It's time for me to say something that it's hard for me to say... I was wrong.
If you'll recall, a couple of months ago, I posted a blog taking Bill O'Reilly to task for going after the daily Kos web site. While I was correct in saying that not everyone that posts blogs there is a lunatic, I was wrong when I said that Bill shouldn't be attacking them for the bad stuff on the site.
What I have come to realize is that the Daily Kos is not an open forum like blogger. Anyone can open a blogger (AKA Blogspot) account and start their own blog, and, within certain reasonable, and fairly broad, limits, blog about anything they want. So, you could easily find a far left liberal blog right here next to my Conservative and rational blog. Not so on sites like the Daily Kos. If you're not a liberal Democrat, you are not welcome in their club.
Basically, when you join a very specific forum, warped and controlled toward a specific agenda, and post your blog there, you are endorsing what is posted there. Maybe not by the rank and file of regular folks like you and me, but certainly what is posted by the administrators, and the site's featured content. So, if you choose to surround yourself with lunatics, liars, and angry, spiteful spinsters, you paint yourself with the same brush. That is to say that the otherwise regular folk who make the daily Kos their blog home are complicit in the vile filth and flat out lies that the web site spews forth on a daily basis.
One example of this involves Bill O'Reilly himself, the man that I am apologizing to here today. On a recent episode of his daily radio program Mr. O tackled the ever precarious issue of racism. It's very rare to find a white person who will speak honestly about race, but Bill O'Reilly is one of those people, and the press has skewered him for it.
My summary of the program goes like this (the actual conversation is a full hour long and can be heard at www.billoreilly.com): Bill was making the point that racism is stupid. It is based on fear. He was saying that a portion of white people are afraid of black people, primarily because of the images that they see in rap video's and on the news, and entertainment programs, when the truth of the matter is that a vast majority of black people are just normal people. He wasn't saying that he was surprised by this, he was just explaining it to anyone who might not have understood. He then gave an example of this from his personal life. He told the story of going to dinner with Al Sharpton at a black restaurant in Harlem (Sylvia's I think the name was) and that there was none of the stereotypical black behavior to be seen there, but just regular folks leading regular lives. Again, he was not surprised by this, he was just making a point. Oh, and by the way, the person on his radio program that he had the conversation with, is a black man (Juan Williams).
CNN, NBC, and of course, the daily Kos chose to take what he said, turn it around, twist it, and use it to claim that O'Reilly is a racist. They took his quotes completely out of context, which is par for the course to these people, and flat out lied about the whole situation.
So, when you associate with these people, you say to the world, "I'm one of them, and I agree with and support what they say!" Something I can't believe so many are willing to do.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Free Speech?
Someone tell me, please, if you can, at what point did it become considered freedom of speech to allow an enemy to come into your country and spew forth their propaganda? To me this would be classified as stupid, but I keep hearing it referred to as "free speech."
Could you imagine the reaction of the American people in the 1940's if Hitler had informed us that he wanted to visit Pearl Harbor? Not only would it not have been allowed, but the public outcry would have been beyond deafening. Could you imagine FDR's reaction if some American University had invited Hitler to address the student body? There is absolutely no way that he would have allowed it to happen. And yet, that is exactly what happened this week when the closest likeness to Hitler in the modern age was invited to speak at Columbia University.
Iranian President Ahminajihad, or is it Ahmanutjob... I can't ever keep it straight... was given the podium to spew whatever vile nonsense he wished, on our own soil.
As if it isn't bad enough that the lunatic was allowed to speak to Americans directly, some actually applauded this madman! If that doesn't tell you that we are in trouble, then you're probably reading the wrong blog. The only people that booed the crazy man were the gay rights crowd. Not surprising that they would, since he's from a country where gays are executed. But if it weren't for that would anyone have had a problem with him at all?
Here is a man who claims that Holocaust never happened, despite the mountains of evidence, and firsthand knowledge, that it is historical fact. This is a man who preaches that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. A man who tells us that it is none of our business if his country builds a nuclear bomb. On the last two counts, lets consider that, whatever else you may think of Israel, and I think a lot of them, they have been one of the USA's closest allies since the formation of their country, that, at least, should stand for something. And it certainly is our business if they develop a nuclear weapon, since it would mean that, for the first time since WWII,the bomb would be in the hands of someone crazy enough to use it. (In case anyone thinks I'm saying that we were crazy to drop the bomb(s) in WWII, I'm not, but that is a whole other subject.)
Now, I can understand if there was no way to keep him from being able to come to NYC to address the UN, although if there is a way, it should have been pursued. However, if there was no choice but to allow him to be there, at the very least he should have been restricted to the grounds of the UN, as a terrorist and enemy of the USA, he should not have been allowed to be anywhere in this country, outside of the UN compound, PERIOD!!!!
Could you imagine the reaction of the American people in the 1940's if Hitler had informed us that he wanted to visit Pearl Harbor? Not only would it not have been allowed, but the public outcry would have been beyond deafening. Could you imagine FDR's reaction if some American University had invited Hitler to address the student body? There is absolutely no way that he would have allowed it to happen. And yet, that is exactly what happened this week when the closest likeness to Hitler in the modern age was invited to speak at Columbia University.
Iranian President Ahminajihad, or is it Ahmanutjob... I can't ever keep it straight... was given the podium to spew whatever vile nonsense he wished, on our own soil.
As if it isn't bad enough that the lunatic was allowed to speak to Americans directly, some actually applauded this madman! If that doesn't tell you that we are in trouble, then you're probably reading the wrong blog. The only people that booed the crazy man were the gay rights crowd. Not surprising that they would, since he's from a country where gays are executed. But if it weren't for that would anyone have had a problem with him at all?
Here is a man who claims that Holocaust never happened, despite the mountains of evidence, and firsthand knowledge, that it is historical fact. This is a man who preaches that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. A man who tells us that it is none of our business if his country builds a nuclear bomb. On the last two counts, lets consider that, whatever else you may think of Israel, and I think a lot of them, they have been one of the USA's closest allies since the formation of their country, that, at least, should stand for something. And it certainly is our business if they develop a nuclear weapon, since it would mean that, for the first time since WWII,the bomb would be in the hands of someone crazy enough to use it. (In case anyone thinks I'm saying that we were crazy to drop the bomb(s) in WWII, I'm not, but that is a whole other subject.)
Now, I can understand if there was no way to keep him from being able to come to NYC to address the UN, although if there is a way, it should have been pursued. However, if there was no choice but to allow him to be there, at the very least he should have been restricted to the grounds of the UN, as a terrorist and enemy of the USA, he should not have been allowed to be anywhere in this country, outside of the UN compound, PERIOD!!!!
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Which Way Rudy?
At the last Republican Debate, when asked about his turbulent Personal Life, Rudy Giuliani made it clear that instead of looking at things like that, we should judge him based on his record as a leader. In fact, he spent pretty much the whole debate talking about what he did as Mayor of New York City, and said virtually nothing about what he would do as President of the United States. So, here, he wants us to judge him by his record.
Part of his record in New York City is that he was strong proponent of strong Gun Control.
Jump forward to his speech this week in front of the NRA, where he said he supports the Second Amendment, and the rights of Americans to own guns. So is he saying here that he wants us to ignore his record? You know, the one that he can't talk about enough?
So I'm just asking, which is it Rudy, by your words, or by your record? It can't be both, because they don't agree.
Now, a little bit about Gun Control specifically:
From an engineering standpoint guns are a marvel of human ingenuity. Being able to use a small explosion to propel a piece of lead down a barrel and hit a target with accuracy is truly amazing.
From an original concept standpoint, you have to look at what guns were originally intended for. Guns were invented for the purpose of killing people. They were not thought up for hunting, although they were quickly and readily adapted for that purpose, as you have to remember, there already existed sufficient means for hunting, even big game. Armor, on the other hand, made bows and arrows fairly ineffective for killing people at any sort of range, and so, guns were invented to penetrate the armor. So, in initial concept, guns are evil, how else you would define the concept of a more efficient way to end a human life. (More accurately I guess you would have to say that guns are the result of an evil quest.)
On the other hand, once some people started using guns, others had no choice. They could either start to use guns themselves, or they could sit back and be wiped out, so, from a national and military standpoint, guns are absolutely essential.
By the same token, criminals have never had too much of a problem obtaining guns to use in their lifestyle of crime, so if law abiding people wish to remain safe and not be victims, they must have guns with which to protect their homes, families and possessions, so, without the freedom to keep and bear arms, criminals would, in fact, cause a lot more problems for society, than they do now. So, from a personal security standpoint, guns are indispensable.
From the standpoint of being a free society, guns are critical. Consider this, Hitler prohibited the German people from having personal arms, ensuring that the populace could not revolt against him. Chairman Mao and Stalin adopted the same principle, for the same reason. In fact, history is replete with such policies in totalitarian regimes, but such a regime cannot exist in the presence of an armed citizenry.
The following quote explains the issue quite exquisitely: "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed, where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Judge Alex Kozinsky
So, there you have it... for now...
Part of his record in New York City is that he was strong proponent of strong Gun Control.
Jump forward to his speech this week in front of the NRA, where he said he supports the Second Amendment, and the rights of Americans to own guns. So is he saying here that he wants us to ignore his record? You know, the one that he can't talk about enough?
So I'm just asking, which is it Rudy, by your words, or by your record? It can't be both, because they don't agree.
Now, a little bit about Gun Control specifically:
From an engineering standpoint guns are a marvel of human ingenuity. Being able to use a small explosion to propel a piece of lead down a barrel and hit a target with accuracy is truly amazing.
From an original concept standpoint, you have to look at what guns were originally intended for. Guns were invented for the purpose of killing people. They were not thought up for hunting, although they were quickly and readily adapted for that purpose, as you have to remember, there already existed sufficient means for hunting, even big game. Armor, on the other hand, made bows and arrows fairly ineffective for killing people at any sort of range, and so, guns were invented to penetrate the armor. So, in initial concept, guns are evil, how else you would define the concept of a more efficient way to end a human life. (More accurately I guess you would have to say that guns are the result of an evil quest.)
On the other hand, once some people started using guns, others had no choice. They could either start to use guns themselves, or they could sit back and be wiped out, so, from a national and military standpoint, guns are absolutely essential.
By the same token, criminals have never had too much of a problem obtaining guns to use in their lifestyle of crime, so if law abiding people wish to remain safe and not be victims, they must have guns with which to protect their homes, families and possessions, so, without the freedom to keep and bear arms, criminals would, in fact, cause a lot more problems for society, than they do now. So, from a personal security standpoint, guns are indispensable.
From the standpoint of being a free society, guns are critical. Consider this, Hitler prohibited the German people from having personal arms, ensuring that the populace could not revolt against him. Chairman Mao and Stalin adopted the same principle, for the same reason. In fact, history is replete with such policies in totalitarian regimes, but such a regime cannot exist in the presence of an armed citizenry.
The following quote explains the issue quite exquisitely: "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed, where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Judge Alex Kozinsky
So, there you have it... for now...
Friday, September 21, 2007
Rather Mistaken
So, Dan Rather is suing CBS for $70,000,000 (that 70 million dollars) for firing him. While I could understand feeling betrayed after giving 44 years of your life to a company, and then having them point to the door, I think this lawsuit is a mistake.
Those who worked with Dan Rather have said that he is doing this to try to defend his reputation, that he feels has been tarnished by the firing and the controversy leading up to it. This makes sense in some ways, and is the most believable reason for the suit, considering that he doesn't actually need the money. I also don't think he cares much about whether he wins or not, since he's really after vindication. But I think this will backfire, if it hasn't already.
Remember that Dan Rather was the face of the "CBS Evening News" for 24 years, so he is forever entrenched in the memories of many Americans, but so much more so for my generation, who grew up having known nothing before the Rather years. A great many Americans will remember him fondly on the basis of those memories alone, and no one can take that away from him. No one, that is, but himself.
It's really no secret that Dan Rather is an unapologetic Liberal, and that liberal bias seeped into much of his career in news, and yet I liked the guy. I think a lot of people liked the guy. You always saw him as someone with character and charisma, someone you could trust... more or less, but suing over being fired makes him look petty, vindictive, cantankerous, and not at all graceful.
He could have slipped quietly into a happy retirement, maybe written a few books, made a few speeches and the like, and been remembered for his long career in broadcast journalism, which would have minimized the impact of that careers turbulent end. Instead, however, he has chosen to fight a battle that is better left alone, and forever tarnish his legacy, and destroy whatever respect the American Public still had for him.
Those who worked with Dan Rather have said that he is doing this to try to defend his reputation, that he feels has been tarnished by the firing and the controversy leading up to it. This makes sense in some ways, and is the most believable reason for the suit, considering that he doesn't actually need the money. I also don't think he cares much about whether he wins or not, since he's really after vindication. But I think this will backfire, if it hasn't already.
Remember that Dan Rather was the face of the "CBS Evening News" for 24 years, so he is forever entrenched in the memories of many Americans, but so much more so for my generation, who grew up having known nothing before the Rather years. A great many Americans will remember him fondly on the basis of those memories alone, and no one can take that away from him. No one, that is, but himself.
It's really no secret that Dan Rather is an unapologetic Liberal, and that liberal bias seeped into much of his career in news, and yet I liked the guy. I think a lot of people liked the guy. You always saw him as someone with character and charisma, someone you could trust... more or less, but suing over being fired makes him look petty, vindictive, cantankerous, and not at all graceful.
He could have slipped quietly into a happy retirement, maybe written a few books, made a few speeches and the like, and been remembered for his long career in broadcast journalism, which would have minimized the impact of that careers turbulent end. Instead, however, he has chosen to fight a battle that is better left alone, and forever tarnish his legacy, and destroy whatever respect the American Public still had for him.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Politics
How many times have you heard someone say, or have you said yourself, "I don't pay attention to politics," or, "I don't follow that stuff (meaning politics)," or, "I really don't care what those idiots in Washington do," or words to that effect? I would suspect that even if you haven't said them yourself, you've heard them said by others at least once, and probably upwards of a few hundred times.
This is understandable. No, really, it is. It really doesn't take long to get fed up with all the partisan squabbling, and the empty rhetoric, and the flat out corruption that we see so often amongst those in power. If you spend very much time watching politicians you almost can't help thinking that it's like watching a very boring version of Hollywood.
I spend a lot of time reading political opinions (not to mention blogging about my own) and thinking about political things, and even I get very fed up with the way thing system works, or, more accurately, doesn't work. Too many politicians spend too much time worried about looking good in front of the cameras, or playing to the base of their party, or trying to push their own agenda, and not nearly enough trying to do what is right for the Country, and the people in it.
So, yes, I understand why so many Americans just want to wash their hands of the whole thing, but we can't! As annoying and ridiculous as Politics can be (and usually is) we can't just ignore what is going on. The truth is that Politics is not actually about the pompous windbags, regardless of party affiliation, or all the things that we tend to associate with them. Politics is actually about us. Politicians are the ones that make the laws, and rules and regulations that the rest of us must live by. As annoying as it all is, it truly affects our daily lives, in nearly every way. Unfortunately, being outrageous is a good way for politicians to avoid scrutiny. If one party can get us focused on something other than the issues, or the bills that are coming up before them for a vote, or speak in circles until we aren't sure what issue they were talking about in the first place, then they don't have to worry too much about being held accountable for the things they do.
Another unfortunate side to all of this is the fact that politics, by it's very nature, tends to attract the type of person that cannot be trusted to do anything but grasp for power, and, once they attain it, to hold on tightly with both hands, by any means at their disposal. Ask yourself, how many times have you voted for someone that you wouldn't invite into your own home for dinner? Or declined to vote because there was no one running that you felt you could vote for with a clear conscience? Sickening isn't it?
This is understandable. No, really, it is. It really doesn't take long to get fed up with all the partisan squabbling, and the empty rhetoric, and the flat out corruption that we see so often amongst those in power. If you spend very much time watching politicians you almost can't help thinking that it's like watching a very boring version of Hollywood.
I spend a lot of time reading political opinions (not to mention blogging about my own) and thinking about political things, and even I get very fed up with the way thing system works, or, more accurately, doesn't work. Too many politicians spend too much time worried about looking good in front of the cameras, or playing to the base of their party, or trying to push their own agenda, and not nearly enough trying to do what is right for the Country, and the people in it.
So, yes, I understand why so many Americans just want to wash their hands of the whole thing, but we can't! As annoying and ridiculous as Politics can be (and usually is) we can't just ignore what is going on. The truth is that Politics is not actually about the pompous windbags, regardless of party affiliation, or all the things that we tend to associate with them. Politics is actually about us. Politicians are the ones that make the laws, and rules and regulations that the rest of us must live by. As annoying as it all is, it truly affects our daily lives, in nearly every way. Unfortunately, being outrageous is a good way for politicians to avoid scrutiny. If one party can get us focused on something other than the issues, or the bills that are coming up before them for a vote, or speak in circles until we aren't sure what issue they were talking about in the first place, then they don't have to worry too much about being held accountable for the things they do.
Another unfortunate side to all of this is the fact that politics, by it's very nature, tends to attract the type of person that cannot be trusted to do anything but grasp for power, and, once they attain it, to hold on tightly with both hands, by any means at their disposal. Ask yourself, how many times have you voted for someone that you wouldn't invite into your own home for dinner? Or declined to vote because there was no one running that you felt you could vote for with a clear conscience? Sickening isn't it?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Coincidence
Are we under attack?
Seems like an odd question doesn't it? But I think it's a question worth asking. Most of us are familiar with what has been going on with the massive toy recalls in recent weeks. A very large number of toys have been recalled for containing lead paint, and a very high percentage of them were made in China. It's no secret that the Chinese government (which controls nearly all aspects of Chinese culture, life and infrastructure) has no love for the USA. Don't get me wrong, they don't hate us the way the Islamic terrorists do, but they really don't like us. In fact, there isn't much that they would like better than to see the US fall as a major world power. So, when they start sending us toys that could potentially do great damage to our children, and thus, the future of our country, I think we need to take a hard look at it.
OK, I don't want to seem like a conspiracy theorist, or some kind of crazy person, but honestly, shouldn't we always try to dig a little deeper, and make sure that this is not what is going on. We have a tendency to stand back when things like this happen and say, "Hmm, no big surprise, they don't have the same industrial standards that we do," and I don't deny that it is very possible that this is all that we are dealing with, sheer incompetence. That being said, however, shouldn't we still be suspicious and closely scrutinize what is going on in the world as it pertains to us?
So many people today are concerned with being a good citizen of the world, that they ignore the fact that they are, first and foremost, a citizen of the USA.
Anyway, the point that I want to make is, don't we owe it to our children to take these things seriously, and not take a lackadaisical attitude toward them, not only for their current health and well being today, but also for the future of the nation that they will inherit, hopefully still a Superpower.
Seems like an odd question doesn't it? But I think it's a question worth asking. Most of us are familiar with what has been going on with the massive toy recalls in recent weeks. A very large number of toys have been recalled for containing lead paint, and a very high percentage of them were made in China. It's no secret that the Chinese government (which controls nearly all aspects of Chinese culture, life and infrastructure) has no love for the USA. Don't get me wrong, they don't hate us the way the Islamic terrorists do, but they really don't like us. In fact, there isn't much that they would like better than to see the US fall as a major world power. So, when they start sending us toys that could potentially do great damage to our children, and thus, the future of our country, I think we need to take a hard look at it.
OK, I don't want to seem like a conspiracy theorist, or some kind of crazy person, but honestly, shouldn't we always try to dig a little deeper, and make sure that this is not what is going on. We have a tendency to stand back when things like this happen and say, "Hmm, no big surprise, they don't have the same industrial standards that we do," and I don't deny that it is very possible that this is all that we are dealing with, sheer incompetence. That being said, however, shouldn't we still be suspicious and closely scrutinize what is going on in the world as it pertains to us?
So many people today are concerned with being a good citizen of the world, that they ignore the fact that they are, first and foremost, a citizen of the USA.
Anyway, the point that I want to make is, don't we owe it to our children to take these things seriously, and not take a lackadaisical attitude toward them, not only for their current health and well being today, but also for the future of the nation that they will inherit, hopefully still a Superpower.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
9/11
Every September 11th since 2001 has been a solemn remembrance for me, and for a great many other people around the country, but even more so today. You see, for the first time since the attacks it is Tuesday, September 11th, just like 2001.There is no doubt that those of us who are old enough will remember what we were doing when the reality of what was going on hit us full force on that day six years ago.
Amy and I were watching a video tape of something when her sister called us. Amy was on the phone with her, so I can't tell you how she sounded, but Amy seemed confused, and said, I think we need to look at the news, Sandy said that somebody flew a plane into the World Trade Center, and while she was watching them talk about that, another plane hit. Of course I turned off the VCR and switched to CBS, at this point, not having the first clue what to make of it. It only took a couple of minutes for the scope of things to sink in. I watched as they tried to piece together what had happened, and what was still happening, and remember the horror of watching the Towers fall.
It was clear to me, we had been attacked, and things would never be the same.
I think it's important that we take some time and remember what happened, and all those who were brutally murdered on that Tuesday morning six years ago, and all of those heroes who gave their lives trying to save others.
Words can't do justice to the remembrance of the events and heroic actions of that day, but we still all need to take a moment and just remember.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Keep It
News reports today talk about Usama Bin Laden (UBL) releasing a tape encouraging Americans to convert to Islam... but only if we want to live. UBL says that if we want to end the violence in Iraq, we will convert to Islam, you know, it is, after all, "a religion of peace," and they'll prove it, just as soon as we give in to all of their demands.
The biggest of their demands, of course, is that we turn our backs on our God, our Faith, our Country, our Freedoms, our way of life, and pretty much everything that we hold dear, and all the things that matter most to us, and embrace their backward, violent, hateful, ridiculous excuse for a religion. In his book "Crazies To The Left Of Me, Wimps To The Right," Bernard Goldberg has a section titled "Islam is a Religion of Peace, and if you don't believe me, I'll kill you!" How true is that? He really didn't even need to write anything in that section, the header captured it all.
The newsies were quick to point out that UBL didn't directly threaten to attack us here at home, but I mean, come on. They've done it before, and it's clear they will not hesitate to do it again. And I hope you don't think you'll be safe if you do convert to Islam, if you pick the wrong sect to take up with, they'll kill you anyway. So think about that before you throw in your lot with a bunch of stark raving mad "religious leaders" who are bent on totalitarian, tyrannical Global domination by any means necessary, in the name of Islam, of course.
Let me be absolutely clear on this point: I am a Christian, I believe in Almighty God who created all there is, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross, was buried and rose again that I might live, and in the Holy Spirit who indwells all that are His. And that is that.
So to Mr. UBL and all the rest of his hoards and minions, though I don't know the future, and you may well one day succeed in killing me for taking this stand, I can tell you in just two words what you can do with Islam... Keep It!!
The biggest of their demands, of course, is that we turn our backs on our God, our Faith, our Country, our Freedoms, our way of life, and pretty much everything that we hold dear, and all the things that matter most to us, and embrace their backward, violent, hateful, ridiculous excuse for a religion. In his book "Crazies To The Left Of Me, Wimps To The Right," Bernard Goldberg has a section titled "Islam is a Religion of Peace, and if you don't believe me, I'll kill you!" How true is that? He really didn't even need to write anything in that section, the header captured it all.
The newsies were quick to point out that UBL didn't directly threaten to attack us here at home, but I mean, come on. They've done it before, and it's clear they will not hesitate to do it again. And I hope you don't think you'll be safe if you do convert to Islam, if you pick the wrong sect to take up with, they'll kill you anyway. So think about that before you throw in your lot with a bunch of stark raving mad "religious leaders" who are bent on totalitarian, tyrannical Global domination by any means necessary, in the name of Islam, of course.
Let me be absolutely clear on this point: I am a Christian, I believe in Almighty God who created all there is, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross, was buried and rose again that I might live, and in the Holy Spirit who indwells all that are His. And that is that.
So to Mr. UBL and all the rest of his hoards and minions, though I don't know the future, and you may well one day succeed in killing me for taking this stand, I can tell you in just two words what you can do with Islam... Keep It!!
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Subtext
I don't know how many of you may have watched last nights Republican Presidential Primary Debate on Fox News, but I want to talk briefly about that tonight. I watched some of it this afternoon, thanks to my DVR I was able to skip over some of the inane ramblings and political double-speak that apparently can't be done without, regardless of which party you call home.
The first thing you notice is that none of them really have all that much new stuff to say. Even the good stuff that some of them put out is stuff that you've heard before, and I guess that shouldn't be a big surprise, since this is something like the seventh time that they have gotten together for such a debate. And of course the second thing that comes to mind is that there were only eight of them there this time, instead of ten like before, and then as you think back, you realize that you don't even remember anything about the two that weren't around this time. I guess they really left a remarkable impression, huh?
Of course, the most disappointing part of it was the absence of Sen. Fred Thompson, who only officially declared himself to be a candidate today, choosing to skip last nights debate in favor of telling Jay Leno that he was in fact running for President, although I guess that wasn't the official announcement... seemed to make things pretty official from my viewpoint, but again, I digress.
One thing that stuck me ( I know, you're thinking, how come this guy isn't dead yet with all the things that strike him all the time...) is how much Fred Thompson's presence was felt, even though he was not in attendance. His name still came up several times, and it was fairly obvious that he has some of the current field running scared. Not the current top of the field, but certainly some of the ones that you sat there wondering why they even bother to stay in the race. And it was also clear that even the ones that don't flat out fear him still have a healthy respect for his potential as a contender. I've said before, I don't think Romney has a chance in reality, and I think McCain has been out since the immigration debacle, which he again tried to defend last night, but I think Rudy would welcome a good old fashioned political slug fest with another heavy hitter like Thompson simply because, if he manages to come out on top, the nomination would be in the bag. I think the healthy respect comes from the stark realization that he just might not come out on top.
There has been some criticism of Thompson for waiting so long to get into the race, and for skipping last nights debate, but the fact of the matter is that the Primaries are still five months away, which means that most Americans are still a good three of four months from paying too close attention to the whole thing, which, if he plays his cards right, and runs a good campaign, gives him more than ample time to pick up the nomination. And as far as the debate goes, it's not like there won't be ten or twenty more between now and the primary.
Only time will tell, and I'll be listening closely.
The first thing you notice is that none of them really have all that much new stuff to say. Even the good stuff that some of them put out is stuff that you've heard before, and I guess that shouldn't be a big surprise, since this is something like the seventh time that they have gotten together for such a debate. And of course the second thing that comes to mind is that there were only eight of them there this time, instead of ten like before, and then as you think back, you realize that you don't even remember anything about the two that weren't around this time. I guess they really left a remarkable impression, huh?
Of course, the most disappointing part of it was the absence of Sen. Fred Thompson, who only officially declared himself to be a candidate today, choosing to skip last nights debate in favor of telling Jay Leno that he was in fact running for President, although I guess that wasn't the official announcement... seemed to make things pretty official from my viewpoint, but again, I digress.
One thing that stuck me ( I know, you're thinking, how come this guy isn't dead yet with all the things that strike him all the time...) is how much Fred Thompson's presence was felt, even though he was not in attendance. His name still came up several times, and it was fairly obvious that he has some of the current field running scared. Not the current top of the field, but certainly some of the ones that you sat there wondering why they even bother to stay in the race. And it was also clear that even the ones that don't flat out fear him still have a healthy respect for his potential as a contender. I've said before, I don't think Romney has a chance in reality, and I think McCain has been out since the immigration debacle, which he again tried to defend last night, but I think Rudy would welcome a good old fashioned political slug fest with another heavy hitter like Thompson simply because, if he manages to come out on top, the nomination would be in the bag. I think the healthy respect comes from the stark realization that he just might not come out on top.
There has been some criticism of Thompson for waiting so long to get into the race, and for skipping last nights debate, but the fact of the matter is that the Primaries are still five months away, which means that most Americans are still a good three of four months from paying too close attention to the whole thing, which, if he plays his cards right, and runs a good campaign, gives him more than ample time to pick up the nomination. And as far as the debate goes, it's not like there won't be ten or twenty more between now and the primary.
Only time will tell, and I'll be listening closely.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Stupidity Defense?
Once again we find the news reporting stories about little kids being left in closed up cars. There were two new ones on the news today. A couple of tourists left their little child in a car in a Wal-Mart parking lot, where she was found and rescued, and will be just fine, and they were arrested. Another story of a City employee who left her baby in the car while she went to work, and then remembered at lunch time that the kid was in the car, and ran down to the car, and found the kid dead. Unbelievably, she was NOT arrested.
This begs the question, how do you forget your child? The woman who left her kid in the car at City Hall said that her husband usually took the kid to daycare, but he was out of town, so she loaded the kid in the car, drove to work, instead of daycare, and went inside, completely forgetting her baby in the car dying.
I can understand driving to work by mistake, but how could you possibly explain forgetting that the kid was in the car? I mean, honestly, how brain dead would you have to be not to realize that you left a child in the car. OK, so yesterday, I got some Ice Cream at the store, got some gas on the way home, and then started inside without the ice cream, but remembered to go back for it before I got inside. But come on, a kid is not ice cream. You can forget groceries for a little while, but who forgets the kids, and certainly, who forgets the kid for 4 hours? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is outrageous.
And why didn't they arrest this woman? They said that they may just rule it an accident! WHAT!!?! As in she was accidentally too stupid to remember that her baby was in the car? And if it was a accident in this case, why not in the other case, you know, the one in which the kid is going to be just fine?
Crazy stuff I tell you, crazy stuff.
This begs the question, how do you forget your child? The woman who left her kid in the car at City Hall said that her husband usually took the kid to daycare, but he was out of town, so she loaded the kid in the car, drove to work, instead of daycare, and went inside, completely forgetting her baby in the car dying.
I can understand driving to work by mistake, but how could you possibly explain forgetting that the kid was in the car? I mean, honestly, how brain dead would you have to be not to realize that you left a child in the car. OK, so yesterday, I got some Ice Cream at the store, got some gas on the way home, and then started inside without the ice cream, but remembered to go back for it before I got inside. But come on, a kid is not ice cream. You can forget groceries for a little while, but who forgets the kids, and certainly, who forgets the kid for 4 hours? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is outrageous.
And why didn't they arrest this woman? They said that they may just rule it an accident! WHAT!!?! As in she was accidentally too stupid to remember that her baby was in the car? And if it was a accident in this case, why not in the other case, you know, the one in which the kid is going to be just fine?
Crazy stuff I tell you, crazy stuff.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Eating Crow?
There was a report in the paper the other day that Florida Governor Charlie Crist is taking a serious look at the possibility of taking legal action against the insurance companies that have dealt a worse blow to most Floridians than the Hurricanes themselves. I know I discussed this in a post a couple of months ago or so, but to recap, insurance companies in Florida have either pulled out of the state completely, or dropped a huge amount of policies, or increased rates to the point that most people are paying more for homeowners insurance than they are for their mortgages. It really has reached outrageous levels.
As happy as I am with this news, it does present something of a problem for me, as it means that I might have to take back some of the things I've said about our esteemed Governor... But hey, really, if he succeeds in doing something about this mess, I'll be more than happy to do so.
I won't say that I'm totally optimistic, 'cause I've seen so many of these things not work out in the past, but I am glad that he is at least making the effort, and taking a stand for Floridians, who desperately need the help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
