I saw this video, and it's beautiful... Everyone who clicks to view it, $1 is donated to Operation HomeFront.
The man behind the counter in the video is Fred Ferguson, a Medal of Honor recipient.
The singer is John Ondrasik of Five for Fighting...
Please watch.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Hillary Hears a Sniper
It's definitely making the news now... Senator Clinton made a speech about how when she went to Bosnia, as First Lady, she landed under sniper fire.
Except, it wasn't true.
Now, the video below by (believe it or not, CBS News) deconstructs her lie. However, it shouldn't even be necessary to do that.
Not, if you have a little common sense.
At the time, she was First Lady of the United States of America. Such a position, while contrary to her assertion of its power, IS a very symbolic one. As such, her safety is paramount. Thus, the United States Secret Service would have never tolerated nor allowed the First Lady to land where she was at risk of being killed by sniper. And if she had really pushed the issue, there would have been extraordinary measures taken to prevent it.
Along for the ride was Chelsea, the First Daughter. Perhaps even more of an emotional target, her presence would also trigger extreme protection. Besides, what mother takes a daughter into sniper fire?
There were USO entertainers aboard, notably Sinbad and Cheryl Crow. Big names. No one wants their safety compromised either.
And if the USSS didn't have a coronary about flying into sniper fire with the First Lady, First Daughter, and two huge celebrities... the USAF brass would have gone to extra lengths to make sure nothing happened while the group was under their care and protection.
So, besides the fact that her story is a complete fabrication, which should certainly give voters pause, especially if she says it's because she was sleep deprived (brings the 3 am ad into new light if she's not at her mental best with low sleep), it's beyond plausibility.
It is apocryphal that politicians lie... but one thing that is expected is that they should be able to lie convincingly. And I would expect one with as much practice as her to be much better at it and not tell a lie so transparent, so blatant, that even CBS News can take it apart.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Friday, March 07, 2008
America Unprotected
It's been quite awhile since the Democrats refused to let the FISA renewal bill to even come to a vote in the US House of Representatives. This after the Senate reached a compromise, and in spite of the anti-American philosphy involved in preventing a vote - as we encourage peoples the world over to exercise an opportunity to vote.
America has been left unprotected. And the Democrats, led by Speaker of the House Representative Nancy Pelosi, are either not listening or don't seem interested.
It's time for them to hear us. Hear our concern. We need to get their attention.
I encourage everyone to go out and buy (it's good for the economy, and a worthy use of your stimulus check as there's a decent chance this will still be an issue when the checks are cut) a condom. One single condom (if you buy a multi-pack, enjoy the rest however you like - I hear they make great water balloons).
Mail the condom, along with a note reading, "Protect America!" to:
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Remember, when you don't use protection, it's like your country has been with every other country.
It's Not the Color, but the Thickness
Terrorism abounds, the economy is slowing down (no, not a recession yet), peace is not yet found in Palestine, and sadly, baseball season is nigh upon us.
Yet, a major headline recently was that actor Robert Downey, Jr. "blacked" up for a role.
This is, apparently, bad.
First, the backstory. Ben Stiller, noted comedian, is directing and starring in a comedy about actors making a movie. In other words, there's a lot of make-believe going on here.
Mr. Downey's part is as an actor who's apparently Oscar-quality (whereupon we already know that Mr. Downey is acting, as he's not often been labeled "Oscar-quality") playing a part that was written for a black actor.
So, we know from the start that it's not serious. This isn't blackface in a negative, farsical, or minstrel-show type sense... This is an actor playing a part. For years, actors and actresses have labored for the belief that any person can play any part, under the ideal world of the theater.
Where was the uproar when the movie below came out:
If changing one's image is wrong, it's always wrong; by corollary, if it's not wrong, then it's never wrong. Equality means everyone can do it. And since Mr. Downey certainly isn't doing this maliciously, but more for the "craft", then... what's the harm? The part isn't the same if a black person portrays a white person pretending to be a black person. It's just the same that a woman playing a man pretending to be a woman isn't the same. (And didn't John Travolta recently change his body image to play a part in "Hairspray"? It wasn't because there wasn't a woman available to play it - several already had on both stage and screen; just that he was playing it this time.)
We MUST get past these little things, especially issues that aren't issues at all, so we can focus on the truly troubling issues facing us as a society... like, what are we going to do about the 31st of March.
Let's judge Mr. Downey on the content of his character, not the color(s) of his skin.
Yet, a major headline recently was that actor Robert Downey, Jr. "blacked" up for a role.
This is, apparently, bad.
First, the backstory. Ben Stiller, noted comedian, is directing and starring in a comedy about actors making a movie. In other words, there's a lot of make-believe going on here.
Mr. Downey's part is as an actor who's apparently Oscar-quality (whereupon we already know that Mr. Downey is acting, as he's not often been labeled "Oscar-quality") playing a part that was written for a black actor.
So, we know from the start that it's not serious. This isn't blackface in a negative, farsical, or minstrel-show type sense... This is an actor playing a part. For years, actors and actresses have labored for the belief that any person can play any part, under the ideal world of the theater.
Where was the uproar when the movie below came out:
If changing one's image is wrong, it's always wrong; by corollary, if it's not wrong, then it's never wrong. Equality means everyone can do it. And since Mr. Downey certainly isn't doing this maliciously, but more for the "craft", then... what's the harm? The part isn't the same if a black person portrays a white person pretending to be a black person. It's just the same that a woman playing a man pretending to be a woman isn't the same. (And didn't John Travolta recently change his body image to play a part in "Hairspray"? It wasn't because there wasn't a woman available to play it - several already had on both stage and screen; just that he was playing it this time.)
We MUST get past these little things, especially issues that aren't issues at all, so we can focus on the truly troubling issues facing us as a society... like, what are we going to do about the 31st of March.
Let's judge Mr. Downey on the content of his character, not the color(s) of his skin.
Help Me! - I Can't Walk & Text at the Same Time
It used to be that the standard for being able to do two things at once was if someone could walk and chew gum at the same time (this having replaced the eon long practice of patting your head and rubbing your tummy at the same time.)
These days, there's a new emerging standard - can you walk and send text messages from your phone at the same time. (If that last sentence was not quite clear, then you can probably continue using the chewing gum standard.)
Reports from London show that a staggering one out of ten people have hurt themselves while sending text messages.
I'll say it again. 10% of the population has injured themselves while texting (this can also allow for chatting, but... most likely texting.)
In the United States, this would extrapolate to approximately 30 million injuries.
What steps are being taken to address this scandalous uptick in cellphone injuries? Maybe commercials by cute, fuzzy animals singing songs to us about how to be aware of the rest of the world?
Nope.
London is trying padded lampposts.
(I'll give you a second...)
They are putting padding around lampposts for those folks who are so busy texting that they're not watching where they are walking and BAM! walk headlong into an innocent lamppost.
What does this say for society at large? We have to protect the populace from lampposts placed recklessly in the paths of people who have forgotten how to look UP while walking (anyone else secretly terrified about how these walking maladies might be driving?).
What's next? Pad the trees? Sides of buildings? Perhaps we can turn all of our cities into giant padded rooms.
Because, if we're truly going to ascribe to the theory that the best way to address people too dumb to look up is to pad the obstacles in front of them, then a padded room is what we'll need.
These days, there's a new emerging standard - can you walk and send text messages from your phone at the same time. (If that last sentence was not quite clear, then you can probably continue using the chewing gum standard.)
Reports from London show that a staggering one out of ten people have hurt themselves while sending text messages.
I'll say it again. 10% of the population has injured themselves while texting (this can also allow for chatting, but... most likely texting.)
In the United States, this would extrapolate to approximately 30 million injuries.
What steps are being taken to address this scandalous uptick in cellphone injuries? Maybe commercials by cute, fuzzy animals singing songs to us about how to be aware of the rest of the world?
Nope.
London is trying padded lampposts.
(I'll give you a second...)
They are putting padding around lampposts for those folks who are so busy texting that they're not watching where they are walking and BAM! walk headlong into an innocent lamppost.
What does this say for society at large? We have to protect the populace from lampposts placed recklessly in the paths of people who have forgotten how to look UP while walking (anyone else secretly terrified about how these walking maladies might be driving?).
What's next? Pad the trees? Sides of buildings? Perhaps we can turn all of our cities into giant padded rooms.
Because, if we're truly going to ascribe to the theory that the best way to address people too dumb to look up is to pad the obstacles in front of them, then a padded room is what we'll need.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Insurgents Target Recruiting Station
In a scene all too familiar, insurgents against the United States being involved in Iraq targeted a recruiting station. Fortunately, no one was injured by the explosive blast.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
We've read these headlines so often coming out of Iraq that we don't really read them anymore.
But this time, it's different.
The dateline for this isn't a dusty city corner in Iraq... It was Times Square, New York City. And the target was a United States military recruiting station.
Presumably, we are to still believe that those who oppose the war "Support the Troops" (while targeting their workplace with explosive devices) and we should never "question their patriotism" (because blowing up your homeland is a protected form of free speech?)...
It's time for people who lead the genuine anti-war movement to repudiate (and for Senator Clinton's benefit, also reject) the vitriolic attitude and actions that lead to the thought processes where motivated people think setting bombs is a justifiable way to protest.
There are ways.
Ways that express your disagreement, while not lending one to question your patriotism (or sanity, or criminal intent).
And for future reference, when you want to say, "We support the troops", item number one on the checklist is "Don't blow them up."
The insurgents are here, and they are amongst us. Take note, America.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
We've read these headlines so often coming out of Iraq that we don't really read them anymore.
But this time, it's different.
The dateline for this isn't a dusty city corner in Iraq... It was Times Square, New York City. And the target was a United States military recruiting station.
Presumably, we are to still believe that those who oppose the war "Support the Troops" (while targeting their workplace with explosive devices) and we should never "question their patriotism" (because blowing up your homeland is a protected form of free speech?)...
It's time for people who lead the genuine anti-war movement to repudiate (and for Senator Clinton's benefit, also reject) the vitriolic attitude and actions that lead to the thought processes where motivated people think setting bombs is a justifiable way to protest.
There are ways.
Ways that express your disagreement, while not lending one to question your patriotism (or sanity, or criminal intent).
And for future reference, when you want to say, "We support the troops", item number one on the checklist is "Don't blow them up."
The insurgents are here, and they are amongst us. Take note, America.
Which Part Will He Change?
I'm looking for verification of this. It was sent to me, and a friend said she heard it, but I can't find any transcripts except for a blurb on National Review Online that's tongue-in-cheek.
So...
Did Senator Obama really say this:
So...
Did Senator Obama really say this:
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."
Which War Are They Protesting?
(h/t to Michelle Malkin)
Which war are people protesting? Is it the Global War on Terrorism - Iraqi Theater or... perhaps this is an opportunity to relive their past "glories" and recall protesting the war in Viet Nam?
From the Raleigh News and Observer:
So, why burn a draft card? The only mention of having a draft lately has come fromPresident Bush, er... no... it was Democrat Representative Charles Rangel.
Anyone who's protesting... if your argument is strong and convincing, then you don't need "creativity" (note: it's not creative if it was used forty years ago)... your argument will speak for itself.
Which war are people protesting? Is it the Global War on Terrorism - Iraqi Theater or... perhaps this is an opportunity to relive their past "glories" and recall protesting the war in Viet Nam?
From the Raleigh News and Observer:
CHAPEL HILL -- For John Heuer, burning a fake draft card on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus was a sort of deja vu.
Heuer said he burned draft cards in 1971 while refusing to be part of President Nixon's army. He put his cigarette lighter to a symbolic card Thursday to support a student group's anti-war rally.
"It's important to get the word out in a creative way," said Heuer, a retired UNC facilities designer.
Burning draft cards. Ok. Was there a draft that I didn't know about? America's army (not the President's, Soldiers follow the President's orders, but they serve America) is an all-volunteer force, and has been since the 1970s.
So, why burn a draft card? The only mention of having a draft lately has come from
Anyone who's protesting... if your argument is strong and convincing, then you don't need "creativity" (note: it's not creative if it was used forty years ago)... your argument will speak for itself.
A Class Act
Mike Huckabee conceded his campaign to John McCain.
And it was a classy speech.
I applaud Mr. Huckabee for continuing his campaign through to the end. People know how I feel about those who start a campaign and quit.
A man of principle... he campaigned through to the end, and he stopped when he said he would... when someone had clearly won.
Here's his speech:
And it was a classy speech.
I applaud Mr. Huckabee for continuing his campaign through to the end. People know how I feel about those who start a campaign and quit.
A man of principle... he campaigned through to the end, and he stopped when he said he would... when someone had clearly won.
Here's his speech:
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Life Imitates "West Wing"
I've been a humongous fan of The West Wing for... years. Since it broadcast. I always thought that it was very well written (hat tip to Aaron Sorkin).
Interestingly enough, the folks over at Slate have compared the final season Presidential campaign with this year's campaign.
Take a look:
Interestingly enough, the folks over at Slate have compared the final season Presidential campaign with this year's campaign.
Take a look:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
