water main if needed. I am so thankful the church stresses emergency preparedness and my parents were good examples.
I went to the store on my way home yesterday, to pick up a few small "non-necessity comfort" items, and the store was in chaos. Many people had no preparation and the water supply and bottled water was stripped to nothing. People were wandering the area near the water complaining about how the store did not stock enough water. They did not seem to figure out it was their fault for not being prepared. The first aid area was pretty well raided as well, and canned food was holding out ok. People were asking about grills and other sources to heat food.
I had started a project of donating clothing, books and other items to the Salvation Army about 9 months ago, in order to clear out clutter in the house and it just so happened that I was working on blankets. I made a run last night to Qualcomm stadium, which is an evacuation center, and handed over blankets, pillows and sleeping bags. In total, we have about 300k evacuees throughout the county and about 6 major rescue centers.
Across the street, there are about 3-4 motor homes in the restaurant parking lot and at the store we saw about 6-7 more, so some people are finding places to stay and getting permission from the stores/restaurants where they are at.
I wanted to make a comment on the evacuation centers and make a political point that there is a big difference between people who depend on the government for everything and those who don't. After Katrina, people complained about being stuck at the Superdome and being trapped in their homes. There were over 3 days to leave.
In San Diego, people had less than one day. We could not go East, South or North, so were confined to San Diego unlike many of the refugees in New Orleans. Within 2 days, the Superdome toilets were overflowing, there was no food, no donations (though it was accessible) and even deaths. Even after rescuing had begun, the community made limited donations and there were limited volunteers. All you heard about was how FEMA was ineffective.
Last night, less than 24 hours away from the fire and in some areas, a matter of minutes, over 250k people in San Diego had moved to a center or elsewhere. When I dropped off my supplies, there was a bedding and blanket section over 7 feet tall and approximately 40 yards long and 10 yards wide. There were volunteers passing out water and food and had over 90 large tables and areas for food donations.
Del Mar fairgrounds had some supply issues, but had housed over 10k of people and over 1500 horses and livestock and could support them! There were almost no stragglers and the move was pretty orderly. Two major hospitals and countless convalescent and hospice homes were evacuated, mainly by citizens volunteering to help. Pomerado hospital was evacuated in less than 2 hours.
The only assistance we have had from the government are some marines from Camp Pendleton helping people cross the base, a unit a Qualcomm and Del Mar to help with traffic and distributing supplies and some National Guardsmen posting at a few of the fire burned areas to minimize some of the looting. There have been no confirmed reports of looting.
There are still more areas of evacuation underway and possible, yet despite the strain on emergency services, the evacuations are still orderly. I think this says a lot about attitude towards reliance on the government and reliance on the community and self reliance.
While there are many differences between the two, there are a lot of similarities between these two incidents when dealing with people's needs.
I have received a few emails from family asking how we are here in fire country, so I figured I would send a mass email out. They have asked a lot of questions, so here is the information, sorry for the length.
First, some geography. We are located in Santee, which is just South and East of the Miramar Air Base extension on the west side of Interstate 15 freeway. From our front door, you can see the back of the base. The section we live next to is a much narrower swatch of land than the actual base. Poway is the first city North the airbase. Lakeside is the first city East of our city.
The Witch creek fire started near Ramona and has moved West and South. It is currently 196k acres, 1% contained with 500 confirmed homes damaged, 250 destroyed and 150 other structures destroyed. The southern line has spread down the 67 freeway and has finally made it to Lakeside outskirts. This is the fire we are concerned with.
The 2003 cedar fire spread this way, then went onto the airbase and down the 52 freeway (right by our home), almost to the ocean. The fire spreading east jumped the 15 and has devastated Rancho Bernardo and moved on to Solana Beach. It may go all the way to the ocean this time.
The other big fire is the Harris which started near Descanso, right on the border and has moved North to Rancho San Diego and West to Eastlake/Chula Vista. It has 72k acres burned and 10% containment. That fire is slowly moving and they have evacuated almost to where we used to live in Spring Valley. There are also fires in San Marcos (contained) and Fallbrook (Rice fire), to the North. The rice fire may hook up with a fire in Temecula and spread. Finally, there is a fire in Imperial Valley which was contained.
The Witch Creek fire has recently moved North to Riverside county and East to Harbison Canyon. We were packed yesterday morning and have spent two days inside due to the horrible air quality.
(Daughter's) school was closed for the week. I am the acting supervisor for my unit, so I had to go in yesterday and they are open tomorrow, which I think is a terrible idea. Today, I left to go to a doctor's appointment and we took a brief trip to get charcoal in case of a power outage, but that has been it for (my daughter). The main power source in the South was knocked out by the Portrero fire (Harris) by the border and the North line is threatened.
Yesterday, my work was dismissed early, so I was home early. I made sure the weatherstripping on the front door was sound and the back door, which has the dog door, was re-stripped. I asked (X) to go to Lowe's very early to get some as I had run out, and the smoke had not yet reached us. She said the masks were all out and there was a lot of activity there. We have replaced the air filter and the house is pretty much air tight.
We already had plenty of food storage, portable food, first aid kits, high rank emergency air masks, emergency packs and our important documents are in one small file cabinet which is easily moved. We also have battery and crank powered flashlights, candles and battery powered radios. We also have a large supply of water as well, and I know how to tap into our water main if needed. I am so thankful the church stresses emergency preparedness and my parents were good examples.
I went to the store on my way home yesterday, to pick up a few small "non-necessity comfort" items, and the store was in chaos. Many people had no preparation and the water supply and bottled water was stripped to nothing. People were wandering the area near the water complaining about how the store did not stock enough water. They did not seem to figure out it was their fault for not being prepared. The first aid area was pretty well raided as well, and canned food was holding out ok. People were asking about grills and other sources to heat food.
I had started a project of donating clothing, books and other items to the Salvation Army about 9 months ago, in order to clear out clutter in the house and it just so happened that I was working on blankets. I made a run last night to Qualcomm stadium, which is an evacuation center, and handed over blankets, pillows and sleeping bags. In total, we have about 300k evacuees throughout the county and about 6 major rescue centers.
Across the street, there are about 3-4 motor homes in the restaurant parking lot and at the store we saw about 6-7 more, so some people are finding places to stay and getting permission from the stores/restaurants where they are at.
I wanted to make a comment on the evacuation centers and make a political point that there is a big difference between people who depend on the government for everything and those who don't. After Katrina, people complained about being stuck at the Superdome and being trapped in their homes. There were over 3 days to leave.
In San Diego, people had less than one day. We could not go East, South or North, so were confined to San Diego unlike many of the refugees in New Orleans. Within 2 days, the Superdome toilets were overflowing, there was no food, no donations (though it was accessible) and even deaths. Even after rescuing had begun, the community made limited donations and there were limited volunteers. All you heard about was how FEMA was ineffective.
Last night, less than 24 hours away from the fire and in some areas, a matter of minutes, over 250k people in San Diego had moved to a center or elsewhere. When I dropped off my supplies, there was a bedding and blanket section over 7 feet tall and approximately 40 yards long and 10 yards wide. There were volunteers passing out water and food and had over 90 large tables and areas for food donations.
Del Mar fairgrounds had some supply issues, but had housed over 10k of people and over 1500 horses and livestock and could support them! There were almost no stragglers and the move was pretty orderly. Two major hospitals and countless convalescent and hospice homes were evacuated, mainly by citizens volunteering to help. Pomerado hospital was evacuated in less than 2 hours.
The only assistance we have had from the government are some marines from Camp Pendleton helping people cross the base, a unit a Qualcomm and Del Mar to help with traffic and distributing supplies and some National Guardsmen posting at a few of the fire burned areas to minimize some of the looting. There have been no confirmed reports of looting.
There are still more areas of evacuation underway and possible, yet despite the strain on emergency services, the evacuations are still orderly. I think this says a lot about attitude towards reliance on the government and reliance on the community and self reliance.
While there are many differences between the two, there are a lot of similarities between these two incidents when dealing with people's needs.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Pray for the fire evacuees
In case you were living under a rock, there are multiple fires in San Diego county, and it will only get worse for at least a day or so. I have already been somewhat affected by evacuation orders, and many more will be. Please keep them in your hearts and prayers.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Attacks on me at the Randi Rhodes website
As I am at work, I cannot fully comment on this yet. But as a few of the posters on that site will inevitably see the "Troll" comments being passed around, as well as a link to this site, I will note here that I will update this site soon, possibly tonight. I will be complete with a few attacks from people who have nothing interesting to add to the conversation and some accusations which are unfounded. Stay tuned.
Congratulations to Al Gore
In case you are living under a rock and did not know, Al Gore was awarded a joint Nobel Peace prize for his work with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I applaud Vice President Gore for his attempts to bring to light issues pertaining to the environment, and wish him well on his future endeavors.
I would also recommend his book The Assault on Reason, which is a pretty good read. I finished it a few weeks ago, and while I disagree with some of the points he discusses, overall it is very well written and pretty insightful.
I would also recommend his book The Assault on Reason, which is a pretty good read. I finished it a few weeks ago, and while I disagree with some of the points he discusses, overall it is very well written and pretty insightful.
Soldier who needs help
I received the following story from one of the posters on Huffington Post, who visits my blog on occasion. He pointed out this story from the AP. Fortunately, I already saw this story and mentioned it on the Roger Hedgecock show and on the Rick Roberts show, here down in San Diego. Unfortunately, I did not get his email to post this until this morning.
Kudos to "getoffmedz" from the Huffington Post. Check out the site for his comments.
*** I have edited a small portion of the discussion from the emailer
TEMECULA, Calif. - He was one of America's first defenders on Sept. 11, 2001, a Marine who pulled burned bodies from the ruins of the Pentagon. He saw more horrors in Kuwait and Iraq.
Today, he can't keep a job, pay his bills, or chase thoughts of suicide from his tortured brain. In a few weeks, he may lose his house, too.
Gamal Awad, the American son of a Sudanese immigrant, exemplifies an emerging group of war veterans: the economic casualties.
By JEFF DONN and KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press writers
AP EDITOR'S NOTE: Jeff Donn reported from Temecula, Calif. Kimberly Hefling reported from Woodlyn, Pa.; Harrington, Del.; and Washington, D.C .
Contact info: Gamal F. Awad, PO Box 893562, Temecula CA 92589(951)551-2132 gmann1906@aol.com
Gamal is on the up and up, he answers his cell and he'll send you a financial statement upon your email to him. PTSD is a terrible thing.
Get this info onto any blog that will post it ESPECIALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOGS! Gamal has until the 15th of October, his immediate needs are $6,700. Employers with patience and compassion around Temecula can help, too.
Huffington Post ran this over the weekend and I have personally checked Gamal out, so has AP.
Kudos to "getoffmedz" from the Huffington Post. Check out the site for his comments.
*** I have edited a small portion of the discussion from the emailer
TEMECULA, Calif. - He was one of America's first defenders on Sept. 11, 2001, a Marine who pulled burned bodies from the ruins of the Pentagon. He saw more horrors in Kuwait and Iraq.
Today, he can't keep a job, pay his bills, or chase thoughts of suicide from his tortured brain. In a few weeks, he may lose his house, too.
Gamal Awad, the American son of a Sudanese immigrant, exemplifies an emerging group of war veterans: the economic casualties.
By JEFF DONN and KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press writers
AP EDITOR'S NOTE: Jeff Donn reported from Temecula, Calif. Kimberly Hefling reported from Woodlyn, Pa.; Harrington, Del.; and Washington, D.C .
Contact info: Gamal F. Awad, PO Box 893562, Temecula CA 92589(951)551-2132 gmann1906@aol.com
Gamal is on the up and up, he answers his cell and he'll send you a financial statement upon your email to him. PTSD is a terrible thing.
Get this info onto any blog that will post it ESPECIALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOGS! Gamal has until the 15th of October, his immediate needs are $6,700. Employers with patience and compassion around Temecula can help, too.
Huffington Post ran this over the weekend and I have personally checked Gamal out, so has AP.
Lots of things going on
I have been studying for a bar exam, and as such, have largely neglected this blog. Therefore, I will recommit myself to at least one post per week. Stay tuned!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Billionaires and those who blabber
I picked up this story off a liberal blog today and found it again under a few other sites. The comments were largely the same on each site. It's "obscene", the money is earned all on the "backs of the poor and middle class", they need to be more heavily taxed, beyond the normal obligations, too little charity, undeserving, and the usual "corporations are bad" talk. It never ceases to amaze me how some people do not live in reality.
With few exceptions, the people on this list had some innovative idea or creation, and they ran with it and made something of value. Through hard work and determination, they built their product into a business and became successful, exactly how capitalism works. They used the principles America was based on, and became a success using their own sweat and blood.
Many of the other names became educated in modern economics, be it in the classroom or trial and error. They played the market correctly, and developed a keen sense and understanding of the economy and business in America and in markets throughout the world.
Yet the sites I visited treats them as villans because of their success. I never understand this position. They harp on the success and say it is because of some travesty on the poor and middle class. This is not always the case, in fact, its probably rarely the case, yet you would never know that by reading some of the hateful things.
There is a lot more I could say, but I will wait for comments, if any.
With few exceptions, the people on this list had some innovative idea or creation, and they ran with it and made something of value. Through hard work and determination, they built their product into a business and became successful, exactly how capitalism works. They used the principles America was based on, and became a success using their own sweat and blood.
Many of the other names became educated in modern economics, be it in the classroom or trial and error. They played the market correctly, and developed a keen sense and understanding of the economy and business in America and in markets throughout the world.
Yet the sites I visited treats them as villans because of their success. I never understand this position. They harp on the success and say it is because of some travesty on the poor and middle class. This is not always the case, in fact, its probably rarely the case, yet you would never know that by reading some of the hateful things.
There is a lot more I could say, but I will wait for comments, if any.
Been on a brief vacation
I've been on a break dealing with some medical issues, but I am back and ready to post again. Check back for updates.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Fighter of our freedoms or freaking idiot?
I decided to take a break from studying for my upcoming major life event to comment on this story I found on another blog. Apparently, this guy was arrested after he left a store without showing his receipt. I will let you read the whole story, and will leave the second portion of this issue, the police arrest, for another day.
Under common law, there exists something called the shopkeepers privilege, which basically allows a shopkeeper to detain someone if he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person has or will commit theft. The investigation must be done on or near the premesis of the building, there must be reasonable suspicion, the use of force must be reasonable and the detainment period can only be for a reasonable period of time.
This guy's argument appears to be based on a 4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure, and somehow claims that his civil rights are violated. But what he has not learned, is the premise of the amendment itself. First of all, the constitution is designed to protect public policy. While private policy could also be included in limited instances, it is generally reserved for public policy only. Which is why a restaurant could reasonably demand pay first provisions, or why non-disclosure agreements can be enforced between an individual or a business. Most protections deal with what the government is allowed to do to you. The relationship between private citizens is generally not included.
The second point he missed, is that it is not unreasonable to ask a customer to show a receipt upon leaving the premesis. As a customer, he voluntarily entered a store, and purchased merchandise from the company. The store has a right to reasonably protect their property from theft. And the argument that he is a loyal customer is irrelevant. I would be open to suggestions on how to further and more easily protect shoplifting, but he presents no possible alternative. Like it or not, EVERY customer is a potential shoplifter, and simply asking someone to show a receipt is by no means unreasonable. Defining what is "reasonable" is a term that will be debated until the end of time. Simply put, "reasonable" means what a reasonable person would interpret. A reasonable person is defined as an average person of the community with average intelligence and education.
Under common law, there exists something called the shopkeepers privilege, which basically allows a shopkeeper to detain someone if he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person has or will commit theft. The investigation must be done on or near the premesis of the building, there must be reasonable suspicion, the use of force must be reasonable and the detainment period can only be for a reasonable period of time.
This guy's argument appears to be based on a 4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure, and somehow claims that his civil rights are violated. But what he has not learned, is the premise of the amendment itself. First of all, the constitution is designed to protect public policy. While private policy could also be included in limited instances, it is generally reserved for public policy only. Which is why a restaurant could reasonably demand pay first provisions, or why non-disclosure agreements can be enforced between an individual or a business. Most protections deal with what the government is allowed to do to you. The relationship between private citizens is generally not included.
The second point he missed, is that it is not unreasonable to ask a customer to show a receipt upon leaving the premesis. As a customer, he voluntarily entered a store, and purchased merchandise from the company. The store has a right to reasonably protect their property from theft. And the argument that he is a loyal customer is irrelevant. I would be open to suggestions on how to further and more easily protect shoplifting, but he presents no possible alternative. Like it or not, EVERY customer is a potential shoplifter, and simply asking someone to show a receipt is by no means unreasonable. Defining what is "reasonable" is a term that will be debated until the end of time. Simply put, "reasonable" means what a reasonable person would interpret. A reasonable person is defined as an average person of the community with average intelligence and education.
I actually debated this in great detail at the Randi Rhodes blog site, so you can look there for further analysis.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Footbath's and freedom of religion
This was a story not widely publicized a few months back.
The skinny: Religion is pretty much banned from state-run schools, yet Muslims get to have foot baths added to public restrooms at the Dearborn campus of the University of Michigan, and it will be paid for by taxpayers. Wait, let me rephrase that: student fees will supposedly pay for this. And when student fees are not available for other projects, taxes will likely foot the bill for them.
I am curious as to how the ACLU can distinguish between a State-run school spending money on a footbath for Muslim students to prepare for prayer, versus say, purchasing a Bible, or a cross, or a prayer room for a Christian student to use. One of the commenters makes a great point. How fast would the ACLU jump on a state-run school that wanted to open a non-denominational church on campus for everyone to use?
Well, the article cited did state a possibile answer- a safety issue. Kind of spotty, but if you accept that argument, how about a private prayer room for christian students to pray without fear of persecution or harm from zealots who hate religion?
I then came across this article, (sorry for the cut-off, but the LA Times does have free registration) which also addresses the installation of the foot baths. I like how the foot bath is different than a normal religious request because it solves a safety issue, have no symbolic value, can be used by anyone (including Janitors!), and are not stylized in a religious way.
I finally refer you to a well-written essay from Rabbi Aryeh Spero, which speaks to the heart of this and other examples of religion, particularly Christianity, being attacked.
Religion is part of everyone's life, even if you choose not to participate in a belief structure, study, or particular faith. The fact that separation of church and state is mentioned means very little regarding the barrier that was created as a result of overanalyzing this section of the Constitution. I once wrote a lenghty article on this, so I might try to find it and dust it off for my blog here. I do see an interesting item brought up in this debate. If the students pay for it, does that make an item endorsing religion ok?
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Local- Gay pride parade involvement prompts sexual harassment lawsuit
I had delayed the posting of this story in hopes that there would be further developement in the investigation by the fire department. Unfortunately, bureaucracy- be it government or fire department , moves at a snails pace.
This story deals with harassment of firefighters who participated at the annual San Diego Gay Pride Parade on July 21, 2007. For those who live outside our corner of paradise, San Diego has a large (what I am told, one of the largest) pride parade each year through the University Avenue area of Western San Diego. It gets a lot of coverage and for the most part is a peaceful and fun event for its participants.
I found this story particularly interesting, but not because it deals with the Gay Pride Parade, per se. I am not concerned with the allegations of the fire department pushing a “gay agenda”, as it is the right of the gay community to express themselves, be it a parade or other avenue. I do not know for sure, nor fully believe that the department was pushing any agenda in the first place. This deals with free speech, the appropriate use of government employees and equipment, and sexual harassment of males.
On July 20, four department firefighters (Captain John Ghiotto, engineer Jason Hewett, firefighters Chad Allison and Alex Kane) were told by fire chief Tracy Jarman (via supervisors), that they would be participating in the parade. In previous parade’s, participation was voluntary, but according to John Ghiotto, filling volunteer spots was a tall order. All four indicated they had no desire to participate. They were then faced with a direct order, which they complied with.
The firefighters gave detailed accounts of the vulgar comments and sexual gestures made at them as they drove their engine down the parade route. All felt extremely uncomfortable and did not like the idea of being forced to participate in this event. Since the event, Captain Ghiotto and the other firefighters have filed suit against the city and the department for sexual harassment, putting their careers at risk.
The free speech issue in this case deals with expressive speech, and is quite simple to analyze. A person has a right to express themselves in the manner that they choose, which includes the right not to speak or participate in a voluntary event contrary to their beliefs. What is important to note here is that the men stated that they did not want to participate, yet they were forced to. My issue is not with the event itself, and I do not choose to go so far as their counsel does, by saying this is an attempt to push a “gay agenda” on anyone. What is unacceptable is the forcing of these firefighters to participate against their wishes, by threatening them with discipline, especially since this is a voluntary event.
I heard an interview with fire chief Tracy Jarman on AM 600 KOGO, where she stated that it was normal policy to participate in various parades during the year, but she was silent on the issue of the four men being forced to participate. She did do the right thing by meeting with the firefighters, apologizing to them for what happened and promising an investigation would proceed. She also stated that she intended to change the policy on participation at future events. Only time will tell if this turns out to be the case.
The use of government employees and equipment is bothersome. Why the “normal policy” is to participate in parades is beyond me. There is no need to advertise for the department, and while it is important to show community support, San Diego has serious budget issues that result in shortcomings for the department to begin with. There are no shortages of stories that deal with budget shortcomings, budget issues and various proposals that result in shortages for the department. So why spend money on salary and wear and tear of an engine, just to have a brief presence at a parade? It just does not make sense.
The final issue I find particularly interesting deals with the sexual harassment of men. Not just any men, manly men- firefighters- rough and tough men. Interestingly enough, the talk around town has been mixed. There has been plenty of support for the firefighters, but a lot of people are asking what the big deal is. Why can’t they just let it roll off their shoulders? I wonder a couple of things as I write. What if this was a woman complaining? Second, what if a gay participant in the event complained of harassment? Would the comments and opinions be different? My position is simple: it does not matter who is harassed. Sexual harassment cuts both ways, for men and women. What a man does for a living is irrelevant.
More to come on this story as the case unfolds . . .
This story deals with harassment of firefighters who participated at the annual San Diego Gay Pride Parade on July 21, 2007. For those who live outside our corner of paradise, San Diego has a large (what I am told, one of the largest) pride parade each year through the University Avenue area of Western San Diego. It gets a lot of coverage and for the most part is a peaceful and fun event for its participants.
I found this story particularly interesting, but not because it deals with the Gay Pride Parade, per se. I am not concerned with the allegations of the fire department pushing a “gay agenda”, as it is the right of the gay community to express themselves, be it a parade or other avenue. I do not know for sure, nor fully believe that the department was pushing any agenda in the first place. This deals with free speech, the appropriate use of government employees and equipment, and sexual harassment of males.
On July 20, four department firefighters (Captain John Ghiotto, engineer Jason Hewett, firefighters Chad Allison and Alex Kane) were told by fire chief Tracy Jarman (via supervisors), that they would be participating in the parade. In previous parade’s, participation was voluntary, but according to John Ghiotto, filling volunteer spots was a tall order. All four indicated they had no desire to participate. They were then faced with a direct order, which they complied with.
The firefighters gave detailed accounts of the vulgar comments and sexual gestures made at them as they drove their engine down the parade route. All felt extremely uncomfortable and did not like the idea of being forced to participate in this event. Since the event, Captain Ghiotto and the other firefighters have filed suit against the city and the department for sexual harassment, putting their careers at risk.
The free speech issue in this case deals with expressive speech, and is quite simple to analyze. A person has a right to express themselves in the manner that they choose, which includes the right not to speak or participate in a voluntary event contrary to their beliefs. What is important to note here is that the men stated that they did not want to participate, yet they were forced to. My issue is not with the event itself, and I do not choose to go so far as their counsel does, by saying this is an attempt to push a “gay agenda” on anyone. What is unacceptable is the forcing of these firefighters to participate against their wishes, by threatening them with discipline, especially since this is a voluntary event.
I heard an interview with fire chief Tracy Jarman on AM 600 KOGO, where she stated that it was normal policy to participate in various parades during the year, but she was silent on the issue of the four men being forced to participate. She did do the right thing by meeting with the firefighters, apologizing to them for what happened and promising an investigation would proceed. She also stated that she intended to change the policy on participation at future events. Only time will tell if this turns out to be the case.
The use of government employees and equipment is bothersome. Why the “normal policy” is to participate in parades is beyond me. There is no need to advertise for the department, and while it is important to show community support, San Diego has serious budget issues that result in shortcomings for the department to begin with. There are no shortages of stories that deal with budget shortcomings, budget issues and various proposals that result in shortages for the department. So why spend money on salary and wear and tear of an engine, just to have a brief presence at a parade? It just does not make sense.
The final issue I find particularly interesting deals with the sexual harassment of men. Not just any men, manly men- firefighters- rough and tough men. Interestingly enough, the talk around town has been mixed. There has been plenty of support for the firefighters, but a lot of people are asking what the big deal is. Why can’t they just let it roll off their shoulders? I wonder a couple of things as I write. What if this was a woman complaining? Second, what if a gay participant in the event complained of harassment? Would the comments and opinions be different? My position is simple: it does not matter who is harassed. Sexual harassment cuts both ways, for men and women. What a man does for a living is irrelevant.
More to come on this story as the case unfolds . . .
A look at myself on a more personal level
I wanted to take a minute to thank a few of the huffingtonpost.com readers who have happened to comment on my blog's content, while commenting on that site. For some reason, one of them could not leave a comment on here, which I thought was odd. So, I tested, and it allows me to comment, so hopefully that will end the issue and the comments can move forward.
Another commenter indicated I should do more local stories. I have a few in the works, but as I told him, the issue of unions seems to come up in every one since this is a union-run town, so I get tired of them. However, I do have a few that will be done over the next few days. He also said to discuss more of what I sometimes refer to as "liberal talking points" and self-critique. I don't see what's the issue in posing my side and letting the other side speak for itself, but it's food for thought. In any event, thanks again.
Now, for a daily rant. My better half has had some issues with her company's health insurance offerings, so she is joining me on my insurance. It has been a nightmare getting the right paperwork to submit to my company, and I am hoping they don't nail me for her having an "option" of other insurance, since she chose not to keep her coverage. My insurance coverage is fine and I am happy with it, but the paperwork is a nightmare. And the kicker- I work for an insurance company.
Another commenter indicated I should do more local stories. I have a few in the works, but as I told him, the issue of unions seems to come up in every one since this is a union-run town, so I get tired of them. However, I do have a few that will be done over the next few days. He also said to discuss more of what I sometimes refer to as "liberal talking points" and self-critique. I don't see what's the issue in posing my side and letting the other side speak for itself, but it's food for thought. In any event, thanks again.
Now, for a daily rant. My better half has had some issues with her company's health insurance offerings, so she is joining me on my insurance. It has been a nightmare getting the right paperwork to submit to my company, and I am hoping they don't nail me for her having an "option" of other insurance, since she chose not to keep her coverage. My insurance coverage is fine and I am happy with it, but the paperwork is a nightmare. And the kicker- I work for an insurance company.
Monday, August 6, 2007
HEADLINE: Bush causes mine collapse
I was reading about the tragic Crandall Canyon mine collapse today in the Manti-La Sal National Forest, Utah. Six coal-miners are trapped below 1,500 feet of earth and rubble. As rescuers make valiant efforts to save these poor coal miners, many of the the liberals of this country are busy blaming Bush for these recent tragedy.
They started in with the "Big Coal" comments on Huffingtonpost.com, then made reference to the Sago mine tragedy, then boldly announced how he has done "nothing". I engaged one of the bloggers, as did another commenter, and asked for proof of this assertion. The comeback was typical- no evidence, just comments that other moonbats would agree to. I then gave them this article to read, which says the exact opposite. The response: an AFL-CIO website which says safety programs allocated in the budget are not enough.
Yes, that's right. Have you ever heard of a labor website that says any money budgeted to their program is sufficient? That was the "great" proof.
Remember- if it's bad, Bush is to blame. If there is no way to blame him, it's the fault of "Big Coal/Oil/Corporation/insert your choice here".
They started in with the "Big Coal" comments on Huffingtonpost.com, then made reference to the Sago mine tragedy, then boldly announced how he has done "nothing". I engaged one of the bloggers, as did another commenter, and asked for proof of this assertion. The comeback was typical- no evidence, just comments that other moonbats would agree to. I then gave them this article to read, which says the exact opposite. The response: an AFL-CIO website which says safety programs allocated in the budget are not enough.
Yes, that's right. Have you ever heard of a labor website that says any money budgeted to their program is sufficient? That was the "great" proof.
Remember- if it's bad, Bush is to blame. If there is no way to blame him, it's the fault of "Big Coal/Oil/Corporation/insert your choice here".
Thursday, August 2, 2007
More Bush derangement syndrome, live from Minneapolis!
In yet another round of the "blame Bush for everything" crowd, the connection is being made again and again and again that Bush is to blame for the bridge collapse in Minnesota, earlier this week. In one day I saw the following posted on Huffingtonpost.com and a few other blogs (I apologize for the spelling errors and grammar issues, but they are exact reprints of original comments):
Why do we need terrorists when we have Republicans destroying our own infastructure?
Why DO republicons HATE America SO much???
The Administration, and other corporists do not care for America.
IMPEACH BUSH!
We spend billions of dollars in Iraq, we could just spend that money here and fix ALL our infastructure in a few months.
Then, I read this article from the Associated Press, which states that this bridge has been getting poor reviews since 1990. Funny, I don't see Clinton mentioned anywhere in cyberspace. Instead the new tactic was to talk about how Republicans drained all the surplus money from when Democrats were in charge.
I also found this fatigue evaluation from March of 2001, a mere three months after Bush took office. The bridge had fatigue cracking back then, and was deemed "structurally deficient". The repairs done in the 1990's did not include an overhaul of the bridge, rather, repair of cracks and corrosion. Yet again, nowhere do we hear about the sins of a prior administration. And think about how much could have been done with all that "Democrat surplus"! Now remember, when Clinton took over from Bush I, the calls for his mistakes in Somalia were due to the prior administrations involvement. Yet, the same cannot be asserted here? Hmmmmm . . .
Why do we need terrorists when we have Republicans destroying our own infastructure?
Why DO republicons HATE America SO much???
The Administration, and other corporists do not care for America.
IMPEACH BUSH!
We spend billions of dollars in Iraq, we could just spend that money here and fix ALL our infastructure in a few months.
Then, I read this article from the Associated Press, which states that this bridge has been getting poor reviews since 1990. Funny, I don't see Clinton mentioned anywhere in cyberspace. Instead the new tactic was to talk about how Republicans drained all the surplus money from when Democrats were in charge.
I also found this fatigue evaluation from March of 2001, a mere three months after Bush took office. The bridge had fatigue cracking back then, and was deemed "structurally deficient". The repairs done in the 1990's did not include an overhaul of the bridge, rather, repair of cracks and corrosion. Yet again, nowhere do we hear about the sins of a prior administration. And think about how much could have been done with all that "Democrat surplus"! Now remember, when Clinton took over from Bush I, the calls for his mistakes in Somalia were due to the prior administrations involvement. Yet, the same cannot be asserted here? Hmmmmm . . .
Monday, July 30, 2007
Hate crimes and hypocrisy
Kudos to Michelle Malkin for her usual thorough coverage of issues.
At issue: hate crimes and hypocrisy.
A 23 year old man was arrested on hate crime charges for throwing a Quran into a toilet on two separate occasions.
The story reported on Michelle Malkin's site gives reference to the "Piss Christ" phot by no-talent photographer Andres Serrano. It also makes refernce to the "art" piece The Holy Virgin Mary, adorned with elephant dung.
Makes you wonder what all the outrage was about when another form of art, cartoons, resulted in mass protests, riots and plenty of death threats.
At issue: hate crimes and hypocrisy.
A 23 year old man was arrested on hate crime charges for throwing a Quran into a toilet on two separate occasions.
The story reported on Michelle Malkin's site gives reference to the "Piss Christ" phot by no-talent photographer Andres Serrano. It also makes refernce to the "art" piece The Holy Virgin Mary, adorned with elephant dung.
Makes you wonder what all the outrage was about when another form of art, cartoons, resulted in mass protests, riots and plenty of death threats.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Only liberals on the SCOTUS, damnit!
Good ole' liberal Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D- New York) reports that there aren't enough liberals on the Supreme Court. So, he is determined not to allow the President to pick one. I am curious as to what he means by "extraordinary circumstances". I have no doubt you could call that code for "flaming liberal hippie".
Story (in italics):
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Let's interpret: Because a conservative President may bring forth a conservative candidate, we should abandon precedent in Senate confirmations. And remember, there is no given that a candidate for a position on the SCOTUS is a given. The Senate gives plenty of harassment to candidates. And here is a tip for all of you readers: Whenever you read a quote from a Democrat or liberal, imagine what would happen if a Republican or conservative said the same thing and then consider the outcry and teeth gnashing that would result. That is an excellent way to look at a statement credibility from liberals.
Also, consider the statement "dangerously out of balance". By dangerously out of balance, he means at worst, one more Justice who is closer to a conservative point of view than a liberal one. Remember, Sandra Day O'Connor was by all accounts, a moderate, who frequently sided with Conservatives. She was replaced by John Roberts. William Rehnquist, perhaps the most conservative judge on the bench, save for maybe Scalia, was replaced by Alito, who while conservative, is in all likelihood not nearly as conservative as Rehnquist.
Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
Wait, they expected them to overturn legal precedents anyway, so their complaint is they are doing it faster? What a lame argument.
Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said. “There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Oooohhh! We are Senate Democrats! We are easily distracted by "charm" and shiny objects! Just like goldfish!
I am curious as to how the Senate was "hoodwinked". A Supreme Court candidate can't exactly hide his prior work in the legal community, and there is NO way for a candidate to know what cases will be set in front of him, so how could he possibly say what answer he will give before the case is presented to the Court. I am also curious as to the implication here. I have yet to hear a charge of perjury.
A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer’s comments show “a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.“This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer,” Perino said. “He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days.” Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.
Just remember this story when and if a Democrat President sends a candidate to the Senate confirmation hearings. All the sabre-rattling over "delays" and "politics" will be loud and large.
“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”
So, rather than doing your job and making sure the candidate was the best choice, you should have spent your time finding ways to not confirm a conservative candidate. Talk about partisan politics . . .
Story (in italics):
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Let's interpret: Because a conservative President may bring forth a conservative candidate, we should abandon precedent in Senate confirmations. And remember, there is no given that a candidate for a position on the SCOTUS is a given. The Senate gives plenty of harassment to candidates. And here is a tip for all of you readers: Whenever you read a quote from a Democrat or liberal, imagine what would happen if a Republican or conservative said the same thing and then consider the outcry and teeth gnashing that would result. That is an excellent way to look at a statement credibility from liberals.
Also, consider the statement "dangerously out of balance". By dangerously out of balance, he means at worst, one more Justice who is closer to a conservative point of view than a liberal one. Remember, Sandra Day O'Connor was by all accounts, a moderate, who frequently sided with Conservatives. She was replaced by John Roberts. William Rehnquist, perhaps the most conservative judge on the bench, save for maybe Scalia, was replaced by Alito, who while conservative, is in all likelihood not nearly as conservative as Rehnquist.
Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
Wait, they expected them to overturn legal precedents anyway, so their complaint is they are doing it faster? What a lame argument.
Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said. “There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Oooohhh! We are Senate Democrats! We are easily distracted by "charm" and shiny objects! Just like goldfish!
I am curious as to how the Senate was "hoodwinked". A Supreme Court candidate can't exactly hide his prior work in the legal community, and there is NO way for a candidate to know what cases will be set in front of him, so how could he possibly say what answer he will give before the case is presented to the Court. I am also curious as to the implication here. I have yet to hear a charge of perjury.
A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer’s comments show “a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.“This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer,” Perino said. “He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days.” Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.
Just remember this story when and if a Democrat President sends a candidate to the Senate confirmation hearings. All the sabre-rattling over "delays" and "politics" will be loud and large.
“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”
So, rather than doing your job and making sure the candidate was the best choice, you should have spent your time finding ways to not confirm a conservative candidate. Talk about partisan politics . . .
Friday, July 27, 2007
Water rights and water theft.
This post took a few days to write, but as it is such an important issue to the Southwest, it needed to be finished. I encourage any reader to take note of this and refer back to any updates, because this will be a decades old argument before there is a resolution.
Just over a week ago, Governor Schwarzenegger held a few press conferences and spoke about the dangers of a drought affecting California, particularly Southern California and the San Joaquin valley, which is the lifeblood of California agriculture. He proposed a plan to build more dams and repair the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including the San Luis reservoir. He also discussed the All-American Canal, which runs along the U.S.-Mexico border through Imperial Valley, California and parts of Arizona. To give you a brief background, this canal was built in 1940 and replaced a similar canal which ran through the U.S. and Mexico. It is an earthen canal with no lining. It connects with a few other canals and brings Colorado river water through Imperial Valley, the most arid, but 4th most productive agricultural region in the United States.
One of Schwarzenegger’s proposals is to finally line portions of the canal to prevent loss of water through seepage, which is not a new idea. By doing this, Californians would recoup 67,000 acre-feet of water each year, enough for half a million people. Most of the water will go to the San Diego County Water Authority, with 17% reserved to settle water disputes with American Indian tribes in San Diego County. For more information on this project, see here.
In response to the Governor’s call for help, the LA Times responded with a riveting (sarcasm)editorial piece, dated July, 21, 2007, entitled the “All-American deathtrap”. (In case this link goes dead due to membership requirements, you have the date and paper to see for yourself). Their concern? Not water for Americans, but, you guessed it, illegal immigrants. Their concern over putting in a concrete lining: the water will be too swift, and the sides of the canal to steep to scale and more illegals who try to cross will die. They advocate not lining the canal, but if it is lined, they demand the government provide lifelines, buoys, and steps in the concrete.
The editorial piece ignores the reasonable response of the Imperial Irrigation District, saying this will increase liability. The L.A. Times this makes no sense. Well, we have illegal immigrants who sue for being shot at while evading arrest and turning on Border Patrol agents, lawsuits for injuries sustained after crashing their vehicle while speeding away from the Border Patrol, and lawsuits saying they did not get medical care "quick" enough while in Border Patrol custody, even for ailments not related to their border crossing. How long do you honestly think it would take for a Mexican family to sue because a buoy line was not tethered properly, or better yet, it inadequate as a safety measure? The editorial failed to mention that the reservoir is already fenced and has numerous no trespassing signs.
Even more importantly, they add to their flimsy editorial the tired old line that “border security is good, but . . .", completely ignoring that no one is forcing people to cross the border illegally and risk their own lives. Once again, the call for the government of Mexico to improve conditions in their country is nowhere to be heard.
Why would the L.A. Times be opposed to making it easier for Southern California to obtain water? Last time I checked, L.A. was in Southern California. The reason is simple: this is not the main reason why they are opposed to the lining. The story you did not hear involves water seepage and lawsuits going back years before Governor Schwarzenegger even considered running for office. The earliest story I found went back to 1998. You see, the water seepage is used by farmers in Mexico, near the border, and they don’t like the idea of lining the canal, which will cut down the water they are stealing. It’s not like they don’t get water. In fact, there is a 1944 treaty wherein the United States created dams, waterways and reservoirs, and Mexico has access to a good portion of that water. As the linked study states, in addition to the water seepage that is being taken, Mexico has not followed up with payment of their water obligations by diverting water which flows to the Rio Grande and have fallen behind on their commitments time and time again.
Mexican farmers and environmental groups (of course) have sued the United States, seeking (and obtaining) a temporary injunction, preventing the lining. However, in their quest for a permanent injunction, a federal court has unbelievably sided with America for once, saying that it lacked jurisdiction over the Mexican claims. Imagine that!
In addition to not paying for what they owe, Mexican farmers and businessmen are upset that the United States “dares” to protect its own interests and does not want Mexican farmers stealing what they are not entitled to. Fortunately, due to a law signed by the President last December, the lining can be started with no delay. We will just have to weather the flood of additional lawsuits which are sure to come.
One again, I see a continuing mentality and pattern when it comes to United States - Mexico relations. The U.S. creates something, then invites their neighbors to participate, only to have our neighboring country violate the terms of the agreement and demand what they are not entitled to. On top of this, they find every opportunity to undermine the spirit of the law and choose to not respect our laws and rights. Then, when the United States finally does something about it, the liberal medica portrays the United States as harming their poor, defenseless neighbor to the South. Does this sound familiar to the illegal immigration problem we face?
Just over a week ago, Governor Schwarzenegger held a few press conferences and spoke about the dangers of a drought affecting California, particularly Southern California and the San Joaquin valley, which is the lifeblood of California agriculture. He proposed a plan to build more dams and repair the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including the San Luis reservoir. He also discussed the All-American Canal, which runs along the U.S.-Mexico border through Imperial Valley, California and parts of Arizona. To give you a brief background, this canal was built in 1940 and replaced a similar canal which ran through the U.S. and Mexico. It is an earthen canal with no lining. It connects with a few other canals and brings Colorado river water through Imperial Valley, the most arid, but 4th most productive agricultural region in the United States.
One of Schwarzenegger’s proposals is to finally line portions of the canal to prevent loss of water through seepage, which is not a new idea. By doing this, Californians would recoup 67,000 acre-feet of water each year, enough for half a million people. Most of the water will go to the San Diego County Water Authority, with 17% reserved to settle water disputes with American Indian tribes in San Diego County. For more information on this project, see here.
In response to the Governor’s call for help, the LA Times responded with a riveting (sarcasm)editorial piece, dated July, 21, 2007, entitled the “All-American deathtrap”. (In case this link goes dead due to membership requirements, you have the date and paper to see for yourself). Their concern? Not water for Americans, but, you guessed it, illegal immigrants. Their concern over putting in a concrete lining: the water will be too swift, and the sides of the canal to steep to scale and more illegals who try to cross will die. They advocate not lining the canal, but if it is lined, they demand the government provide lifelines, buoys, and steps in the concrete.
The editorial piece ignores the reasonable response of the Imperial Irrigation District, saying this will increase liability. The L.A. Times this makes no sense. Well, we have illegal immigrants who sue for being shot at while evading arrest and turning on Border Patrol agents, lawsuits for injuries sustained after crashing their vehicle while speeding away from the Border Patrol, and lawsuits saying they did not get medical care "quick" enough while in Border Patrol custody, even for ailments not related to their border crossing. How long do you honestly think it would take for a Mexican family to sue because a buoy line was not tethered properly, or better yet, it inadequate as a safety measure? The editorial failed to mention that the reservoir is already fenced and has numerous no trespassing signs.
Even more importantly, they add to their flimsy editorial the tired old line that “border security is good, but . . .", completely ignoring that no one is forcing people to cross the border illegally and risk their own lives. Once again, the call for the government of Mexico to improve conditions in their country is nowhere to be heard.
Why would the L.A. Times be opposed to making it easier for Southern California to obtain water? Last time I checked, L.A. was in Southern California. The reason is simple: this is not the main reason why they are opposed to the lining. The story you did not hear involves water seepage and lawsuits going back years before Governor Schwarzenegger even considered running for office. The earliest story I found went back to 1998. You see, the water seepage is used by farmers in Mexico, near the border, and they don’t like the idea of lining the canal, which will cut down the water they are stealing. It’s not like they don’t get water. In fact, there is a 1944 treaty wherein the United States created dams, waterways and reservoirs, and Mexico has access to a good portion of that water. As the linked study states, in addition to the water seepage that is being taken, Mexico has not followed up with payment of their water obligations by diverting water which flows to the Rio Grande and have fallen behind on their commitments time and time again.
Mexican farmers and environmental groups (of course) have sued the United States, seeking (and obtaining) a temporary injunction, preventing the lining. However, in their quest for a permanent injunction, a federal court has unbelievably sided with America for once, saying that it lacked jurisdiction over the Mexican claims. Imagine that!
In addition to not paying for what they owe, Mexican farmers and businessmen are upset that the United States “dares” to protect its own interests and does not want Mexican farmers stealing what they are not entitled to. Fortunately, due to a law signed by the President last December, the lining can be started with no delay. We will just have to weather the flood of additional lawsuits which are sure to come.
One again, I see a continuing mentality and pattern when it comes to United States - Mexico relations. The U.S. creates something, then invites their neighbors to participate, only to have our neighboring country violate the terms of the agreement and demand what they are not entitled to. On top of this, they find every opportunity to undermine the spirit of the law and choose to not respect our laws and rights. Then, when the United States finally does something about it, the liberal medica portrays the United States as harming their poor, defenseless neighbor to the South. Does this sound familiar to the illegal immigration problem we face?
Monday, July 23, 2007
How to personally offend a "gangsta"
I found this story today on a local news website, and it made me chuckle. Let me say right off the bat that "50 cent" has every right to be upset over the use of his image without consent. Though he is a public figure, I do believe in his right to privacy. What I would like to know, however, is what he was "personally offended" about.
Rapper "50 cent" is suing Traffix, Inc. for damages over use of his image in the pop-up game "Shoot the rapper". In all fairness, it is not 100% certain it is his image, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I find this interesting because 50 cent is all about guns and violence. He has been shot himself, and raps about shooting others. I found these lyrics, they took me a whole 35 seconds to find them online. My favorite lines include:
"I put a hole in a n**** for f****** with me"
"I walk around gun on my waist, chip on my shoulder, 'Till I bust a clip in your face p****, this beef ain't over"
"Every night, I talk to god, but he don't say nothing back. I know he protecting me, but I still stay with my gat"
Three references to 50 cent shooting someone, and that is just one song. It makes me wonder if he is outraged because he was not paid for the use of his image, or if he finds the image of shooting someone offensive. Maybe it's just his own image being shot is what's offensive to him.
I guess Al Sharpton's assault on gangsta lyrics continues to fall on deaf ears.
Rapper "50 cent" is suing Traffix, Inc. for damages over use of his image in the pop-up game "Shoot the rapper". In all fairness, it is not 100% certain it is his image, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I find this interesting because 50 cent is all about guns and violence. He has been shot himself, and raps about shooting others. I found these lyrics, they took me a whole 35 seconds to find them online. My favorite lines include:
"I put a hole in a n**** for f****** with me"
"I walk around gun on my waist, chip on my shoulder, 'Till I bust a clip in your face p****, this beef ain't over"
"Every night, I talk to god, but he don't say nothing back. I know he protecting me, but I still stay with my gat"
Three references to 50 cent shooting someone, and that is just one song. It makes me wonder if he is outraged because he was not paid for the use of his image, or if he finds the image of shooting someone offensive. Maybe it's just his own image being shot is what's offensive to him.
I guess Al Sharpton's assault on gangsta lyrics continues to fall on deaf ears.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Prove who you are to vote? That's outrageous!
I read this "controversial" article a few days back on the Randi Rhodes Show blog and commented on it there. The skinny: The Michigan Supreme Court rules that citizens of Michigan may have to show ID to vote. The usual sides take their shots.
Conservatives believe that this measure protects voters from fraud and protects the sacred right to vote. You know, VOTING. The fundamental right this great nation is based on. The ability to select who you want to represent you. An attempt to have your voice heard. Government run by and for the people. Any of you having flashbacks of your High School civics class?
Liberals bring out the tired old "discrimination" and "poll tax" arguments, saying it disenfranchises minorities and the elderly. The Detroit branch of the NAACP throws the ever-present race card, comparing it to a poll tax used to prevent blacks from voting.
Let's think about this a little. How does this disenfranchise anyone, except people who would cast illegal votes? Requirements: You are supposed to show an ID. 95% of voters already have acceptable ID. An ID can be purchased for $10, and the fee can be waived if you cannot afford it. Further, if you have no ID, you can sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury saying you don't possess one. This means, the elderly, the poor, and minorities (those who are targeted by Democrats and the NAACP in this article) are all taken care of. This ALSO means you still don’t have to have an ID to vote. How again does this disenfranchise anyone?
I believe this law is not strong enough, but that's an argument for another day.
This is yet another example of liberal hypocrisy. Every day the liberal media sources scream how your rights are not protected, or being destroyed by the right. Yet when someone tries to protect your rights, it is either A) racist, B) prejudicial, C) has too many religious overtones, or D) favors the wealthy. May I live to be 100, I will never understand this type of mentality.
While I was reading this, I was reflecting on another country and their voting requirements. Mexico has one of the most advanced identification systems in the world, and it is considered an example for democracies around the globe. In addition to the elaborate security of the company who manufactures the ID cards, the cards themselves include a hologram, special fluorescent ink, bar code, and special codes in magnetic strip. Are you telling me that Mexico can develop a brilliant and effective ID program, but the United States cannot?
Your thoughts?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
A Darwin candidate
The skinny:
A man (who was drinking, of course), meets an early demise after jumping from the roof of a house, into a swimming pool.
This reminds me of a joke: What is the last thing a redneck says before he dies? Answer: "Hey everybody! Watch this!"
A man (who was drinking, of course), meets an early demise after jumping from the roof of a house, into a swimming pool.
This reminds me of a joke: What is the last thing a redneck says before he dies? Answer: "Hey everybody! Watch this!"
Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses . . . and more Cubans
Hands down, this was the story of the day, dear reader. Cuba is upset with the United States. How is this a story you might ask? Becuase of what they are mad at. Cuba, that bastion of freedom, land of magnificent health care, and wonderful educational opportunities is upset that the U.S. is not accepting more visa's from citizens who wish to flee Cuba.
Yes, you read that right. Despite all the people who come here in boats, rafts and other floatation devices, we must do what is "right" and step up and give more people immigration benefits and resettlement assistance. While were at it, we should stop the "wet feet/dry feet" policy, or our interdiction policy and just let anyone come over here. Remember, to not let them come would infringe on their rights to "political asylum"! There are enough of our tax dollars to go around! YEE HAW!
Yes, you read that right. Despite all the people who come here in boats, rafts and other floatation devices, we must do what is "right" and step up and give more people immigration benefits and resettlement assistance. While were at it, we should stop the "wet feet/dry feet" policy, or our interdiction policy and just let anyone come over here. Remember, to not let them come would infringe on their rights to "political asylum"! There are enough of our tax dollars to go around! YEE HAW!
Friday, June 29, 2007
Just when you thought you heard it all . . .
By now the whole world pretty much knows that the infamous "immigration reform bill of 2007" (a.k.a. Bush/Kennedy bill of 2007) is now dead in the water. This was covered so much, that I decided not to really hit on it in the blog world. But I read a small article today that made me chuckle, so here it is in all of its glory.
In an article seen here, L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa was incredibly disappointed, saying that "Our elected leaders -- people who are supposed to stand up on behalf of Americans -- were bullied by a small contingent of hate-mongering anti- immigrants completely unrepresentative of the larger American public, which continues to call for just, humane and effective solutions." He also said that 70% of Americans supported the legislature. This, despite poll after poll after poll (you get the point) stating otherwise.
He was probably reading another brilliantly drafted LA Times poll to distort the real views of the American people.
In an article seen here, L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa was incredibly disappointed, saying that "Our elected leaders -- people who are supposed to stand up on behalf of Americans -- were bullied by a small contingent of hate-mongering anti- immigrants completely unrepresentative of the larger American public, which continues to call for just, humane and effective solutions." He also said that 70% of Americans supported the legislature. This, despite poll after poll after poll (you get the point) stating otherwise.
He was probably reading another brilliantly drafted LA Times poll to distort the real views of the American people.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Military service of Presidential candidates
I was on HuffPo's blog today and there was an article making a huge ordeal about Mitt Romney's deferment from military service while he was serving as a missionary for the LDS church.. Apparently, getting a deferment and then years later, saying anything supporting the military at war makes you a hypocrite and a criminal in liberals eyes.
Additionally, it's an issue that some of the Republican candidates have not served in the military. They point to Rudy Giuliani since he received multiple educational and work deferrals. Well, I am not a huge fan of Giuliani, so I will go ahead and let that one go. He had an opportunity I am sure most of us would have taken to establish a career, and he did not serve. And this is the big sticking point of democrats and liberals.
So, I have taken the liberty of compiling a list of both parties' candidates and their military service. I would like to point out the following. First, out of the top 3 for Democrats (Clinton, Edwards, Obama), none have served, and only one had a small possibility of being drafted. Of the top 3 for Republicans (Romney, Giuliani, McCain), 1 is a veteran, and the other 2 received draft numbers, but did not get called.
I find a few things interesting about this research. First of all, I remember during the Clinton/Bush election, not serving in the military was really not a major factor in being an effective Commander-in-Chief. Now, it seems to be a big requirement (except if you are a Democrat candidate).
Second, I note that no Democrat who did not go through a period of time with a draft volunteered nonetheless.
Third, I see 4 Republican candidates are veterans. There is 1 Democrat veteran and one reservist (who might be considered a veteran). Add in Chuck Hagel on the Republican side, and you now get 5.
Lastly- I see deferments and medical disqualifications on both sides.
Anyway, the next time you hear this as an argument, or cut on Republicans, feel free to use this list.
DEMOCRATS
Joe Biden: None. Rejected for medical reasons, but would have been eligible in a national emergency.
Hillary Rodham Clinton: None.
Chris Dodd: Army Reserve (1969-75).
John Edwards: None. Draft number was never called.
Dennis Kucinich: None. Was rejected for military service because of a heart murmur.
Barack Obama: None. Too young to have been drafted for the Vietnam War.
Bill Richardson: None. Received student and medical classifications. Draft number was never called.
Mike Gravel: Served in the Army in the 1950s.
REPUBLICANS
Sam Brownback: None. Came of age as draft was ending.
Rudy Giuliani: None. Received student and occupational deferments. Draft number was never called.
Mike Huckabee: None. Came of age as draft was ending.
Duncan Hunter: Served as an Army paratrooper and Ranger in Vietnam (1969-71).
John McCain: Served in the Navy (1958-81); prisoner of war in Vietnam (1967-73).
Mitt Romney: None. Received a deferment as a Mormon missionary in France. Was eligible for the draft upon his return to the states but was never selected.
Tom Tancredo: None. Received student deferments. Was available for military service in 1969. Reclassified in 1970 because of stress-related anxiety and could have been called up only during a pressing national emergency.
Jim Gilmore: Served in the Army in West Germany.
Ron Paul: Served as an Air Force surgeon.
Additionally, it's an issue that some of the Republican candidates have not served in the military. They point to Rudy Giuliani since he received multiple educational and work deferrals. Well, I am not a huge fan of Giuliani, so I will go ahead and let that one go. He had an opportunity I am sure most of us would have taken to establish a career, and he did not serve. And this is the big sticking point of democrats and liberals.
So, I have taken the liberty of compiling a list of both parties' candidates and their military service. I would like to point out the following. First, out of the top 3 for Democrats (Clinton, Edwards, Obama), none have served, and only one had a small possibility of being drafted. Of the top 3 for Republicans (Romney, Giuliani, McCain), 1 is a veteran, and the other 2 received draft numbers, but did not get called.
I find a few things interesting about this research. First of all, I remember during the Clinton/Bush election, not serving in the military was really not a major factor in being an effective Commander-in-Chief. Now, it seems to be a big requirement (except if you are a Democrat candidate).
Second, I note that no Democrat who did not go through a period of time with a draft volunteered nonetheless.
Third, I see 4 Republican candidates are veterans. There is 1 Democrat veteran and one reservist (who might be considered a veteran). Add in Chuck Hagel on the Republican side, and you now get 5.
Lastly- I see deferments and medical disqualifications on both sides.
Anyway, the next time you hear this as an argument, or cut on Republicans, feel free to use this list.
DEMOCRATS
Joe Biden: None. Rejected for medical reasons, but would have been eligible in a national emergency.
Hillary Rodham Clinton: None.
Chris Dodd: Army Reserve (1969-75).
John Edwards: None. Draft number was never called.
Dennis Kucinich: None. Was rejected for military service because of a heart murmur.
Barack Obama: None. Too young to have been drafted for the Vietnam War.
Bill Richardson: None. Received student and medical classifications. Draft number was never called.
Mike Gravel: Served in the Army in the 1950s.
REPUBLICANS
Sam Brownback: None. Came of age as draft was ending.
Rudy Giuliani: None. Received student and occupational deferments. Draft number was never called.
Mike Huckabee: None. Came of age as draft was ending.
Duncan Hunter: Served as an Army paratrooper and Ranger in Vietnam (1969-71).
John McCain: Served in the Navy (1958-81); prisoner of war in Vietnam (1967-73).
Mitt Romney: None. Received a deferment as a Mormon missionary in France. Was eligible for the draft upon his return to the states but was never selected.
Tom Tancredo: None. Received student deferments. Was available for military service in 1969. Reclassified in 1970 because of stress-related anxiety and could have been called up only during a pressing national emergency.
Jim Gilmore: Served in the Army in West Germany.
Ron Paul: Served as an Air Force surgeon.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Paris Hilton, back in the clink
I am sure anyone who reads this will have already had more than their fill of this developing story, but it begs the question, why is everyone treating this story as though it is a life sentence?
I read this article commenting on the minute-by-minute details, including where Paris yelled "it's not fair!" and "Mom", after Judge Sauer (gasp), told her to finish her ORIGINAL jail sentence! Imagine that! The story was complete with her parents holding each other and her Mother crying in her husband's arms.
Read one interpretation here. My favorite line is: Paris Hilton's cool, glamorous image evaporated Friday as she gave the impression of a little girl lost in a merciless legal system.
What amazes me is how people seem to accept Paris as a normal human being. She is completely detached from reality. Here is someone who has never really worked a day in her life, got any "modeling" or "acting" career solely out of who she is and who her Dad is. Don't tell me that any show or shoot she has participated in was back breaking work.
The realy story behind this story is that she does not believe the law applies to her, as do most socialites who do not live in th everyday world. And as a result of this assumption of entitlement and the "I'm special! Look at me!" attitute, she cannot deal with being away from her privileged life for a month and a half. Considering that she will never serve the full 45 days, I highly doubt there is any real "medical" reason why Hilton cannot finish her just imprisonment.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Islam in San Diego public schools
I was perusing around on a local website and came across an article from April, 2007 regarding a public school (Carver Elementary) in San Diego, offering an Arabic class. A substitute teacher became alarmed when she was provided with a lesson plan that included a segregated class for Muslim girls and an hour for prayer. The article points out that according to the U.S. Department of Education, students may pray in school during recess, the lunch hour, or other non-instruction time, and that teachers may participate only when it is clear they are not endorsing or participating in their official capacities. This substitute teacher saw clear violations. Of course, according to the district, she “obviously” misread the curriculum and that prayer was only during recess.
While you think about that, please now reflect on another article I read recently about a case in Texas. Here is the gist: a school offers an elective course which discusses a generalized version of religion using the King James version of the bible.
According to the ACLU:
"This class is not about educating students. It is about proselytizing one set of religious beliefs to the exclusion of others," said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "Students who don't share those beliefs should not be treated as outsiders by their own schools."
Hmmmm . . . The Texas class offers a generalized version of religion which does not generally follow a particular religious viewpoint that shared by Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and many Protestants. In other words, it is so general and not directed at one faith that it is a directed viewpoint. Makes perfect sense. The ACLU views this is controversial and unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, the California class offers a review of a particular faith, including prayer with prayer mats, segregated classes, girls dressed in traditional garb, total secrecy with closed doors and drawn shades and the removal of the American flag. And that is just fine. Not a word from the ACLU.
Another point of contention is that “the public school course unconstitutionally uses the Bible to instill religious life lessons, having students memorize biblical passages and then discuss how they have affected their lives . . .”. I reflect back to another California controversy (from 2002, I might add) where Northern California schools offered a class where kids would memorize verses of the Koran, in addition to other such “educational” gems as dressing in traditional Muslim dress and praying in “the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful”.
Final note: the textbook used in the course presents Islam in a positive light whereas Christianity gets a negative spin.
You have to love the hypocrisy.
While you think about that, please now reflect on another article I read recently about a case in Texas. Here is the gist: a school offers an elective course which discusses a generalized version of religion using the King James version of the bible.
According to the ACLU:
"This class is not about educating students. It is about proselytizing one set of religious beliefs to the exclusion of others," said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "Students who don't share those beliefs should not be treated as outsiders by their own schools."
Hmmmm . . . The Texas class offers a generalized version of religion which does not generally follow a particular religious viewpoint that shared by Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and many Protestants. In other words, it is so general and not directed at one faith that it is a directed viewpoint. Makes perfect sense. The ACLU views this is controversial and unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, the California class offers a review of a particular faith, including prayer with prayer mats, segregated classes, girls dressed in traditional garb, total secrecy with closed doors and drawn shades and the removal of the American flag. And that is just fine. Not a word from the ACLU.
Another point of contention is that “the public school course unconstitutionally uses the Bible to instill religious life lessons, having students memorize biblical passages and then discuss how they have affected their lives . . .”. I reflect back to another California controversy (from 2002, I might add) where Northern California schools offered a class where kids would memorize verses of the Koran, in addition to other such “educational” gems as dressing in traditional Muslim dress and praying in “the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful”.
Final note: the textbook used in the course presents Islam in a positive light whereas Christianity gets a negative spin.
You have to love the hypocrisy.
Monday, May 28, 2007
The beginning of the end of Venzuelan free speech
In my endless search for the truth for issues in the world that interest me, I found myself reviewing an article from the AP staff, regarding the closure of Radio Caracas Television's (known as RCTV) VHF Channel 2. If you heard about it from reading Stephen Lendman of globalresearch.org (here), you might think that this all a good thing. After all, the evil "conservative" buzz words are there (hard-right, corporation), as well as the good "liberal" buzz words (public-television, diverse).
wink-wink- Your freedom's are going away!
So, why do I care? It's simple. Chavez is held in very high regard by the liberal media, for allegedly promiting a political agenda which is good for all Venzuelans, indeed, a model for the entire world. They focus on positive economic advancement in the country, ironically, held together by the oil industry of the country (which is another story altogether). But what you won't hear from Lendman, or the rest of the liberal media, is as follows:
The media circus of Venezuela is controlled by the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television. Introduced in 2003, by Venezuela's legislature, the objective of the proposed LSR is to define and “establish the social responsibility of radio and television service providers, related parties, national independent producers, and users in the process of broadcasting and reception of messages, promoting a democratic equilibrium between their duties, rights, and interests, with the goal of seeking social justice and contributing to citizenship formation, democracy, peace, human rights, education, culture, public health, and the social and economic development of the Nation, in conformity with constitutional norms and principles, legislation for the holistic protection of boys, girls, and adolescents, education, social security, free competition, and the Organic Telecommunications Law.”
What makes this a hypocrisy is the fact that the channel was not shut down for any of the reasons stated above, in fact it goes against one of the basic tenents of democratic nations- free speech and competition. Within hours after the replacement channel (TVES) going online, we have pro-Chavez songs on the airwaves and government advertising. What I also find interesting are the comments from liberal viewers on places like huffingtonpost.com, who always seem to do three things, when it comes to stories like this:
1. They find some way to link Bush to a story, which has nothing to do with him.
2. They create some over-the-top scenario which involves Bush or Republicans.
Examples of HufPo comments on this story today:
May 28, 2007 08:12pm PM EDT
Hmmm ...wonder if this would happen here ..if Gingrich and the republicans shut down PBS like they've been trying to do for years
— Posted by Amunaka Flag as abusive
Hmmm ...wonder if this would happen here ..if Gingrich and the republicans shut down PBS like they've been trying to do for years
— Posted by Amunaka Flag as abusive
May 28, 2007 08:15pm PM EDT
Bu$hco probably can't wait to shut down all but Faux News. I'm sure they're mighty jealous.Of course, this network apparently had pundit actively supporting overthrow of the government. I wonder if Faux News will do that should a Dem get elected?
— Posted by lisakaz Flag as abusive
Bu$hco probably can't wait to shut down all but Faux News. I'm sure they're mighty jealous.Of course, this network apparently had pundit actively supporting overthrow of the government. I wonder if Faux News will do that should a Dem get elected?
— Posted by lisakaz Flag as abusive
3. They ignore the true meaning of the story and the message it is meant to convey.
Make no mistake, this is only the beginning of more to come. File this story in your own personal archives for reflection later on, as more freedoms are stripped from the Venzuelan people.
wink-wink- Your freedom's are going away!
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Welcome all
I suppose every great blog must start with a welcome note. I mean, how else would you begin a blog, especially if no one knows who you are?
This blog has been a long time in the making. I comment and frequent many other blogs, yet have had no time to complete one of my own. Now that my major life committment of law school is over, I can finally get some real "me" time and write about all the things in life that make me smile, frown and laugh.
If you want to know more about me, see my profile section. If you want to leave a comment, I encourage them. And be sure to come back for more conservative viewpoints.
This blog has been a long time in the making. I comment and frequent many other blogs, yet have had no time to complete one of my own. Now that my major life committment of law school is over, I can finally get some real "me" time and write about all the things in life that make me smile, frown and laugh.
If you want to know more about me, see my profile section. If you want to leave a comment, I encourage them. And be sure to come back for more conservative viewpoints.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)