Sherri turned 30 yesterday. I don't know Sherri's last name, only that her co-workers care enough about her to put black balloons all over the medical office where she works. Bouncing around the office at 4:30 pm, she was ready for a night on the town the last time I saw her. I hope her headache isn't too bad this morning.
I took my grandson back to Amsterdam NY yesterday, and my youngest daughter was already down there visiting friends. We met briefly in a McDonald's parking lot so she could see her nephew before I took him back to his Mom. My daughter asked if I wanted to take home a bag of Beth's clothes that she had left with a friend the last time she was in Amsterdam. In that brief instant, I realized how casually we say "...the last time I was here or there ...etc.", and I also realized that the phrase "last time" can carry a finality that is as brutal as it is inevitable.
The tears were spontaneous, and it was a thoughtful drive to Utica. Then I met Sherri, and though I wished her a happy birthday, the only thought that kept running through my mind is that Beth will always be 27. In a few weeks, we will begin the now annual recognition of the fact that "Beth would have been 28 today ...etc,. etc."
The drive from Utica to Lowville was worse than the drive from Amsterdam to Utica. I had tears in my eyes as I pulled into our driveway, greeted by the sight of Koda, the little dog that Beth had paid $300 for as a gift to her Mom. I guess Koda thought I was going to pull to left and park on the hill, but I went straight and Koda died. The image of him running towards the car and the sound of the tires rolling over him will never leave me.
As I write this early on Thursday morning, I wonder what the new day holds in store. I don't know how many tears are left for today, because I used most of them up yesterday, but if I need them, I'm sure they'll come.
There is one thing of which I am certain - whatever happens in this life, there is usually a purpose, even if we can't see it. Sometimes we never understand what befalls us; but quitting is not an option - not if you believe in the sanctity of life. At times like these, faith is my pillar, and I sometimes wonder if atheists believe in Karma, or just the bumper sticker "Shit Happens".
I'll leave you today with these few lines from a song I wrote for an agnostic friend of mine:
Make your choice, only time will tell
If up is heaven and down is hell
There's no denying this simple truth
Faith is believing when you don't have proof
As the now popular saying goes:
God won't give me anything that I can't handle - I just wish he didn't trust me so much!
Until next time my friends, enjoy your day and squeeze every bit of joy and life you can out of it.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
More Benito Jr.
If I don't like what you say about me, I'll extol the virtues of my critic occasionally, try to grow and learn once in a while, and let it go in one ear and out the other 99% of the time. Call me crazy, but life is just to short to keep getting upset just because someone doesn't like you. If you're going to do anything in public, including blogging, you have to learn quickly that you can't make everyone like you. If you're easily upset by criticism, there are any number of jobs in the public eye that you should try and stay away from. Apparently, being President of Venezuela isn't one of them.
If you're the President of Venezuela, and you get PO'd by some foreigner, you can just have them thrown out of the country. There are any number of Venezuelans who would love to be offered that option, instead of the one's they are given. If you're President of Venezuela, you've got billions of gringo dollars pouring in to your piggy (and I do mean piggy) bank. They give you all this money, even though you tell the whole world how evil and stupid they are. If you're the President of Venezuela, you can freely call a Roman Catholic Cardinal an "imperialist clown" when he warns of your growing power. Why are there no Imam's warning of the danger you represent? You like Iran, Iran likes you; you have money; you love Fidel; you hate de gringos, you hate capitalism - yet enjoy it's rewards, and you want to be the leader of the world's socialists. It's a great freakin' job if you can get it.
Hugo Chavez: El Dufus de Benito Jr. de la Citgo El Jeffe - the man who controls the money - the President of Venezuela.
Congratulations America - you continue to prove that political ignorance is acceptable, unless it involves some endangered species. You continue to turn your backs on those you inspire, yet call some traitors who don't believe that pretentious human beings know much of anything about the history of climate on this planet. You crusade for freedom from energy needs, as long as the alternatives are not in your backyard, and you continue to buy gasoline from a despot who eventually will lead his country to disaster. That is the usual end for dictators; though some continue to maintain power after their Daddy passes it on - like in North Korea or Syria.
Maybe it won't be Benito Jr. himself that ignites the conflagration, but it will be the fruit of his loons.
If you're the President of Venezuela, and you get PO'd by some foreigner, you can just have them thrown out of the country. There are any number of Venezuelans who would love to be offered that option, instead of the one's they are given. If you're President of Venezuela, you've got billions of gringo dollars pouring in to your piggy (and I do mean piggy) bank. They give you all this money, even though you tell the whole world how evil and stupid they are. If you're the President of Venezuela, you can freely call a Roman Catholic Cardinal an "imperialist clown" when he warns of your growing power. Why are there no Imam's warning of the danger you represent? You like Iran, Iran likes you; you have money; you love Fidel; you hate de gringos, you hate capitalism - yet enjoy it's rewards, and you want to be the leader of the world's socialists. It's a great freakin' job if you can get it.
Hugo Chavez: El Dufus de Benito Jr. de la Citgo El Jeffe - the man who controls the money - the President of Venezuela.
Congratulations America - you continue to prove that political ignorance is acceptable, unless it involves some endangered species. You continue to turn your backs on those you inspire, yet call some traitors who don't believe that pretentious human beings know much of anything about the history of climate on this planet. You crusade for freedom from energy needs, as long as the alternatives are not in your backyard, and you continue to buy gasoline from a despot who eventually will lead his country to disaster. That is the usual end for dictators; though some continue to maintain power after their Daddy passes it on - like in North Korea or Syria.
Maybe it won't be Benito Jr. himself that ignites the conflagration, but it will be the fruit of his loons.
Monday, July 23, 2007
How To Win The War On Drugs
I'd like to take a page out of the Democrat playbook and suggest a means by which we can win the war on drugs and improve life in the United States - let's just quit. I'm not be facetious, I couldn't be more sincere. With all the money our vaunted Congress is getting ready to burn with their "earmarks", I can do a lot better things with some of that money than Congress can. Here's a quote from Bob Novak's column of this date:
"When the Defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark now pending in Congress: Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's game plan to satisfy anti-war activists with an all-night debate averted debate for now on these two earmarks."
The all night theatrics are not even worthy of further comment - let's focus on the $23 million for that "National Drug Intelligence Center". There are times when I wonder what Murtha is smoking, because $23 million for this center, located in his own district, is an idea only a person who is high could come up with.
If I could convince Congress to give me the $23 million, here's what I'd accomplish:
1.) Reduce violent crime by over 25%
2.) Increase high school graduation rates
3.) Eliminate the national debt within 3 years
4.) Reduce the number of Americans in jail
5.) Increase security on our borders
How would I accomplish all of this - make marijuana (that's a starting point) legal and let the government control the sales. Let's take a look at what I said I'd accomplish:
Reduce Violent Crime & The Number of Americans In Jail
You don't need to be a research scientist to figure out that much of our violent crime is drug related: either under the influence of, trying to get money to purchase drugs, sales/gang related violence, and you don't have to be a genius to figure out that our courts spend the vast majority of their time dealing with non-violent drug related issues, such as possession. Our jails are over-crowded with people convicted of victim-less crimes; people who would be considered average Americans - your neighbors.
We continue to be a nation that refuses to learn from history. The goody-two-shoes progressives (great-grandparents of today's liberals) who initiated Prohibition learned that Americans will ignore a stupid law passed by a vocal minority, and Americans are saying the same thing about pot today. From lawyers (not enough of them smoke it) to musicians (way too many of them smoke it) and all walks of life in between, American society rolls along with millions of closet potheads.
Increase High School Graduation Rates
Taken at face value, this category appears to indicate that I've been smoking something a lot stronger than pot. How in the world would making reefer legal increase high school graduation rates? I contend that by taking away the primary source of substantial income for younger people, rural as well as inner-city, the option of a high school education takes on much greater significance. One of the primary purposes for gang activity is removed, so we also reduce violence. As long as there are still drugs that can only be obtained illegally, the mobsters of today will continue to provide the product. If the government controls and taxes the product, we remove the allure of easy money, and we can also assure the quality of the product and reduce deaths attributed to drugs tainted with other substances.
Eliminate the National Debt Within 3 Years
I figure it would be closer to a year and a half, but I wanted some wiggle room (don't we all). Is there any doubt in any one's mind that once the government becomes involved in the control of anything, 3 things are bound to happen:
1.) Unintended levels of bureaucracy will develop - employing thousands who will gain government benefits the rest of us can only dream about . . .
2.) Liberals will find a way to tax the hell out of it in order to make sure that whatever is being controlled is readily available to those who can't afford it . . .
3.) Conservatives will find a way to tax the hell out of it in order to reduce debt and buy new toys to kick some terrorist-ass . . .
Increase Security on our Borders
With the money we've saved from our "War on Drugs", we'll have all we need to place Border Patrol officers every 10 feet along the entire border. One of the nicer, unintended consequences of this would be to take billions of dollars out of the pockets of Mexican drug lords. If we grow our own, they'll have to sell elsewhere and stop making our Southern Border a nightmare for Border Guards.
Although there is a bit of "tongue-in-cheek" in this piece, there is certainly a lot more that should be given some serious thought. From Nixon to Bush II, from "Just Say No" to "Hugs Are Better Than Drugs", you would have a difficult time finding other efforts where we've spent so much money for so little a result.
If there's one thing about the nature of mankind that has remained constant since the Egyptians first began brewing beer, and prior to that I'm sure, it's that we enjoy an occasional diversion from the humdrum of everyday life and the sorrows that it brings. We all use crutches; Budweiser or Buddha, God or ganja, we're only little specks of animated dust trying to get by until we become inanimate.
One other quick quote from Mr. Novak's column:
"Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., in his tumultuous six and one-half months as majority leader has tended to suppress free expression in the self-proclaimed World's Greatest Deliberative Body. He last week cut off an attempt to respond to him by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, in an abrupt way that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate-watching. Neither had Specter. When Specter finally got the Senate floor, he declared: 'Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world.' "
In my humble opinion, if we packed a few bongs and made the Senators all sit around, get high, eat twinkies and talk politics, we'd get about the same amount of work out of them, but it would be a lot more entertaining.
I guess it's just that libertarian streak in me, combined with an innate desire to swim against the tide, that allows me the hutzpah to propose this - or maybe I'm just sick of seeing so many people's lives disrupted because they smoke vegetation instead of eating it - unless you know Alice B. Toklas.
"When the Defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark now pending in Congress: Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's game plan to satisfy anti-war activists with an all-night debate averted debate for now on these two earmarks."
The all night theatrics are not even worthy of further comment - let's focus on the $23 million for that "National Drug Intelligence Center". There are times when I wonder what Murtha is smoking, because $23 million for this center, located in his own district, is an idea only a person who is high could come up with.
If I could convince Congress to give me the $23 million, here's what I'd accomplish:
1.) Reduce violent crime by over 25%
2.) Increase high school graduation rates
3.) Eliminate the national debt within 3 years
4.) Reduce the number of Americans in jail
5.) Increase security on our borders
How would I accomplish all of this - make marijuana (that's a starting point) legal and let the government control the sales. Let's take a look at what I said I'd accomplish:
Reduce Violent Crime & The Number of Americans In Jail
You don't need to be a research scientist to figure out that much of our violent crime is drug related: either under the influence of, trying to get money to purchase drugs, sales/gang related violence, and you don't have to be a genius to figure out that our courts spend the vast majority of their time dealing with non-violent drug related issues, such as possession. Our jails are over-crowded with people convicted of victim-less crimes; people who would be considered average Americans - your neighbors.
We continue to be a nation that refuses to learn from history. The goody-two-shoes progressives (great-grandparents of today's liberals) who initiated Prohibition learned that Americans will ignore a stupid law passed by a vocal minority, and Americans are saying the same thing about pot today. From lawyers (not enough of them smoke it) to musicians (way too many of them smoke it) and all walks of life in between, American society rolls along with millions of closet potheads.
Increase High School Graduation Rates
Taken at face value, this category appears to indicate that I've been smoking something a lot stronger than pot. How in the world would making reefer legal increase high school graduation rates? I contend that by taking away the primary source of substantial income for younger people, rural as well as inner-city, the option of a high school education takes on much greater significance. One of the primary purposes for gang activity is removed, so we also reduce violence. As long as there are still drugs that can only be obtained illegally, the mobsters of today will continue to provide the product. If the government controls and taxes the product, we remove the allure of easy money, and we can also assure the quality of the product and reduce deaths attributed to drugs tainted with other substances.
Eliminate the National Debt Within 3 Years
I figure it would be closer to a year and a half, but I wanted some wiggle room (don't we all). Is there any doubt in any one's mind that once the government becomes involved in the control of anything, 3 things are bound to happen:
1.) Unintended levels of bureaucracy will develop - employing thousands who will gain government benefits the rest of us can only dream about . . .
2.) Liberals will find a way to tax the hell out of it in order to make sure that whatever is being controlled is readily available to those who can't afford it . . .
3.) Conservatives will find a way to tax the hell out of it in order to reduce debt and buy new toys to kick some terrorist-ass . . .
Increase Security on our Borders
With the money we've saved from our "War on Drugs", we'll have all we need to place Border Patrol officers every 10 feet along the entire border. One of the nicer, unintended consequences of this would be to take billions of dollars out of the pockets of Mexican drug lords. If we grow our own, they'll have to sell elsewhere and stop making our Southern Border a nightmare for Border Guards.
Although there is a bit of "tongue-in-cheek" in this piece, there is certainly a lot more that should be given some serious thought. From Nixon to Bush II, from "Just Say No" to "Hugs Are Better Than Drugs", you would have a difficult time finding other efforts where we've spent so much money for so little a result.
If there's one thing about the nature of mankind that has remained constant since the Egyptians first began brewing beer, and prior to that I'm sure, it's that we enjoy an occasional diversion from the humdrum of everyday life and the sorrows that it brings. We all use crutches; Budweiser or Buddha, God or ganja, we're only little specks of animated dust trying to get by until we become inanimate.
One other quick quote from Mr. Novak's column:
"Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., in his tumultuous six and one-half months as majority leader has tended to suppress free expression in the self-proclaimed World's Greatest Deliberative Body. He last week cut off an attempt to respond to him by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, in an abrupt way that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate-watching. Neither had Specter. When Specter finally got the Senate floor, he declared: 'Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world.' "
In my humble opinion, if we packed a few bongs and made the Senators all sit around, get high, eat twinkies and talk politics, we'd get about the same amount of work out of them, but it would be a lot more entertaining.
I guess it's just that libertarian streak in me, combined with an innate desire to swim against the tide, that allows me the hutzpah to propose this - or maybe I'm just sick of seeing so many people's lives disrupted because they smoke vegetation instead of eating it - unless you know Alice B. Toklas.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
The Russians, Colonoscopies & Woodchucks
Back on May 31, 2007, in a blog entitled "Food For Thought", I wrote about Russian President Vladimir Putin and the signals that seemed to be indicating his potential to end Russia's experiment with democracy. His belligerent posture as regards the missile defense system we've offered to create with them, the current troubled relations with Great Britain over the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko, the lack of investigation into the murders of oppostion journalists, cyber-attacks on another nation, and his apparent determination to take a contrary stance to the Western democracies at every opportunity, could easily lead suspicious persons such as myself to conclude that we have a very dangerous bear in Moscow.
Now comes a story in the Washington Post regarding two new manuals for high school history and social studies teachers, written with the help of Kremlin political consultants. Some interesting quotes from that article:
The history guide contains a laudatory review of President Vladimir Putin's years in power. "We see that practically every significant deed is connected with the name and activity of President V.V. Putin," declares its last chapter. The social studies guide is marked by intense hostility to the United States.
The social studies manual, "Social Studies: The Global World in the 21st Century," observes that "from the beginning of the 1990s, the U.S. tried to realize a global empire. The basic political principle underpinning any empire is divide and rule. Therefore one of the U.S. strategies was to isolate Russia from all the other former Soviet republics."
But the United States may be near "final collapse," according to the manual, because "America can no longer integrate into a single unit or unite into a nation of 'whites,' 'blacks,' (they are called African-Americans in the language of political correctness) 'Latinos' (Latin Americans) and others."
According to the new history manual, Stalin was brutal but also "the most successful leader of the U.S.S.R.
Here's the link to the entire article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902707.html?sub=AR
It is difficult for us to understand how anyone could misconstrue the current political framework in Russia as a democracy - it's pretty tough for a lot of Russians too. Something for my conservative friends to consider - the potential for government to control us is omnipresent - so a liberal press is not always a bad thing. Don't be worried, I don't trust the liberal press either, but they serve a purpose and they are functional, just like your anus.
Speaking of the rear entrance, President Bush underwent a colonoscopy this morning. Nothing really newsworthy, other than the fact that it was only the second time in the past seven years that conservatives could walk the streets of America with out fear. Why you ask? Well, since Dick Cheney was acting-President for about five hours, liberals everywhere went to ground and found bunkers where they could survive the potential for Armageddon that the Veep represents to them.
So be careful if you're out hunting woodchucks, the head peeking up out the ground could be a fuzzy-headed liberal, not a woodchuck.
Now comes a story in the Washington Post regarding two new manuals for high school history and social studies teachers, written with the help of Kremlin political consultants. Some interesting quotes from that article:
The history guide contains a laudatory review of President Vladimir Putin's years in power. "We see that practically every significant deed is connected with the name and activity of President V.V. Putin," declares its last chapter. The social studies guide is marked by intense hostility to the United States.
The social studies manual, "Social Studies: The Global World in the 21st Century," observes that "from the beginning of the 1990s, the U.S. tried to realize a global empire. The basic political principle underpinning any empire is divide and rule. Therefore one of the U.S. strategies was to isolate Russia from all the other former Soviet republics."
But the United States may be near "final collapse," according to the manual, because "America can no longer integrate into a single unit or unite into a nation of 'whites,' 'blacks,' (they are called African-Americans in the language of political correctness) 'Latinos' (Latin Americans) and others."
According to the new history manual, Stalin was brutal but also "the most successful leader of the U.S.S.R.
Here's the link to the entire article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902707.html?sub=AR
It is difficult for us to understand how anyone could misconstrue the current political framework in Russia as a democracy - it's pretty tough for a lot of Russians too. Something for my conservative friends to consider - the potential for government to control us is omnipresent - so a liberal press is not always a bad thing. Don't be worried, I don't trust the liberal press either, but they serve a purpose and they are functional, just like your anus.
Speaking of the rear entrance, President Bush underwent a colonoscopy this morning. Nothing really newsworthy, other than the fact that it was only the second time in the past seven years that conservatives could walk the streets of America with out fear. Why you ask? Well, since Dick Cheney was acting-President for about five hours, liberals everywhere went to ground and found bunkers where they could survive the potential for Armageddon that the Veep represents to them.
So be careful if you're out hunting woodchucks, the head peeking up out the ground could be a fuzzy-headed liberal, not a woodchuck.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Get Your Green Hands Off My Steak!
The Rubicon has been crossed - there is no going back now. I have tried to keep an open mind about global warming, and perhaps I would have been more inclined to take AlGore seriously had he kept the beard he grew after losing the election. In fact, if he had gone with the Noah look from "Evan Almighty", I might have considered him a prophet crying out in the desert. But Al shaved, became a movie mogul, made some green and still jets around the world, dumping more crap into the atmosphere then you or I will dump in our lifetimes.
The real problem with this global-warming-we-are-the-scourge-of-the-earth scare is that up to this point, half the greenies seem content to just run around like Chicken Little, while the other half dream up idiotic carbon-credit schemes that do nothing other than green their bank accounts. While that suits me just fine, because they don't accomplish anything, and I'll never buy a carbon credit as long as I live, I have just found a story that scares the cholesterol right out of my blood.
The following is a quote from a paper in England:
Eating beef ' is less green than driving'
Last Updated: 2:59am BST 19/07/2007
The real problem with this global-warming-we-are-the-scourge-of-the-earth scare is that up to this point, half the greenies seem content to just run around like Chicken Little, while the other half dream up idiotic carbon-credit schemes that do nothing other than green their bank accounts. While that suits me just fine, because they don't accomplish anything, and I'll never buy a carbon credit as long as I live, I have just found a story that scares the cholesterol right out of my blood.
The following is a quote from a paper in England:
Eating beef ' is less green than driving'
Last Updated: 2:59am BST 19/07/2007
Producing 2.2lb of beef generates as much greenhouse gas as driving a car non-stop for three hours, it was claimed yesterday. Japanese scientists used a range of data to calculate the environmental impact of a single purchase of beef. Taking into account all the processes involved, they said, four average sized steaks generated greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 80.25lb of carbon dioxide. This also consumed 169 megajoules of energy.
That means that 2.2lb of beef is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions which have the same effect as the carbon dioxide released by an ordinary car travelling at 50 miles per hour for 155 miles, a journey lasting three hours. The amount of energy consumed would light a 100-watt bulb for 20 days. Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of methane released from the animals' digestive systems, New Scientist magazine reported."
When you start pooping on my porterhouse, roughing up my round steak, trashing my tenderloins, spitting on my strip steak, or f***ing with my filet, it's time to draw a line in the sand!
When you start pooping on my porterhouse, roughing up my round steak, trashing my tenderloins, spitting on my strip steak, or f***ing with my filet, it's time to draw a line in the sand!
I can see it now - as a life-long vegetarian, Paul McCartney will be elected President of the UN in order to save the world and have us all poop green for the next two thousand years.
Instead of turning us all into veggie-mans, let's put our American creativity and know-how to work and figure out a way to turn this to our advantage. Instead of the straight-line layout you see on these large farms, we need to use a circular setup. 100 cows surrounding a metal holding tank with hoses shoved up their - you know - to capture the gas and other materials. The methane separates from the solids and liquids, methane for energy, and the other stuff for fertilizer. We can do the Bovine-Depends as a stop-gap measure, but don't forget about the sheep and other domesticated animals. As far as the wild animals go, I guess it's about time we found out if a bear does s*** in the woods - damned planet contaminator. Come to think of it, diapering a Kodiak is a job I could trust Hillary with . . . heh, heh, heh . . .
Arise fellow meat-eaters. Whether your a tartar man, or a nitwit that likes it well done, you're still a steak-lover and that's what counts. Don't let the PC green-meanies take away your right to clogged arteries, your freedom to use as much bernaise sauce as you want, and by golly, if you want your meat wrapped in bacon, well pardner, life just doesn't get any better than that. So stand tall, drink your milk like your Momma told you to, and if you have to be a vegetarian, don't think your s*** doesn't stink - it still does.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Zogby Polls & The GSP
I have been a participant in Zogby polls for over 5 years now, and I always enjoy participating in them. The latest news from Zogby is that Congress has hit an all time approval low of 14%. I can't ever remember giving them anything other than a poor performance rating, but if they had anything lower, I'd opt for that classification now.
The Democrat Pajama Party began last night with a march to a "Peace Rally", and plenty of photo ops, even though this was not a political ploy according to the head Dems. Once again they managed to do little other than firm up the Republican opposition to their blatantly partisan ploy.
Since the Republican Party is also referred to, amongst other names, as the GOP, or the Grand Old Party, I would like to propose a new moniker for the Democrat Party:
The GSP: The Grand-Standing Party
There should be no doubt in any Americans mind that our primary objective is to get out of Iraq as soon as possible - the definition of possible being the crux of the issue. If the government were to operate as a truly representative assembly of the people, then this is what they'd do:
SHUT UP & WHEN YOU CAN'T - OBFUSCATE
If the welfare of the United States was the primary concern of the Democrat Party, they would walk the same walk, and talk the same talk as the President - at least in the majority of cases, even though they disagreed. A democracy is a thing of beauty, but politicians are incredibly stupid. If there are disagreements, they should be handled behind closed doors and not played out in the press. If we want to set a target date to start withdrawing troops, fine let's do it - but you don't broadcast it to the enemy. You give the enemy what any intelligence officer would advise you to give: disinformation.
That, however, is not the way of the GSP. I have often said in conversations with opponents of our efforts: "If Bill Clinton were the one who had sent troops into Iraq, the Dems would be 100% behind it." Answers have varied from, "he wouldn't have done it", to "he would have built a better coalition", but I have yet to hear - "Oh you're wrong, the Dems would have opposed it even then." Of course, as soon as I finally do here that reply, I'll know I'm speaking with another BS practitioner.
If it weren't for their overwhelming desire for political advantage, and the power that goes hand in hand with it, maybe the Dems would actually start acting like they want us to win the War on Terror - at least the ones who think there is a war. There really is little hope for those who subscribe to the Breck Boy's theory that The War on Terror is just a bumper-sticker phrase.
The Democrat Pajama Party began last night with a march to a "Peace Rally", and plenty of photo ops, even though this was not a political ploy according to the head Dems. Once again they managed to do little other than firm up the Republican opposition to their blatantly partisan ploy.
Since the Republican Party is also referred to, amongst other names, as the GOP, or the Grand Old Party, I would like to propose a new moniker for the Democrat Party:
The GSP: The Grand-Standing Party
There should be no doubt in any Americans mind that our primary objective is to get out of Iraq as soon as possible - the definition of possible being the crux of the issue. If the government were to operate as a truly representative assembly of the people, then this is what they'd do:
SHUT UP & WHEN YOU CAN'T - OBFUSCATE
If the welfare of the United States was the primary concern of the Democrat Party, they would walk the same walk, and talk the same talk as the President - at least in the majority of cases, even though they disagreed. A democracy is a thing of beauty, but politicians are incredibly stupid. If there are disagreements, they should be handled behind closed doors and not played out in the press. If we want to set a target date to start withdrawing troops, fine let's do it - but you don't broadcast it to the enemy. You give the enemy what any intelligence officer would advise you to give: disinformation.
That, however, is not the way of the GSP. I have often said in conversations with opponents of our efforts: "If Bill Clinton were the one who had sent troops into Iraq, the Dems would be 100% behind it." Answers have varied from, "he wouldn't have done it", to "he would have built a better coalition", but I have yet to hear - "Oh you're wrong, the Dems would have opposed it even then." Of course, as soon as I finally do here that reply, I'll know I'm speaking with another BS practitioner.
If it weren't for their overwhelming desire for political advantage, and the power that goes hand in hand with it, maybe the Dems would actually start acting like they want us to win the War on Terror - at least the ones who think there is a war. There really is little hope for those who subscribe to the Breck Boy's theory that The War on Terror is just a bumper-sticker phrase.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Pretentious Beer Drinkers - Expand Your Horizons
I'm posting tonight from my hotel room in beautiful Saratoga Springs. No, the racing season doesn't start until next week, so you can still afford a hotel room here - as long as the company is paying for it.
I received an email today that made me think of all the handy men here in the North Country who have a beer keg, inside a refrigerator, placed in their rec room, their cellar, or the "Average Man's Fortress of Solitude" - the garage. The reason so many liberals look down on us is that they see us as beer swilling rednecks who have never developed a brain or a taste for the finer things in life. I personally feel that beer and tomato juice, the "Poor Man's Bloody Mary", is a darn fine concoction.
In an effort to promote a better understanding of the effete elite of society, WalMart will soon be bridging the cultural gap with a fine selection of wines created especially for them by the Gallo family. Not the ones in California, Guido and Connie Gallo from Jersey.
Coming soon to a WalMart near you, look for these fine selections:
Chateau Traileur Parc
White Trashfindel
Big Red Gulp (Also available - Big White Gulp - use your imagination)
World Championship Riesling
NASCARbernet
Chef Boyardeaux
Peanut Noir
I Can't Believe it's not Vinegar
Grape Expectations
Nasti Spumante
The beauty of Wal-Mart wine is that it can be served with either white meat (Possum), red meat (Squirrel), or fish (Mrs. Paul's or bullheads). Now don't give me any crap about possum not being white meat - it's all in the eye of the beholder.
For those of you who didn't finish high school, or slept through literature class, Grape Expectations is not the book written by that old English feller - Charlie Dickens - his great-great-great-great grandkids are the ones that own the cider stand - that was Great Expectorations, and he also writ David Copperfield - a story about some magician who gets dumped by this hot babe.
That's all from the culture front for today - you boys behave yourselves now.
I received an email today that made me think of all the handy men here in the North Country who have a beer keg, inside a refrigerator, placed in their rec room, their cellar, or the "Average Man's Fortress of Solitude" - the garage. The reason so many liberals look down on us is that they see us as beer swilling rednecks who have never developed a brain or a taste for the finer things in life. I personally feel that beer and tomato juice, the "Poor Man's Bloody Mary", is a darn fine concoction.
In an effort to promote a better understanding of the effete elite of society, WalMart will soon be bridging the cultural gap with a fine selection of wines created especially for them by the Gallo family. Not the ones in California, Guido and Connie Gallo from Jersey.
Coming soon to a WalMart near you, look for these fine selections:
Chateau Traileur Parc
White Trashfindel
Big Red Gulp (Also available - Big White Gulp - use your imagination)
World Championship Riesling
NASCARbernet
Chef Boyardeaux
Peanut Noir
I Can't Believe it's not Vinegar
Grape Expectations
Nasti Spumante
The beauty of Wal-Mart wine is that it can be served with either white meat (Possum), red meat (Squirrel), or fish (Mrs. Paul's or bullheads). Now don't give me any crap about possum not being white meat - it's all in the eye of the beholder.
For those of you who didn't finish high school, or slept through literature class, Grape Expectations is not the book written by that old English feller - Charlie Dickens - his great-great-great-great grandkids are the ones that own the cider stand - that was Great Expectorations, and he also writ David Copperfield - a story about some magician who gets dumped by this hot babe.
That's all from the culture front for today - you boys behave yourselves now.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Who's Revolution Is It?
Imagine yourself as a member of the Continental Congress. When the Stamp Act was passed in 1765, a chain of events was set in motion that helped create the need for a legislative body that could make decisions for 13 very distinctive states. Ten years later in 1775, at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, rebellion erupted and for the next seven years many of your fellow countrymen gave their lives for your independence. During that time, Tories killed and tortured their rebellious neighbors, and vice versa.
Then in 1782, the Treaty of Paris is signed and although fighting continues for a while, it is the end of the Revolutionary War for all intents and purposes.
How long did it take for our ancestors to create a constitution and ratify it? The Constitution of the United States of America was finally ratified on September 17, 1787. Was George Washington already the President? The answer is no - Washington was notified that he had been elected President on April 14, 1789.
Now, imagine that the French are pretentious - I know it's tough, but try. Thanks to their entrance into the war and due in large part to their navy, we have managed to defeat those we considered to be tyrants. Imagine also that they've been setting bench marks and guidelines for us to stick to, as they are anxious to get repaid for all the money that Ben Franklin talked them out of. The treaty is signed in 1782, but it's five years before a constitution is ratified and seven years before a President is elected, and there are still many years of work ahead to determine what degree federalism should be allowed to invade upon states rights.
Even though the vast majority of the congressional delegates once considered themselves British subjects, and are therefore a rather homogeneous body, working out the details of a new government that has never been tried before is a difficult task.
Now let's fast forward to today and the blithering idiots we have elected as Congressmen and Senators. Pretentiousness will always be ascribed to the French - sorry Jacques - but our elected officials have even outdone the French this time. This week, once again, the Dems will introduce legislation demanding a withdrawal of our troops on some Disney-esque timeline.
We have become what ever great power has become - a nation of contented cows who have forgotten what it's like to be slated for the slaughter house. How long a fight is required to outlast terrorism? It's quite simple really - as long as it takes.
Since the days of the Peanut President, America has time and again encouraged people to fight for their freedom, and then left them hanging in the lurch when the American public was swayed by the liberal philosophy that ass-kissing, ala Neville Chamberlain, is the way to win friends and influence people. Liberals are children of God too, deserving of love and respect - it's just incredibly difficult to remember that whenever Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth or Dick Durbin compares our soldiers to Nazis.
The war is lost, the surge has failed, do not pass Go - send Bush to jail!
Maybe I should copyright that phrase, put it on t-shirts and sell it on college campuses - it's just the type of liberal jingoism that could make me a fortune.
I know the French were not here, patrolling our streets, getting shot at by Minutemen, and I know there are many other dissimilarities. You need not have an exact duplication of a situation in order to garner lessons from it.
It would be nice if these liberal Dem's would remember our history, the years of struggle it took for us to become a nation, and allow the people of Iraq the same opportunity. Based on our history, how can any American say that freedom is not worth dying for - be it ours or others who are struggling to create something revolutionary; something that has never tried before in the Arab world - a separation of church and state that will allow a degree of freedom previously known only by Bedouins.
Then in 1782, the Treaty of Paris is signed and although fighting continues for a while, it is the end of the Revolutionary War for all intents and purposes.
How long did it take for our ancestors to create a constitution and ratify it? The Constitution of the United States of America was finally ratified on September 17, 1787. Was George Washington already the President? The answer is no - Washington was notified that he had been elected President on April 14, 1789.
Now, imagine that the French are pretentious - I know it's tough, but try. Thanks to their entrance into the war and due in large part to their navy, we have managed to defeat those we considered to be tyrants. Imagine also that they've been setting bench marks and guidelines for us to stick to, as they are anxious to get repaid for all the money that Ben Franklin talked them out of. The treaty is signed in 1782, but it's five years before a constitution is ratified and seven years before a President is elected, and there are still many years of work ahead to determine what degree federalism should be allowed to invade upon states rights.
Even though the vast majority of the congressional delegates once considered themselves British subjects, and are therefore a rather homogeneous body, working out the details of a new government that has never been tried before is a difficult task.
Now let's fast forward to today and the blithering idiots we have elected as Congressmen and Senators. Pretentiousness will always be ascribed to the French - sorry Jacques - but our elected officials have even outdone the French this time. This week, once again, the Dems will introduce legislation demanding a withdrawal of our troops on some Disney-esque timeline.
We have become what ever great power has become - a nation of contented cows who have forgotten what it's like to be slated for the slaughter house. How long a fight is required to outlast terrorism? It's quite simple really - as long as it takes.
Since the days of the Peanut President, America has time and again encouraged people to fight for their freedom, and then left them hanging in the lurch when the American public was swayed by the liberal philosophy that ass-kissing, ala Neville Chamberlain, is the way to win friends and influence people. Liberals are children of God too, deserving of love and respect - it's just incredibly difficult to remember that whenever Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth or Dick Durbin compares our soldiers to Nazis.
The war is lost, the surge has failed, do not pass Go - send Bush to jail!
Maybe I should copyright that phrase, put it on t-shirts and sell it on college campuses - it's just the type of liberal jingoism that could make me a fortune.
I know the French were not here, patrolling our streets, getting shot at by Minutemen, and I know there are many other dissimilarities. You need not have an exact duplication of a situation in order to garner lessons from it.
It would be nice if these liberal Dem's would remember our history, the years of struggle it took for us to become a nation, and allow the people of Iraq the same opportunity. Based on our history, how can any American say that freedom is not worth dying for - be it ours or others who are struggling to create something revolutionary; something that has never tried before in the Arab world - a separation of church and state that will allow a degree of freedom previously known only by Bedouins.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
...and on, and on, and on ...
Perhaps the many miles and long hours over the past few days have taken there toll. After watching the news, listening to John Conyers, Patrick Leahy, Dick Durbin and Diane Feinstein, I felt the urge to bang my head against the wall. Then, out of the blue, comes the voice of Chucky Shummer, and suddenly I understand why some people commit suicide, while others head for the nearest bell tower with their cache of automatic weapons.
Since adjusting the minimum wage, I wonder just what has been accomplished by this Democrat Congress. To be sure, the Republicans have done an admirable job of outmaneuvering them in many instances, but they seem content to investigate and condemn, while achieving nothing of value. As long as they have ample opportunity to try and bitch slap the President, they appear to care little for anything else.
At this point, even if we suffer another horrific terrorist attack this summer, I'm afraid that the only thing the Democrat's will do is blame the attack on the fact that we're in Iraq. They will do so because their base would believe it without question, and because they believe the vast majority of Americans are either too ignorant to know better, or too ambivalent to care. They will be absolutely incorrect, but since political advantage is their primary concern, being accurate and honest is not a prerequisite. That last sentence also applies to many Republicans as well. I can understand the diaphanous treachery of Democrats for political advantage, but I have a hard time understanding the Republicans who's knees have buckled.
Anyone who suggests that the surge has already failed is either a liberal partisan, or someone who has motives other than the ones they would have us believe.
If the Dems haven't managed to screw things up by the middle of September and General Pratraeus is allowed to give his report, I'll bet a dollar to a hole in a donut that they'll reject the report out of hand, regardless of the facts on the ground. If you don't believe that, you don't know a real politician. I'd bet a lot more, but anyone who still supports the war wouldn't take the bet, and of the remainder, some wouldn't pay off at all, while those that did would probably have a fine print stipulation that assures the money is used buy carbon credits instead of fertilizing my bank account.
If global warming means San Francisco disappears beneath the waves, how can anyone be against that?
Since adjusting the minimum wage, I wonder just what has been accomplished by this Democrat Congress. To be sure, the Republicans have done an admirable job of outmaneuvering them in many instances, but they seem content to investigate and condemn, while achieving nothing of value. As long as they have ample opportunity to try and bitch slap the President, they appear to care little for anything else.
At this point, even if we suffer another horrific terrorist attack this summer, I'm afraid that the only thing the Democrat's will do is blame the attack on the fact that we're in Iraq. They will do so because their base would believe it without question, and because they believe the vast majority of Americans are either too ignorant to know better, or too ambivalent to care. They will be absolutely incorrect, but since political advantage is their primary concern, being accurate and honest is not a prerequisite. That last sentence also applies to many Republicans as well. I can understand the diaphanous treachery of Democrats for political advantage, but I have a hard time understanding the Republicans who's knees have buckled.
Anyone who suggests that the surge has already failed is either a liberal partisan, or someone who has motives other than the ones they would have us believe.
If the Dems haven't managed to screw things up by the middle of September and General Pratraeus is allowed to give his report, I'll bet a dollar to a hole in a donut that they'll reject the report out of hand, regardless of the facts on the ground. If you don't believe that, you don't know a real politician. I'd bet a lot more, but anyone who still supports the war wouldn't take the bet, and of the remainder, some wouldn't pay off at all, while those that did would probably have a fine print stipulation that assures the money is used buy carbon credits instead of fertilizing my bank account.
If global warming means San Francisco disappears beneath the waves, how can anyone be against that?
Saturday, July 7, 2007
When It Comes To Al Qaeda - The Unbelievable May Be Believed
As I have mentioned in past posts, Michael Yon is an ex-serviceman who spends most of his time with the troops in the field in Iraq, posting reports that you won't find in the mainstream media. I encourage you to read his latest post: Baqubah Update: 05 July 2007 - you can check it out by clicking on this address or cut and paste it into your browser: http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm
There is an incident that was recounted by an Iraqi official who did not want his name used. I will not say that the incident actually took place, simply because I find it hard to believe, but also because there is no additional verification - yet.
It was the opinion of this Iraqi that Al Qaeda came into Baqubah, united the criminal gangs, and also employed young teenage boys in their efforts. They initially attacked only Shia, but then started targeting Sunni who did not agree with their approach. The story goes that one family was invited to lunch by the local Al Qaeda thugs, only to have their son served to them after Al Qaeda had baked him. If you go back and take a look at Michael's earlier posts from Baqubah, you'll find pictures of a massacre that took place, including women and children. Didn't see it on the main stream media news? Gee - what a surprise. It did make a brief appearance on Fox and The Drudge Report, but no where else I could find.
Whether or not the story is urban myth or factual, is there any doubt that Al Qaeda is capable of such atrocities?
Until the day I die, the position of the Democrat Party will remain incomprehensible to me. I say that because I firmly believe that if it were Billary who decided to enter Iraq, they would be firmly behind our efforts. To be sure, there are a small majority who just wouldn't support any war for any reason, but for most of these politicians, their position is politically motivated. That goes for the weak-kneed Republicans as well.
If you can keep a straight face and say that we're not fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, then you are either a psychophant, a fool, or like Jimmy Carter, a repulsive combination of both.
Although I become less and less enchanted with President Bush's handling of the war from day one, I will never waver in my support for the troops or for the mission. The War on Terrorism cannot be ignored, nor can it be denied, as the Breck Boy would have us do. I will not submit to the sense of pessimism that the main stream media assaults us with every day; I will not let the terrorists change the way I live my life, and I will not support any candidate from any party who wishes to cut and run from Iraq.
If that makes me part of the minority in this country, then I'm damn proud to be a member of that minority.
There is an incident that was recounted by an Iraqi official who did not want his name used. I will not say that the incident actually took place, simply because I find it hard to believe, but also because there is no additional verification - yet.
It was the opinion of this Iraqi that Al Qaeda came into Baqubah, united the criminal gangs, and also employed young teenage boys in their efforts. They initially attacked only Shia, but then started targeting Sunni who did not agree with their approach. The story goes that one family was invited to lunch by the local Al Qaeda thugs, only to have their son served to them after Al Qaeda had baked him. If you go back and take a look at Michael's earlier posts from Baqubah, you'll find pictures of a massacre that took place, including women and children. Didn't see it on the main stream media news? Gee - what a surprise. It did make a brief appearance on Fox and The Drudge Report, but no where else I could find.
Whether or not the story is urban myth or factual, is there any doubt that Al Qaeda is capable of such atrocities?
Until the day I die, the position of the Democrat Party will remain incomprehensible to me. I say that because I firmly believe that if it were Billary who decided to enter Iraq, they would be firmly behind our efforts. To be sure, there are a small majority who just wouldn't support any war for any reason, but for most of these politicians, their position is politically motivated. That goes for the weak-kneed Republicans as well.
If you can keep a straight face and say that we're not fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, then you are either a psychophant, a fool, or like Jimmy Carter, a repulsive combination of both.
Although I become less and less enchanted with President Bush's handling of the war from day one, I will never waver in my support for the troops or for the mission. The War on Terrorism cannot be ignored, nor can it be denied, as the Breck Boy would have us do. I will not submit to the sense of pessimism that the main stream media assaults us with every day; I will not let the terrorists change the way I live my life, and I will not support any candidate from any party who wishes to cut and run from Iraq.
If that makes me part of the minority in this country, then I'm damn proud to be a member of that minority.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Someday ...
This 4th of July will be no different then the last few we've observed:
Half the country at war, half the country convinced we're in a bumper-sticker war . . .
Half the country believing the War in Iraq is fighting terrorism, half the country believing we should redeploy God knows where, or just cut and run . . .
More than half the country secure in their faith to the point where it is not necessary to make a public issue of the matter, the smaller percentage of secularist-ACLU-lovers who's main goal is to make sure there is no reference to God anywhere in public . . .
More than half the country believing that life begins at conception, and less than half the country willing to destroy that life for the sake of convenience or to support a woman's right to murder without penalty . . .
I purposely chose to use the word "murder" to describe an abortion to illustrate a point. The practice, by both sides, of demonizing and offending the other side, instead of debating, is part of the problem itself. Selecting words that you know offend your opposition may make you feel like a member of the Algonquin Club, but it won't help resolve anything. If I (like most everyone else) continue that lack of civility for the opposition, then how in the world will the country ever approach any degree of unity?
I have long considered abortion to be the one of the most important issues this country will ever face. The simple fact of the matter is that the religious beliefs of millions in this country define abortion as murder, and against the law of God. However, according to the law of man, there are times and conditions when an abortion is considered acceptable.
I'll paraphrase a couple of things from the bible, in terms more recognizable today. Christian or not, the sentiments apply to both sides of the issue.
Give up to God what is His, and give the damn government what they thinks theirs. And while you're at it, don't worry about the sliver in your neighbor's butt, you're sittin' on a fence post. Oh, and as far as your neighbor goes, it's not your place to judge him - I'll take care of that Myself.
If anything is ever going to be truly settled in this debate, then there must be give on each side. Here's a concept I could live with:
WHAT CONSERVATIVES GET & LIBERALS GIVE
Modern technology allows us to see, in color, the complete development of the fetus. Any woman, 18 years of age or older, who seeks an abortion within the permitted time frame, must first view the fetus in her womb, in color. If, after that, she decides to continue, so be it. I know that many abortion opponents won't like that. However, if you have faith as a Christian, you believe that God will come to judge the living and the dead. Let Him be the judge, while we continue to offer love and comfort to all of God's children, especially any woman struggling with such a terrible decision.
WHAT LIBERALS GET & CONSERVATIVES GIVE
The end of the assault on Roe v. Wade. The change won't be immediate, no one can promise that there won't be the occasional nut case at an abortion clinic, but the acceptance by the vast majority of Americans would alleviate the climate of fear that surrounds abortion practitioners and those that use their services.
Momentum is a funny thing. Inertia is it's enemy. In our case, the loggerhead that has settled over Washington for the past score of years has been a reflection of our own inability to come to any acceptable compromise as a people. If we can just find one, very important subject, address the issue once and for all, perhaps we could finally (I hate to say this) move on.
I don't expect to be able to change the world, all I can do is offer up what few cogent observations I'm capable of. If you think the idea has merit, share it with someone, especially if they don't agree with your position. Talk about it; get them to share the idea with others. Perhaps the internet is capable of more than we've ever dreamed of, because it's surely capable of scaring the crap out of the political aristocracy in D.C.
By the way, I did replace the laptop screen myself, no parts left over, and I didn't use the hammer or the duct tape.
Will wonders never cease - have a safe and happy 4th of July fellow Americans!
Half the country at war, half the country convinced we're in a bumper-sticker war . . .
Half the country believing the War in Iraq is fighting terrorism, half the country believing we should redeploy God knows where, or just cut and run . . .
More than half the country secure in their faith to the point where it is not necessary to make a public issue of the matter, the smaller percentage of secularist-ACLU-lovers who's main goal is to make sure there is no reference to God anywhere in public . . .
More than half the country believing that life begins at conception, and less than half the country willing to destroy that life for the sake of convenience or to support a woman's right to murder without penalty . . .
I purposely chose to use the word "murder" to describe an abortion to illustrate a point. The practice, by both sides, of demonizing and offending the other side, instead of debating, is part of the problem itself. Selecting words that you know offend your opposition may make you feel like a member of the Algonquin Club, but it won't help resolve anything. If I (like most everyone else) continue that lack of civility for the opposition, then how in the world will the country ever approach any degree of unity?
I have long considered abortion to be the one of the most important issues this country will ever face. The simple fact of the matter is that the religious beliefs of millions in this country define abortion as murder, and against the law of God. However, according to the law of man, there are times and conditions when an abortion is considered acceptable.
I'll paraphrase a couple of things from the bible, in terms more recognizable today. Christian or not, the sentiments apply to both sides of the issue.
Give up to God what is His, and give the damn government what they thinks theirs. And while you're at it, don't worry about the sliver in your neighbor's butt, you're sittin' on a fence post. Oh, and as far as your neighbor goes, it's not your place to judge him - I'll take care of that Myself.
If anything is ever going to be truly settled in this debate, then there must be give on each side. Here's a concept I could live with:
WHAT CONSERVATIVES GET & LIBERALS GIVE
Modern technology allows us to see, in color, the complete development of the fetus. Any woman, 18 years of age or older, who seeks an abortion within the permitted time frame, must first view the fetus in her womb, in color. If, after that, she decides to continue, so be it. I know that many abortion opponents won't like that. However, if you have faith as a Christian, you believe that God will come to judge the living and the dead. Let Him be the judge, while we continue to offer love and comfort to all of God's children, especially any woman struggling with such a terrible decision.
WHAT LIBERALS GET & CONSERVATIVES GIVE
The end of the assault on Roe v. Wade. The change won't be immediate, no one can promise that there won't be the occasional nut case at an abortion clinic, but the acceptance by the vast majority of Americans would alleviate the climate of fear that surrounds abortion practitioners and those that use their services.
Momentum is a funny thing. Inertia is it's enemy. In our case, the loggerhead that has settled over Washington for the past score of years has been a reflection of our own inability to come to any acceptable compromise as a people. If we can just find one, very important subject, address the issue once and for all, perhaps we could finally (I hate to say this) move on.
I don't expect to be able to change the world, all I can do is offer up what few cogent observations I'm capable of. If you think the idea has merit, share it with someone, especially if they don't agree with your position. Talk about it; get them to share the idea with others. Perhaps the internet is capable of more than we've ever dreamed of, because it's surely capable of scaring the crap out of the political aristocracy in D.C.
By the way, I did replace the laptop screen myself, no parts left over, and I didn't use the hammer or the duct tape.
Will wonders never cease - have a safe and happy 4th of July fellow Americans!
Sunday, July 1, 2007
The John Edwards Bumper Sticker Company & Benito Jr.
If you act now, you can get on in the ground floor of an exciting new business. What is this once in a lifetime opportunity? It's an endeavor called the "John Edwards Rear-bumper Kompany - also know as J.E.R.K.
When the Breck-Boy decided that the war on terrorism was just a "bumper sticker" slogan and had no real grounding in reality, it was simply a matter of time before he was proven to be successfully inane. Although the initial sales of his J.E.R.K. stickers were slated for Great Britain, J.E.R.K. officials have decided to start their sales campaign in San Francisco. Since Mrs. Edwards has averred she is in favor of gay marriage, as opposed to her husband's views, those folks who are used to having things stuck on/in/around/ their bumpers are considered to be friendly consumers.
Having lost my mother to cancer, I can assure you that as one human being to another, I pray for Mrs. Edwards and a successful recovery from her disease. However, when you place yourself in the public eye, regardless of what infirmities or sorrows life sends your way, you become fair game for the opinion of others - which is why sane people don't run for political office.
Mrs. Edwards, acting on the spur of the moment, decided to call in to a talk show this week and take on Ann Coulter, who was being interviewed at the time. She did a very commendable whining routine, taking a portion of Anne's comments out of context to try and bring in some funds for her husbands waning campaign.
For the lemmings who automatically side with the Breck's, here's what Ms. Coulter said:
"Oh yeah, I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. But about the same time - you know - Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
By intentionally omitting the reference to Bill Maher from the quote, you've got your headline for your campaign funding efforts. You haven't lied, but your "error of omission" achieves your goal of demonizing the person being quoted and making your candidate more sympathetic.
I find that Ann Coulter, although incredibly intelligent, is so over the top at times that her valid observations are often lost in acerbic wit. That aspect of her personality should provide all the quotes that any candidate would ever want without the need to be disingenuous and take quotes out of context.
Speaking of quotes, I return now to Benito Jr. down in Venezuela. Since folks who read the local paper and local Citgo station owners are probably sick of seeing my letters to the editor, I'll confine this diatribe to the blog.
From "guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/":
"President Hugo Chavez has ordered Venezuela's armed forces to prepare for a guerilla war against the United States, saying there must be a strategy to defeat the superpower if it invades."
"He said that while in Minsk (Russia) he would put the 'final touches' to a deal to buy an air defense system with long-range radar and missles in Moscow and he would discuss the possible purchase of submarines. Venezuela has recently purchased $3 billion worth of Russian weapons including 53 military helicopters, 24 SU-30 Sukhoi fighter jets and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles."
'The Brazilian President has declared his atomic energy initiatives, and Brazil has a right to that as well. Who knows, maybe Venezuela will ultimately follow suit.'
From the Associated Press, Friday June 29, by Yuras Karmanau, AP writer:
"...Thursday night with Putin the two men agreed to create a fund to support joint projects. With Russia's help , Venezeuala is ready to build four oil refineries and plans another 13 ...He (Chavez) also invited Russian oil companies to help develop the Orinoco River basin, recognized as the world's single-largest known oil deposit, potentially holding 1.2 billion barrels of extra-heavy crude."
Benito Jr. is making the offer because he's nationalized (read - usurped, taken, stole) Venezuela's oil industry and made terms so onerous that Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips refused to sign a deal with Venezuela, while other major oil companies, including those from Great Britain, France and Norway, have agreed to getting screwed without benefit of lubricant.
If you are not currently boycotting Citgo, it's not too late to start. How long do we let someone empty the chamber pot on our heads and tell us it's rain before we figure out that rain is not normally yellow in color?
Currently, Benito Jr. is just a nuiscance, but the longer we keep sending him millions of dollars for oil, the more likely it is that he will graduate from Nuisance Academy and become a fervent disciple of The Church of Global Terrorism.
When the Breck-Boy decided that the war on terrorism was just a "bumper sticker" slogan and had no real grounding in reality, it was simply a matter of time before he was proven to be successfully inane. Although the initial sales of his J.E.R.K. stickers were slated for Great Britain, J.E.R.K. officials have decided to start their sales campaign in San Francisco. Since Mrs. Edwards has averred she is in favor of gay marriage, as opposed to her husband's views, those folks who are used to having things stuck on/in/around/ their bumpers are considered to be friendly consumers.
Having lost my mother to cancer, I can assure you that as one human being to another, I pray for Mrs. Edwards and a successful recovery from her disease. However, when you place yourself in the public eye, regardless of what infirmities or sorrows life sends your way, you become fair game for the opinion of others - which is why sane people don't run for political office.
Mrs. Edwards, acting on the spur of the moment, decided to call in to a talk show this week and take on Ann Coulter, who was being interviewed at the time. She did a very commendable whining routine, taking a portion of Anne's comments out of context to try and bring in some funds for her husbands waning campaign.
For the lemmings who automatically side with the Breck's, here's what Ms. Coulter said:
"Oh yeah, I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. But about the same time - you know - Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
By intentionally omitting the reference to Bill Maher from the quote, you've got your headline for your campaign funding efforts. You haven't lied, but your "error of omission" achieves your goal of demonizing the person being quoted and making your candidate more sympathetic.
I find that Ann Coulter, although incredibly intelligent, is so over the top at times that her valid observations are often lost in acerbic wit. That aspect of her personality should provide all the quotes that any candidate would ever want without the need to be disingenuous and take quotes out of context.
Speaking of quotes, I return now to Benito Jr. down in Venezuela. Since folks who read the local paper and local Citgo station owners are probably sick of seeing my letters to the editor, I'll confine this diatribe to the blog.
From "guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/":
"President Hugo Chavez has ordered Venezuela's armed forces to prepare for a guerilla war against the United States, saying there must be a strategy to defeat the superpower if it invades."
"He said that while in Minsk (Russia) he would put the 'final touches' to a deal to buy an air defense system with long-range radar and missles in Moscow and he would discuss the possible purchase of submarines. Venezuela has recently purchased $3 billion worth of Russian weapons including 53 military helicopters, 24 SU-30 Sukhoi fighter jets and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles."
'The Brazilian President has declared his atomic energy initiatives, and Brazil has a right to that as well. Who knows, maybe Venezuela will ultimately follow suit.'
From the Associated Press, Friday June 29, by Yuras Karmanau, AP writer:
"...Thursday night with Putin the two men agreed to create a fund to support joint projects. With Russia's help , Venezeuala is ready to build four oil refineries and plans another 13 ...He (Chavez) also invited Russian oil companies to help develop the Orinoco River basin, recognized as the world's single-largest known oil deposit, potentially holding 1.2 billion barrels of extra-heavy crude."
Benito Jr. is making the offer because he's nationalized (read - usurped, taken, stole) Venezuela's oil industry and made terms so onerous that Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips refused to sign a deal with Venezuela, while other major oil companies, including those from Great Britain, France and Norway, have agreed to getting screwed without benefit of lubricant.
If you are not currently boycotting Citgo, it's not too late to start. How long do we let someone empty the chamber pot on our heads and tell us it's rain before we figure out that rain is not normally yellow in color?
Currently, Benito Jr. is just a nuiscance, but the longer we keep sending him millions of dollars for oil, the more likely it is that he will graduate from Nuisance Academy and become a fervent disciple of The Church of Global Terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
