For anyone who doesn't know, let me recap a recent news story. There is an English woman who has been teaching school in Sudan. In an effort to teach the children in the class of seven year olds about the democratic voting process she had them vote on what to name the class teddy bear. One of the options was "Muhammad", which, in the end, is the name that won the vote. Seems perfectly innocent one would think, right? Well, one would be wrong. Apparently the Islamic Government of Sudan decided that this teacher had done this for the cause of insulting Islam, and she was arrested.
Initially there was talk of her receiving a sentence of 40 lashes and possibly years in prison. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and she was only sentenced to 15 days in prison. Obviously those cooler heads still weren't cool enough, because she didn't do anything to be punished for to begin with.
This 15 day prison sentence, while an outrageous miscarriage of justice to any rational person, is not good enough for some of the Muslim population of Sudan, masses of whom took to the streets demanding that she be put to death for insulting Islam. Can you imagine putting someone to death because they didn't realize that giving a teddy bear the same name as the founder of a religion (not to mention a VERY popular Muslim name) would be taken as offensive?
To their credit, in a rare display of common sense and courage, many Muslims from the UK and other various parts of the world have stepped up and condemned the Sudanese for, what they have termed, a gross over-reaction. Ali Alhadithi, the President of The Federation of Student Islamic Societies was quoted on Foxnews.com as saying, "We are deeply concerned that the verdict to jail a schoolteacher due to what's likely to be an innocent mistake is gravely disproportionate." Meanwhile, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams stated that the affair was, "an absurdly disproportionate response to what is at worst a cultural faux pas." I only use that quote because it puts it quite plainly as it is.
So, while this case is not something that speaks ill of all Muslims, as some of their actions in the past have done, it still shows you just how incredibly intolerant this religion is.
For years Christians have had to endure Blasphemy and disparaging remarks about our Very God, and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Just a couple of examples include a play which portrayed Jesus as a homosexual, and a movie which portrayed him as a drunken whore monger, but, being that we know these things are not true, we quietly protest, which we are ridiculed for, and get on with our lives.
Could you imagine the outrage from... well, pretty much everyone, if James Dobson or the late Jerry Falwell had called for Dan Brown to be put to death for writing his trash book about Jesus leaving a physical bloodline? For one, they never would have done such a thing, but for two, if they had, we would still be getting beaten over the head with it at every turn.
Remember, Islam is a Religion of peace... and if you don't believe them, they'll kill you!
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wrong Question
Well, Rudy Giuliani is at it again. This time the controversy is about, while he was still NYC Mayor, whether or not he tried to cover up travel expenses for his NYPD security detail while he traveled to the Hamptons for trysts with his then Girlfriend, now his third wife. Apparently his security detail had to find lodging in Hotels and such, as well as food, and other normal travel expenses, since, as is logical, the Mayor's 24/7 security detail goes everywhere he does. Apparently these expenses have been found to have been paid out of the budgets of multiple City agencies. According to the Giuliani camp, this is perfectly normal, as some budgets have surpluses, and these are routinely used for this kind of expense. Some question this, however, since persons from other Mayoral administrations say they've never seen anything approaching this level of "Creative Accounting."
Rudy's people are quick to say that the former Mayor did nothing inappropriate, so, don't worry all you social Conservatives, they said that sex outside of Marriage is nothing inappropriate, so we have nothing to worry about. To qualify that just a little, most people can forgive this kind of thing, but they won't be able to get past being told that it's not wrong. I suppose, though, that we should cut them some slack and assume that they are talking about the money, so I'll focus there.
Admittedly, I don't know if it is routine to spread expenses around like this or not, but to me, that is not the point. It seems to me that everyone is asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be about accounting practices, it should be about Character. Let me explain what I mean. It's clear that Rudy is not running on a socially conservative platform, as he has basically told any and all "values voters" to take a hike, that he doesn't need, or apparently want, their votes, which is ok, 'cause he's not likely to get them. He is also not running on the illegal immigration issue, since he is, at least partly, responsible for turning NYC into a sanctuary City, and seems to stand right along with George W. Bush for open borders, and no enforcement. No, he is running primarily on two things, one being national security, which is an oxymoron when looked at next the illegal immigration/open borders attitude, and the other being Financial responsibility.
Yeah, that's right, Giuliani claims to be Fiscally Conservative, someone who would lower taxes and stop the Government from wasting our money. Just look at his record, he always says. Well, OK, Mr. Former Mayor, let's look at that record. Knowing that the security detail would have to go along, incurring truckloads of expenses along the way, he took at least eleven trips to the Hamptons for sex. OK, yeah, that sounds fiscally responsible to me. Honestly, would someone who truly cares about wasteful government spending really haul his security detail all over the place, to the tune of (according to the report I saw) hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money, just so he could have sex?
So the question we should really be asking is this, if Mr. "Fiscally Conservative" Giuliani was willing to play so fast and loose with the money of the NYC taxpayers, how can we trust him as President of the entire Nation?
Rudy's people are quick to say that the former Mayor did nothing inappropriate, so, don't worry all you social Conservatives, they said that sex outside of Marriage is nothing inappropriate, so we have nothing to worry about. To qualify that just a little, most people can forgive this kind of thing, but they won't be able to get past being told that it's not wrong. I suppose, though, that we should cut them some slack and assume that they are talking about the money, so I'll focus there.
Admittedly, I don't know if it is routine to spread expenses around like this or not, but to me, that is not the point. It seems to me that everyone is asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be about accounting practices, it should be about Character. Let me explain what I mean. It's clear that Rudy is not running on a socially conservative platform, as he has basically told any and all "values voters" to take a hike, that he doesn't need, or apparently want, their votes, which is ok, 'cause he's not likely to get them. He is also not running on the illegal immigration issue, since he is, at least partly, responsible for turning NYC into a sanctuary City, and seems to stand right along with George W. Bush for open borders, and no enforcement. No, he is running primarily on two things, one being national security, which is an oxymoron when looked at next the illegal immigration/open borders attitude, and the other being Financial responsibility.
Yeah, that's right, Giuliani claims to be Fiscally Conservative, someone who would lower taxes and stop the Government from wasting our money. Just look at his record, he always says. Well, OK, Mr. Former Mayor, let's look at that record. Knowing that the security detail would have to go along, incurring truckloads of expenses along the way, he took at least eleven trips to the Hamptons for sex. OK, yeah, that sounds fiscally responsible to me. Honestly, would someone who truly cares about wasteful government spending really haul his security detail all over the place, to the tune of (according to the report I saw) hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money, just so he could have sex?
So the question we should really be asking is this, if Mr. "Fiscally Conservative" Giuliani was willing to play so fast and loose with the money of the NYC taxpayers, how can we trust him as President of the entire Nation?
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
New Theory
The other day I was reading in a UK newspaper about how human scientist observing certain elements of the Universe may have shortened the life of the Universe itself. I'm honestly not making this up, they are saying that simply by watching how things happen, we have changed them.However, rather than laugh this off, as was my first impulse, I thought, hey this could really work for us.
So, my theory is this, Global Warming isn't caused by greenhouse gasses, or even natural cycles, but rather by scientists observing Global Temperatures. I mean, isn't it obvious? If making observations is powerful enough to shorten the life span of the entire Universe, certainly it would be powerful enough to affect Global Temperatures on one little planet which is a mere speck in said Universe. So, if you hadn't already figured it out, the answer to the problem (assuming there is one) is to stop tracking temps, and hope it's not too late.
On a serious note, I'm really not worried about Global Warming, and I don't think that there will be any catastrophic results from it. In fact I'm pretty certain of this, based on this: Genesis 8:22 "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." And besides, isn't it pretty arrogant for humans to assume that we can affect the Planet on such a grand scale?
Now, to make things clear, this doesn't mean that we should just trash the Planet. God created this Planet and gave us Charge over it, not to make a mess out of it, but to care for it, and we should be treating it as something that is important to Him, and while it is for our use, it is not for us to waste.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
PC Run Amok
Today is Thanksgiving, a day to enjoy friends and family, and whatever specific traditions you and yours enjoy on this holiday, and to reflect on what you have to be thankful for. For those of us who do believe in God, it is a day to give Him thanks for the blessings in our lives. For those who do not believe in God, or simply don't think in those terms, it is still a day to reflect on the good things in the world. It's a great day when people get to remember that, however bad things may get, there are things to be thankful for. Personally, I have a great deal to be thankful for, and I do give thanks to God for it.
All that being said though, sadly, in this age of Political Correctness run amok, some simply cannot leave it alone. A California group, dedicated to "Native Americans" (which I'm sure doesn't include me, cause, you know, a single American Indian ancestor, and well over 10 generations in this country for most of the others just doesn't qualify to make me a native) has come up with a list of 11 Thanksgiving "Myths" to debunk. Of course, the entire thing is set to make the original American Colonists look as bad as they possibly can. Admittedly most Americans likely have an over-romanticized image of the "Pilgrims" (it does correctly point out that they were not known as Pilgrims at that point in History.) However, they weren't simply as bunch of murderous bullies either, which is how they are painted by this article.
Now, I don't mean for it to seem as if I'm surprised that a group like this would put this stuff out there, I'm not in the least. Where this becomes outrageous is that this list was forwarded with official sanction to the staff of the Seattle Public Schools, primarily to get across the point of "Myth #11: Thanksgiving is a Happy time." The claim being that Thanksgiving is actually a day of mourning for "Native Americans" as it commemorates 500 years of betrayal in exchange for friendship. There are quite a number of problems with that statement, let me see if I can hit them all. For one thing, even some Indian tribes have spoken out on this, saying that Thanksgiving is a happy day spent with friends and family, just like it is for any other American, and that they don't view it as a day of mourning at all. Also at issue is that not all American Indian tribes greeted the newcomers as friends, so defending yourself against someone who is trying to kill you is hardly betrayal. Furthermore, this is based on the idea that Thanksgiving is supposed to be a day to celebrate the Pilgrims, when, as I said at the beginning, it is a day to be thankful for the good in our lives.
The point of the whole thing of course was to say that the original settlers never were friendly to the Indians at all, which is, of course, not true. There were friendly relationships, and many settlers did attempt to pay for the land. And we also need to remember that, however things worked out, History is seldom as simple as "Group A was right and Group B was wrong."
Of course, the same people at the Seattle Public Schools who forwarded this drivel have also been credited with once defining "individualism" and "planning ahead" as "cultural racism." Honestly, I don't get the planning ahead part at all, but let me take a kick at the "individualism" line. Knowing that all people are individuals, and are different from one another on a person by person basis is, in fact, the proof of the idiocy of racism. If we were in fact to say that all persons of race A were one way, while all persons of race B are another way, and all persons of race C are a third way, and so on and so forth, which is of course stereotyping, then racism would make sense, as the generalities would be true, and if you disapproved of a certain behavior which was practiced by every single person of a specific race, but not by any other, then the racism would be, at least to some extent, justified. Of course we know that this is not true. Each person is an individual, and deserves to be treated as such. The fact is that these people don't want everyone to not be racist, that's not good enough. You see, to be acceptable, you must be racist against whites, especially if you are white. If you don't hate yourself, then you must hate everyone else, or so the twisted logic goes. Utterly ridiculous.
While I find all of this pretty outrageous, let me not dwell on it anymore, it is, after all, Thanksgiving, and as I said before, Thank God I do have a great deal to be thankful for.
All that being said though, sadly, in this age of Political Correctness run amok, some simply cannot leave it alone. A California group, dedicated to "Native Americans" (which I'm sure doesn't include me, cause, you know, a single American Indian ancestor, and well over 10 generations in this country for most of the others just doesn't qualify to make me a native) has come up with a list of 11 Thanksgiving "Myths" to debunk. Of course, the entire thing is set to make the original American Colonists look as bad as they possibly can. Admittedly most Americans likely have an over-romanticized image of the "Pilgrims" (it does correctly point out that they were not known as Pilgrims at that point in History.) However, they weren't simply as bunch of murderous bullies either, which is how they are painted by this article.
Now, I don't mean for it to seem as if I'm surprised that a group like this would put this stuff out there, I'm not in the least. Where this becomes outrageous is that this list was forwarded with official sanction to the staff of the Seattle Public Schools, primarily to get across the point of "Myth #11: Thanksgiving is a Happy time." The claim being that Thanksgiving is actually a day of mourning for "Native Americans" as it commemorates 500 years of betrayal in exchange for friendship. There are quite a number of problems with that statement, let me see if I can hit them all. For one thing, even some Indian tribes have spoken out on this, saying that Thanksgiving is a happy day spent with friends and family, just like it is for any other American, and that they don't view it as a day of mourning at all. Also at issue is that not all American Indian tribes greeted the newcomers as friends, so defending yourself against someone who is trying to kill you is hardly betrayal. Furthermore, this is based on the idea that Thanksgiving is supposed to be a day to celebrate the Pilgrims, when, as I said at the beginning, it is a day to be thankful for the good in our lives.
The point of the whole thing of course was to say that the original settlers never were friendly to the Indians at all, which is, of course, not true. There were friendly relationships, and many settlers did attempt to pay for the land. And we also need to remember that, however things worked out, History is seldom as simple as "Group A was right and Group B was wrong."
Of course, the same people at the Seattle Public Schools who forwarded this drivel have also been credited with once defining "individualism" and "planning ahead" as "cultural racism." Honestly, I don't get the planning ahead part at all, but let me take a kick at the "individualism" line. Knowing that all people are individuals, and are different from one another on a person by person basis is, in fact, the proof of the idiocy of racism. If we were in fact to say that all persons of race A were one way, while all persons of race B are another way, and all persons of race C are a third way, and so on and so forth, which is of course stereotyping, then racism would make sense, as the generalities would be true, and if you disapproved of a certain behavior which was practiced by every single person of a specific race, but not by any other, then the racism would be, at least to some extent, justified. Of course we know that this is not true. Each person is an individual, and deserves to be treated as such. The fact is that these people don't want everyone to not be racist, that's not good enough. You see, to be acceptable, you must be racist against whites, especially if you are white. If you don't hate yourself, then you must hate everyone else, or so the twisted logic goes. Utterly ridiculous.
While I find all of this pretty outrageous, let me not dwell on it anymore, it is, after all, Thanksgiving, and as I said before, Thank God I do have a great deal to be thankful for.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Unexpected?
As we are getting closer to the beginning of the Presidential Primaries, not everything is going the way that some have told us it would. Most in the media would have you believe that the Presidential race is, and has been from the beginning, already down to Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton. This is, however, anything but definite.
Some surprises have popped up recently. First, Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has seen a huge uptick in the polls in some early primary states, and a somewhat smaller, though still significant surge in national polls. This is likely due to the fact most Republicans have been dissatisfied with the overall Republican field, but especially the supposed front runners. Meanwhile, Huckabee has been one of the strongest, non-top tier candidates right from the beginning of the race. It would appear that people are finding his moral, common sense, Conservative approach to be appealing. While many have spent a long time trying to figure out who to throw their support behind, it seems that many have decided that Mike Huckabee is the way to go.
Still, what surprises me considerably more than Huckabee's new found support, and a real possibility of winning the nomination, is all the support that Texas Representative Ron Paul has been picking up lately. Honestly, I had thought that Rep. Paul would end up as little more than a foot note on this election, kind of a fringe element that never had so much as a shot. It would appear that I was mistaken. I suppose it's possible that Ron Paul's supporters are just louder and more passionate than most others, but even that would do him some good, but honestly, I think that he does have a better chance than I would have thought. Once again, it seems that people like his common sense approach to domestic issues, and his passion for the Constitution and doing what's right for the USA, and his consistent conservatism. I guess what is most surprising is that he vehement opposition to the war in Iraq didn't kill his campaign. I would have thought that for a Republican to take that stance would have been the death knell of their campaign, but it hasn't been for him. It would seem that a lot of conservatives are willing to overlook his stance on the war, while some on the left find him the most trustworthy anti-war candidate on either side, and are willing to overlook his conservatism because they believe he will get us out of Iraq. As a Dr, and OB-GYN, who has delivered thousands of babies, Dr. Paul is not only able to explain why abortion is morally wrong, but he can explain it medically as well. Also, there isn't anyone in the race who believes in lower taxes and limited government more than Ron Paul.
Personally, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but I can see why some are. As there isn't a perfect candidate in the race, some feel that he is the best option, as he will do what he feels to be the best thing for the country, and he bases that on a love of liberty and freedom, and our Country. I'm not saying that this means we will see a President Paul come January of 2009, but we can't really rule it out completely... and that is shocking to me.
Now, I still like Fred Thompson, but right now, Mike Huckabee seems to be shifting his campaign into ultra high gear, and letting people know that he is a conservative and he will fight for our principles and do his best to do right by all the people of the USA. And, of course, the endorsement by Chuck Norris isn't going to hurt in any way either. By the time the Primaries get to Florida, if Fred isn't looking so hot, but Huckabee has been placing well in the other early states, I very well might vote for him here as well. A win for Huckabee in Iowa and/or New Hampshire could start a wave of momentum behind him that will crush Giuliani and Romney right out of the gate.
So, let's not despair, we still might end up with a Republican Nominee that we can actually consider voting for, and know that we have not abandoned our principles to do so.
Some surprises have popped up recently. First, Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has seen a huge uptick in the polls in some early primary states, and a somewhat smaller, though still significant surge in national polls. This is likely due to the fact most Republicans have been dissatisfied with the overall Republican field, but especially the supposed front runners. Meanwhile, Huckabee has been one of the strongest, non-top tier candidates right from the beginning of the race. It would appear that people are finding his moral, common sense, Conservative approach to be appealing. While many have spent a long time trying to figure out who to throw their support behind, it seems that many have decided that Mike Huckabee is the way to go.
Still, what surprises me considerably more than Huckabee's new found support, and a real possibility of winning the nomination, is all the support that Texas Representative Ron Paul has been picking up lately. Honestly, I had thought that Rep. Paul would end up as little more than a foot note on this election, kind of a fringe element that never had so much as a shot. It would appear that I was mistaken. I suppose it's possible that Ron Paul's supporters are just louder and more passionate than most others, but even that would do him some good, but honestly, I think that he does have a better chance than I would have thought. Once again, it seems that people like his common sense approach to domestic issues, and his passion for the Constitution and doing what's right for the USA, and his consistent conservatism. I guess what is most surprising is that he vehement opposition to the war in Iraq didn't kill his campaign. I would have thought that for a Republican to take that stance would have been the death knell of their campaign, but it hasn't been for him. It would seem that a lot of conservatives are willing to overlook his stance on the war, while some on the left find him the most trustworthy anti-war candidate on either side, and are willing to overlook his conservatism because they believe he will get us out of Iraq. As a Dr, and OB-GYN, who has delivered thousands of babies, Dr. Paul is not only able to explain why abortion is morally wrong, but he can explain it medically as well. Also, there isn't anyone in the race who believes in lower taxes and limited government more than Ron Paul.
Personally, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but I can see why some are. As there isn't a perfect candidate in the race, some feel that he is the best option, as he will do what he feels to be the best thing for the country, and he bases that on a love of liberty and freedom, and our Country. I'm not saying that this means we will see a President Paul come January of 2009, but we can't really rule it out completely... and that is shocking to me.
Now, I still like Fred Thompson, but right now, Mike Huckabee seems to be shifting his campaign into ultra high gear, and letting people know that he is a conservative and he will fight for our principles and do his best to do right by all the people of the USA. And, of course, the endorsement by Chuck Norris isn't going to hurt in any way either. By the time the Primaries get to Florida, if Fred isn't looking so hot, but Huckabee has been placing well in the other early states, I very well might vote for him here as well. A win for Huckabee in Iowa and/or New Hampshire could start a wave of momentum behind him that will crush Giuliani and Romney right out of the gate.
So, let's not despair, we still might end up with a Republican Nominee that we can actually consider voting for, and know that we have not abandoned our principles to do so.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Kids
Aren't kids grand? Seriously. The other day I was practicing my Guitar, and not feeling like I was doing so well... ok, that's an understatement. The thoughts going through my mind were along the lines of, "I must be about the worst player who has ever touched a Guitar!" Anyway, I finished the song I was working on, and my daughter, sitting there watching me with a big grin on her face says, "Wow Daddy, you are SO good!" I can't tell you how that warmed my heart. Of course, if you're a parent, I'm sure you already know what I'm talking about.
This is not to say that things are always rosy. Kids talk back, they get disrespectful, they hear only what they want to hear, and sometimes they seem to forget who the parents are. All of this, however, is where discipline and teaching enter the picture. For the most part when kids do these things, they are testing their boundaries, finding out just how far you're going to let them go. This is why it's good to stop them short a little, because otherwise, they will push just a little farther, and then, just a little farther still, and leave you wondering how they ever got so far out of control. This is natural stuff, and how to deal with it is the age old parenting question that everyone thinks they have the answer for, and yet every parent has to find their way through it on their own. Of course some kids have real self control issues, but even most of these can be handled through discipline, guidance, and teaching, and if it can't, there are resources available.
Even in our self absorbed culture today, many parents still place a very high priority on protecting and nurturing their kids. There was a time when it could be said that most parents put that as their number one priority, but even though that's probably not the case in this "looking out for number 1" culture that we live in, it still ranks near the top. There are, of course, a very wide range of idea's when it comes to how best to do this, but most parents do have their hearts in the right place... even if their heads are full of bologna!
Unfortunately however, there seem to be more and more people who view children as a commodity. Either as status symbols, or, disgustingly, as sex objects. There is not much that can be done about parents who view their kids as status symbols (look at how great my kid is, see, I'm so great because my kid is so great) since they, at least, are still usually protecting their kids (after all, a broken one isn't much of a status symbol) after a fashion, they just aren't preparing them to deal realistically with life.
The ones you have to really look out for are the ones that hurt kids. Either through physical or sexual abuse. Sadly, it can be difficult sometimes to figure out if someone is doing it to their own kids, but we have to be very careful who we trust with ours. If you find out that a close friend or relative is sexually abusing your kids, and you manage to restrain yourself sufficiently to avoid killing them outright, do everything you can to put them in prison for a LONG LONG time.
This post took quite a turn from what I was thinking about originally, however, it's all true, and you can never be too prepared, or too careful.
This is not to say that things are always rosy. Kids talk back, they get disrespectful, they hear only what they want to hear, and sometimes they seem to forget who the parents are. All of this, however, is where discipline and teaching enter the picture. For the most part when kids do these things, they are testing their boundaries, finding out just how far you're going to let them go. This is why it's good to stop them short a little, because otherwise, they will push just a little farther, and then, just a little farther still, and leave you wondering how they ever got so far out of control. This is natural stuff, and how to deal with it is the age old parenting question that everyone thinks they have the answer for, and yet every parent has to find their way through it on their own. Of course some kids have real self control issues, but even most of these can be handled through discipline, guidance, and teaching, and if it can't, there are resources available.
Even in our self absorbed culture today, many parents still place a very high priority on protecting and nurturing their kids. There was a time when it could be said that most parents put that as their number one priority, but even though that's probably not the case in this "looking out for number 1" culture that we live in, it still ranks near the top. There are, of course, a very wide range of idea's when it comes to how best to do this, but most parents do have their hearts in the right place... even if their heads are full of bologna!
Unfortunately however, there seem to be more and more people who view children as a commodity. Either as status symbols, or, disgustingly, as sex objects. There is not much that can be done about parents who view their kids as status symbols (look at how great my kid is, see, I'm so great because my kid is so great) since they, at least, are still usually protecting their kids (after all, a broken one isn't much of a status symbol) after a fashion, they just aren't preparing them to deal realistically with life.
The ones you have to really look out for are the ones that hurt kids. Either through physical or sexual abuse. Sadly, it can be difficult sometimes to figure out if someone is doing it to their own kids, but we have to be very careful who we trust with ours. If you find out that a close friend or relative is sexually abusing your kids, and you manage to restrain yourself sufficiently to avoid killing them outright, do everything you can to put them in prison for a LONG LONG time.
This post took quite a turn from what I was thinking about originally, however, it's all true, and you can never be too prepared, or too careful.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
More Primary Angst
While the feud in the Democratic party is ongoing, regarding the decision to deny any voice to Florida Democrats in the Presidential nominee selection process, the Republican National Committee has decided to squander the golden opportunity handed them by the Democrats by announcing that they will strip Florida of half of the delegates to the Republican Convention.
This is not quite as severe as what the Democratic Party has done, but it is still wrong, for all the reasons that I listed in my post "Primarily Wrong," however, this time it goes a little deeper.
In stripping Florida Democratic voters of a voice, the DNC showed themselves to be petty and ridiculous, willing to punish the voters, who had no say in Florida's choice to move it's Primary date. In doing so they handed the Republican Party an opportunity to win a huge PR victory. All the RNC had to do was release a statement saying that while they did not approve of Florida taking this action, they recognized that the common voters had not done it, and still deserved their voice. This would have been unbelievably huge in the General Election when they could have said, hey everybody, look at us, we still believed in Florida, we didn't punish the wrong people just to make ourselves look tough, and we still believe in Florida today! Unfortunately, they didn't do that. They chose, instead, to squander the greatest PR Victory the GOP could ever hope the Dems would hand them.
Admittedly, since the Republican candidates have still been campaigning in Florida, while the Democrats have not, whoever gets the GOP nod will at least have that much to hold over their challenger, as well as the fact that the GOP rebuff was not as harsh as the Dem one was. Unfortunately, we could have had so much more.
This is not quite as severe as what the Democratic Party has done, but it is still wrong, for all the reasons that I listed in my post "Primarily Wrong," however, this time it goes a little deeper.
In stripping Florida Democratic voters of a voice, the DNC showed themselves to be petty and ridiculous, willing to punish the voters, who had no say in Florida's choice to move it's Primary date. In doing so they handed the Republican Party an opportunity to win a huge PR victory. All the RNC had to do was release a statement saying that while they did not approve of Florida taking this action, they recognized that the common voters had not done it, and still deserved their voice. This would have been unbelievably huge in the General Election when they could have said, hey everybody, look at us, we still believed in Florida, we didn't punish the wrong people just to make ourselves look tough, and we still believe in Florida today! Unfortunately, they didn't do that. They chose, instead, to squander the greatest PR Victory the GOP could ever hope the Dems would hand them.
Admittedly, since the Republican candidates have still been campaigning in Florida, while the Democrats have not, whoever gets the GOP nod will at least have that much to hold over their challenger, as well as the fact that the GOP rebuff was not as harsh as the Dem one was. Unfortunately, we could have had so much more.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Endorsements
Today it was learned that the National Right to Life Committee is endorsing Fred Thompson for President. I guess they heard that his Senate voting record is 100% pro life. Some have questioned just how authentic this position is, and how committed he is to it, but, hey, if Rudy Giuliani can tell people to judge him by his record, then it should go for Fred Thompson also.
This is something that should give Pat Robertson some pause, since he just endorsed Giuliani. Of course, Robertson has become less relevant recently. I'm not saying that he's a bad guy, just that he's been marginalized, and in this case, he's made a big mistake (see recent posts). I think that the NRLC will carry a lot more weight with most conservatives and Christians than will Pat Robertson's.
It really is too bad that Conservatives still have not found a candidate that they can unify behind, but, as we are still around 2 months out from the primary season, there is still hope.
There for awhile I was pretty sure that I would be voting for Thompson, and while it is still a possibility, I wouldn't call it a certainty at this point. I would say I'd like to see Hunter come a little more center stage, so that I might be able to give him a little more consideration, but I'm also considering Huckabee at this point.
On the more amusing front, I was reading another blog the other day (the blog wasn't amusing at all, it was very serious, and very good) and there was a very serious discussion going on in the comments section. Anyway, the blogger eventually told the person arguing with her that (I'm paraphrasing here) with all of his circular arguments he sounded a lot like Hillary Clinton, and he told her that it was rude to compare him to the next President of the United States. Statements like this always amuse me, on more than one level. First is the obvious that, if you admire the person, why would you be insulted when someone compares you to them? But even more obvious, it's always funny when people pretend that they already know with certainty what the outcome of the election will be, especially while it's still pre-primary! Don't get me wrong, I'm not deluded, I know that Hillary Clinton does have a decent shot at becoming President, but it's downright silly for anyone to pretend that it is a sure thing at this point. Again, don't get me wrong, this is not something that is in any way unique to Hillary Clinton supporters, but it's still silly, and it is just as silly when it is said about a republican as it is when it's said about a democrat.
So, who is the best person for Republicans and Conservatives to unify behind at this point? I'm not sure, does anyone else have an opinion?
This is something that should give Pat Robertson some pause, since he just endorsed Giuliani. Of course, Robertson has become less relevant recently. I'm not saying that he's a bad guy, just that he's been marginalized, and in this case, he's made a big mistake (see recent posts). I think that the NRLC will carry a lot more weight with most conservatives and Christians than will Pat Robertson's.
It really is too bad that Conservatives still have not found a candidate that they can unify behind, but, as we are still around 2 months out from the primary season, there is still hope.
There for awhile I was pretty sure that I would be voting for Thompson, and while it is still a possibility, I wouldn't call it a certainty at this point. I would say I'd like to see Hunter come a little more center stage, so that I might be able to give him a little more consideration, but I'm also considering Huckabee at this point.
On the more amusing front, I was reading another blog the other day (the blog wasn't amusing at all, it was very serious, and very good) and there was a very serious discussion going on in the comments section. Anyway, the blogger eventually told the person arguing with her that (I'm paraphrasing here) with all of his circular arguments he sounded a lot like Hillary Clinton, and he told her that it was rude to compare him to the next President of the United States. Statements like this always amuse me, on more than one level. First is the obvious that, if you admire the person, why would you be insulted when someone compares you to them? But even more obvious, it's always funny when people pretend that they already know with certainty what the outcome of the election will be, especially while it's still pre-primary! Don't get me wrong, I'm not deluded, I know that Hillary Clinton does have a decent shot at becoming President, but it's downright silly for anyone to pretend that it is a sure thing at this point. Again, don't get me wrong, this is not something that is in any way unique to Hillary Clinton supporters, but it's still silly, and it is just as silly when it is said about a republican as it is when it's said about a democrat.
So, who is the best person for Republicans and Conservatives to unify behind at this point? I'm not sure, does anyone else have an opinion?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Veterans Day
Today is Veterans Day, and I think that it is important that we just take a moment and remember all those who have served our country.
The fact is that none of us would have the freedoms that we have today if it hadn't been for all those who have served, both those who have died, and all of those who have fought and come back and worked in private life to make our Country as great as it is, and has been for over 200 years.
The USA is still the greatest country on Earth, and this is thanks to our Veterans. Let us honor them. And let us not squander their sacrifice by letting our great nation go down the drain.
The fact is that none of us would have the freedoms that we have today if it hadn't been for all those who have served, both those who have died, and all of those who have fought and come back and worked in private life to make our Country as great as it is, and has been for over 200 years.
The USA is still the greatest country on Earth, and this is thanks to our Veterans. Let us honor them. And let us not squander their sacrifice by letting our great nation go down the drain.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Giuliani Fever
There is a virtual war going on right now on Republican and Conservative web sites over the choice to support Rudy Giuliani in the Republican Primary. Being that I've already made my feeling quite clear, that I will not vote for him, regardless of who he's running against, let me address some of the nonsense that the Rudy crowd has been putting forth.
1) The idea that Rudy really is Conservative enough: The fact is that Giuliani is really not conservative at all. All of his Social positions are flat out liberal. For example, he supports Abortion, he supports gay marriage rights, as well as other special rights for gays, and he
doesn't care one little bit what you think of that. He is also soft on Illegal Immigration, being, at the very least, partially responsible for turning NYC into a Sanctuary City, and isn't interested in securing the borders (more on that in a moment). On the surface he appears to be fiscally conservative, but that doesn't hold up as long as he is soft on Illegal Immigration, which is a huge drain on our economy.
2) The idea that he is the right man to deal with Terrorism: The fact is that open borders leave us all vulnerable to terrorist attack, and Rudy has no interest in securing our borders, no matter what he says in speeches and at debates. A man who turned our largest City into a Sanctuary City, is not going to take the serious steps needed to secure the borders and stop the influx. He is also not going to stand up for us and fight against amnesty for illegals. So, just as it is now, under a Giuliani administration, terrorists would still be able to stroll across our borders and set up cells within our country, and plot to kill us, and as long as they stayed below the radar, and especially if they lived in a Sanctuary City, would run virtually no risk of being deported.
3) The idea that only Rudy can defeat Hillary: The fact is that Giuliani and Romney are the two Republicans running right now that stand the least chance of defeating Hillary, if she even gets the Democratic nomination (while it seems likely, even that's not a certainty.) The reason for this is that Rudy or Mitt would so divide the party (as there are a lot of people just like me who will absolutely NOT vote for one of them, regardless) that nominating them is akin to handing Hillary (or whomever the Dems select) an engraved invitation to the Presidency. True Conservatives, and especially Christians, would be forced to seek a third option if Rudy were nominated. In truth, there are several who would be better suited to defeat Hillary than Rudy or Mitt. Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo would all stand a better chance of unifying the party and winning the White House than does Rudy. Even Ron Paul would likely be less divisive than Rudy.
4) The idea that Hillary is a lock for the Democratic Nod: The fact is that while Hillary is in good shape for the upcoming Primary, Obama hasn't exactly gone away. In fact, if he would take on some hard news venues, and really get his message out (assuming he has one) he could pull off an upset and really thump the Clinton machine. So, if that were to happen, then any argument for Rudy (however misguided) based on fighting Hillary, would be null and void.
5) The idea that his personal life doesn't matter: The fact is that the personal life of high profile people always matters to Conservatives, especially when it is someone that we are supposed to support and who is supposed to represent us. Being on his third wife, estranged from his children, and with infidelity in his past, how could any conservative ever cast a vote to put this man into office?
As I've said before, and will say again, the lesser of two evils is still evil, so this time, let's try to get someone in the running that we can actually feel good about voting for.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Giving Up
Well, it finally happened. Pat Robertson has come out in support of Rudy Giuliani for President, saying that the most pressing problem for America is the threat of Islamic Terrorism. While it's true that this is a major threat, what is not true is that Giuliani is the only candidate that could deal effectively with the terrorists. In fact, he is far less than equal to the task given his soft stances on illegal immigration. Most reasonable people realize that without secure borders, we will always have the threat of terrorism here at home.
Of course, Pat Robertson is not the only one. Several evangelical leaders have thrown in with Mitt Romney, probably the only Republican running who is worse than Rudy. At least with Giuliani you know what you are getting, Romney changes his mind so much, you would have no clue what you are getting.
There is also the point that while terrorism is indeed a serious threat, it is not the most pressing issue of this election. The culture in this country is in a desperate downward spiral, and while it is not the Presidents job to fix the culture, we certainly don't need one that is going to make things worse.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that these men are not Conservatives. They act as though there are no Conservative Choices that would be better than Giuliani or Romney, and that simply is not true. Fred Thompson is actually Conservative (at least relatively so) and would be far tougher on illegal immigration than the other two, and would be very tough in the war on terror. Mike Huckabee is fairly conservative, and looks like he would be somewhat tougher on the immigration front. And also, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo would be far better choices, and I'd like to see one of these men get some endorsements from prominent Conservatives based on these things.
I really don't want to see us end up with the same old choice between the lesser of two evils. Remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Of course, Pat Robertson is not the only one. Several evangelical leaders have thrown in with Mitt Romney, probably the only Republican running who is worse than Rudy. At least with Giuliani you know what you are getting, Romney changes his mind so much, you would have no clue what you are getting.
There is also the point that while terrorism is indeed a serious threat, it is not the most pressing issue of this election. The culture in this country is in a desperate downward spiral, and while it is not the Presidents job to fix the culture, we certainly don't need one that is going to make things worse.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that these men are not Conservatives. They act as though there are no Conservative Choices that would be better than Giuliani or Romney, and that simply is not true. Fred Thompson is actually Conservative (at least relatively so) and would be far tougher on illegal immigration than the other two, and would be very tough in the war on terror. Mike Huckabee is fairly conservative, and looks like he would be somewhat tougher on the immigration front. And also, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo would be far better choices, and I'd like to see one of these men get some endorsements from prominent Conservatives based on these things.
I really don't want to see us end up with the same old choice between the lesser of two evils. Remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Barking Up the right Racist
I feel like I have to address this. For anyone who hasn't been paying attention, there is a guy called Duane "Dog" Chapman who is a bounty hunter and has his own show on A&E (or at least he did). Recently his son has been dating a black woman, and "Dog" reacted badly to this. He left a voicemail on his son's cell phone (if I understood correctly) saying that since sometimes his family and crew use the N word, and he wasn't going to some "F.... N...." hear him say it and sell it to a tabloid and ruin everything that he had worked so hard for, he didn't want his son with her anymore. His son then turned around and sold the recording of the voicemail to a tabloid... guess that backfired huh?
I keep hearing people ask the question, "Is he really racist, or did he just use the word?" I had a very profound reaction to that... HUH?!?!?
How could anyone listen to what he said and come away with any reaction other than that he is indeed racist? I mean, if Don Imus is considered racist for using the term "Nappy Headed Hoes" (which, while an incredibly stupid thing for him to say is not overtly racist) then how can someone calling his sons girlfriend an "F... N..." possibly not be a flat out racist comment?
If he had just chased down a fleeing criminal, and hurt himself in the process, and said that to him, I could see a case being made that he blurted it out in a fit of rage, and doesn't really feel that way, it would still have been unacceptable, but I can see where it could happen. On the other hand, for it to be said about his son's girlfriend based solely on the fact that he doesn't want her around because she is black... how else can you take that?
Now, as I understand, A&E has taken his show off the air and suspended him, at least for the time being. I'm not taking a position as to whether he should be fired from his show or not, that is up to the sponsors, the network and the shows viewers. As for the rest of us, let's just be honest enough to say that what he said cannot be taken in any way other than as racism.
I think that the best thing for him to do now is to get out and talk to people, and own up to his racist feelings, however strong they may be, and work through the issue in the public eye. I also hope that he won't go to "rehab" since it's not like they can tell him anything that most anyone couldn't already tell him. That is just my opinion though.
My point today is simply this: If it walks like a racist, talks like a racist... well, you get the picture.
I keep hearing people ask the question, "Is he really racist, or did he just use the word?" I had a very profound reaction to that... HUH?!?!?
How could anyone listen to what he said and come away with any reaction other than that he is indeed racist? I mean, if Don Imus is considered racist for using the term "Nappy Headed Hoes" (which, while an incredibly stupid thing for him to say is not overtly racist) then how can someone calling his sons girlfriend an "F... N..." possibly not be a flat out racist comment?
If he had just chased down a fleeing criminal, and hurt himself in the process, and said that to him, I could see a case being made that he blurted it out in a fit of rage, and doesn't really feel that way, it would still have been unacceptable, but I can see where it could happen. On the other hand, for it to be said about his son's girlfriend based solely on the fact that he doesn't want her around because she is black... how else can you take that?
Now, as I understand, A&E has taken his show off the air and suspended him, at least for the time being. I'm not taking a position as to whether he should be fired from his show or not, that is up to the sponsors, the network and the shows viewers. As for the rest of us, let's just be honest enough to say that what he said cannot be taken in any way other than as racism.
I think that the best thing for him to do now is to get out and talk to people, and own up to his racist feelings, however strong they may be, and work through the issue in the public eye. I also hope that he won't go to "rehab" since it's not like they can tell him anything that most anyone couldn't already tell him. That is just my opinion though.
My point today is simply this: If it walks like a racist, talks like a racist... well, you get the picture.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Down With DST
Is it only me, or is there anyone else who is sick and tired of Daylight
Savings Time?
Savings Time?
I've been told that there was a time when it was truly necessary in
order to keep our country functioning. Something about the farmers
needing more time in the daylight to get their work done. I'm not sure
how many farmers you have known that rely on the clock, but in my
experience, a farmer will adjust his schedule around that sunlight, not
the other way around.
But, be that as it may, even if there was a time when this was
necessary, it was long ago. Now it is nothing more than an annoyance.
We need to get rid of it. Pick one and leave it there, I don't even
care which.
Tonight, for example, the conversion from Eastern Daylight Time to
Eastern Standard Time will turn my (plenty long enough on it's own) 12 hour shift into a 13 hour shift. However, that's not the worst part, in the Spring, when it goes back to Daylight time, I'll lose an hour of pay, since it will only be an 11 hour shift... And that is overtime!
Try as I may, I fail to see any benefit to the current system. I would
like to see it abolished in favor of simply staying on Standard Time,
and forget about all the time change nonsense... Maybe we can start a
movement, how about, "Americans for year around clock consistency."
Gender Bias?
Democratic Presidential Hopefuls, Senators Chris Dodd and Barak Hussein Obama, and Former Senator John Edwards, have launched harsh attacks against Democratic frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton.
Already, some in the media, and even Senator Clinton herself, are blaming the attacks on "Boys Club Politics." In other words, they are saying that she is being attacked because she is a woman. I can't hardly begin to tell you how moronic this supposition is. Isn't it obvious that they are attacking her because she is ahead of them in the polls, and if she gets the nomination, they automatically don't? She is a political rival, a politician running for the same office. In fact, it isn't even really fair to say that they are attacking her, since what they are doing is called "campaigning."
Some have said that she is being attacked because she is the first woman to run for President, and that's not even true. Oh sure, she's the first woman to have a real chance at being elected President, but she's hardly the first woman to declare candidacy. And again, it's not why they are after her. Besides, B. Hussein Obama is the first black man who has a real chance at the Presidency, so is Hillary racist for running against him? Of course not.
On the same topic, one of the things John Edwards said was that the Republicans are going after Hillary already because they want her to get the nomination because they know they can beat her. I've got news for you John, most of the Republicans are after Hillary simply because they feel it is a given that she will get the nomination, so they are gearing up to fight her now, in fact, if we were able to pick the Democrat to run against, and we based it on who we could most easily beat, you, Mr. Edwards, would be the first choice of most Republicans.
On another note, sorry that it has been so long since my last post, was busy with family, and then my Internet connection was down, but I will try to get back to posting at least a few times a week. Don't forget to leave comments and vote in my polls.
Already, some in the media, and even Senator Clinton herself, are blaming the attacks on "Boys Club Politics." In other words, they are saying that she is being attacked because she is a woman. I can't hardly begin to tell you how moronic this supposition is. Isn't it obvious that they are attacking her because she is ahead of them in the polls, and if she gets the nomination, they automatically don't? She is a political rival, a politician running for the same office. In fact, it isn't even really fair to say that they are attacking her, since what they are doing is called "campaigning."
Some have said that she is being attacked because she is the first woman to run for President, and that's not even true. Oh sure, she's the first woman to have a real chance at being elected President, but she's hardly the first woman to declare candidacy. And again, it's not why they are after her. Besides, B. Hussein Obama is the first black man who has a real chance at the Presidency, so is Hillary racist for running against him? Of course not.
On the same topic, one of the things John Edwards said was that the Republicans are going after Hillary already because they want her to get the nomination because they know they can beat her. I've got news for you John, most of the Republicans are after Hillary simply because they feel it is a given that she will get the nomination, so they are gearing up to fight her now, in fact, if we were able to pick the Democrat to run against, and we based it on who we could most easily beat, you, Mr. Edwards, would be the first choice of most Republicans.
On another note, sorry that it has been so long since my last post, was busy with family, and then my Internet connection was down, but I will try to get back to posting at least a few times a week. Don't forget to leave comments and vote in my polls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
