The Day After...

Finally. While we have been told that 04 November is the date to be circled on the calendar, if we’re truly honest, the real date highlighted in bright red has been 05 November. It’s over! In a country where people frequently grouse about our collective attention span, who thought a twenty-one month long presidential campaign would be a good idea?
But, here we are, at last. And we have a winner. Congratulations are due to Senator Obama!
It’s more than likely that while many people are celebrating (and rightly so), there’s at least one or two for whom last night was a crushing disappointment and defeat. Now, we will see one of the finest parts of America – the way we come back together as a country, united being the first word in our name, and move forward.
We don’t have to be unified in our joy and celebrations, though we should be. Senator Obama has achieved a success that to date has been enjoyed by only forty-three individuals before him. Out of the billions of Americans who’ve come and gone, this is nothing at which to sneer. And when we factor in his being the first black President, how can we not applaud?
Certainly, there will be hurt feelings and hardened attitudes. “This should make them happy,” was overheard more than once this morning. Whether the them refers to Democrats, Liberals, or more than likely, blacks in our country, as insincere as the wish is by those grumbling it, no doubt, they are happy.
As am I. We will soon witness a peaceful transfer of power in this country, again. A roundly despised leader is not being run out of town by tanks, nor being hung by his neck from the nearest light pole. The military of this country is not the grantor of power as it is in so many others – a simple ballot box is.
We will watch as the People of this country demonstrate one of the greatest lessons of this campaign – if you want change (in whatever form it may come to you), you need to work for it. And lo, Senator Obama, Senator Biden, and his legions of supporters certainly did work for it, very hard work. Change is accessible by one and all in this great land of ours.
Oh, and for those who truly cannot fathom nor accept the concept of President Obama, then you can always take heart that you, too, can work for change. As is heard in stadiums frequently this time of year, “Wait till next time,” may be your new refrain. Start when you’re ready – the current record for a campaign is only twenty-one months.

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.

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.

Saudi Arabia Plans to Behead Witch

I'd like to take an easy potshot at the "Religion of Peace", except... you know something? There are parts of this article that look as if they'd been written in Salem, Massachusetts.

The judges who convicted her relied on her forced confession and the statements of witnesses who said she had "bewitched" them.

One man claimed that he became impotent after Falih cast a spell on him.

Witches have long faced persecution, by many religions (though truth be told, I've never heard of persecution of witches by Jews, Buddhists, etc), primarily Christians and Muslims. And it's a crying shame.

Especially modern-day Wicca - we can learn a lot from the philosphies inherent in that particular branch of spirituality. There's something very elementary schoolish about those who are the most ardent adherents to a religion - "My religion is better than your religion" or more historically accurate, "My religion can beat up your religion" and "My God(s) will destroy your God(s)."

A little open-mindedness goes a long way. And being faithful to your religion, and being a "good" believer doesn't mean that another religion's existence is something to lose your head over.

Different Values

Or... why we're different from them.

Recently, our government has undergone grand debates about whether or not "waterboarding" is torture, or a valid interrogation tool.

In recent news, we've learned that the prisoners at the "despicable" and "horrid" detainee camps at Guantanamo are given education classes and movies for entertainment.

And we know how closely the Coalition forces are held to rigid Rules of Engagement and expectations to uphold the Geneva Convention (though they clearly do not apply, we apply them anyway.)

And then, there's al-Qaeda.

Hürriyet Video'larını izlemet için Flash 7 veya daha yüksek eklenti yüklenmeniz gerekmektedir. Yüklemek için tıklayınız!!!

Curious, think there's any debate within al-Qaeda about this?

Credibility and Reliability in Reporting

There are many bloggers out there commenting on recent New York Times reporting that is quickly proving to be... less than accurate.

I don't want to duplicate the efforts of those who've written so well on the subject, so let me suggest one particular column that struck me as being particularly eloquent.

Please, take a look at Mark Steyn's column on the subject.

Are the States Obsolete?

Is it time for us to dissolve the fifty states (ok, some are commonwealths, but for ease, I'll say "states") and perhaps have just the USA (we'll keep the name for heritage purposes) with administrative districts?

Preposterous?

Once upon a time, notably the antebellum time (pre-1861), the States were remarkably sovereign. Federalism was fully in force with the central government playing a limited role, notably in affairs that affected all the States, and the States managing the local needs.

We have transitioned to a time where the Federal government plays a much larger role in all roles of government.

Education: Once a province of local governments and boards, schools are now managed and ruled according to the Federal government. Often Congress, and the Department of Education, enact laws and policies that all schools which receive federal funds must follow.

Crime: Think of how many crimes, once thought to be a "local" event, now involve the Federal government. Whether it's through the FBI (kidnapping), BATF (guns, tobacco, alcohol), IRS (money), or just the Department of Justice (it's amazing what the US Attorney can find to prosecute someone under - remember, Michael Vick's dogfighting case was a federal one), the Federal government has their fingers in local crimes just as much as the locals do.

Defense: Before the War Between the States, the States had their standing Armies, and the United States Army wasn't noticeably large. Units were organized and defined by their state of origin. Now, yes, we do have the National Guard for the States, but let's be realistic... they are merely subordinate to the Federal military. Virginia and South Carolina, for example, have fighter units. Against whom within the state's borders will they be attacking? Will the Governor of South Carolina order the 169th to shoot down mischevious North Carolina aircraft? Not likely. The same can be asked of Army National Guard units that don't quite fit the bill for state duty - a big need for a state to have M1A2 Main Battle Tanks?

So, that time, too, has passed.

Disasters: This would be easy, right? Local fire, local government. Local flood, local government. However, when a natural disaster occurs, is not one of the first statements that the locals have asked for Federal Disaster relief? Or, Where's FEMA? Where are the Feds? What's the President going to do?!

Taxes: Most of our taxes go to the Federal government. Ironically, a large sum is often then granted back to the States... to do the Federal government's bidding.

Infrastructure: Much of our roadway and other infrastructure funding comes from... care to guess?

These are just a few examples. But, when you watch the Presidential debates or stump speeches, isn't it interesting that most of it is formed on the "What can you do for ME?" or "What will you do for our local area?" basis of thinking? Not necessarily what will be best for the country as a whole...

Laws and regulations are vastly becoming more and more local from the Federal government, eliminating the once generous difference between the varied States. Iowa equals California equals Vermont equals Tennessee...

The time for the States has passed. Let's eliminate the middlemen, and recognize the United States as the primary, and central, government that it is.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul. IF someone recognizes the name, they tend to fall into one of two camps - those who see him as the Second Coming or those who see him as the Republican answer to Dennis Kucinich.

For the most part... I agree with Ron Paul. He sums up many of my Libertarian leanings. I also notice how easy it is to demagogue him, primarily (no pun intended) due to his views on the Iraq Theater - of which I disagree with him.

In order to expose him a bit to my loyal (and rare) readership, I thought I'd include some of the interviews Mr. Paul recently had with John Stossel (another Libertarian of whom I'm fond).

Ron Paul Interview with John Stossel

And then there's this:

My Interview with Ron Paul

By John Stossel

Over the last few months, I've received hundreds of e-mails from people asking me to interview Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, so I did.

It's refreshing to interview a politician who doesn't mince words. It's even more refreshing to interview one who understands the benefits of limited government.

Here, then, is the first in a series of columns on my talk with Ron Paul. Some of Paul's answers are shortened.

What should government do?

Ron Paul: Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.

So defense, the military, police forces enforce contracts, and that's about it?

That's it. We would have a court system to enforce contracts, and when people do harm to others, when they take property or injure property, or pollute a neighbor's air, I think there's a role for government to protect our environment through private-property rights.

So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do.

The Department of Education. You'd get rid of it?

Yes. We don't need it.

How will people get educated?

We might get better education. The evidence shows, since the 1950s, since the federal government's gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up.

The federal government should have no role?

There's no authority for it, and . they've proved themselves inefficient. The one city they're totally in charge of is Washington, D.C. Thirteen thousand dollars a year per student. They have more guns, more drugs, more violence. So there's no evidence that the government can do a very good job.

The Department of Energy.

We don't need a Department of Energy. It serves the interests of big business.

Other cabinet departments? Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development. You'd get rid of all of them?

Yeah. Of course, that's not on the immediate agenda, but they're unnecessary, and we should think about what kind of a country we would have without these departments, and I think we would have a better country, and all those problems that they're supposed to solve, I think, would be lessened.

The Commerce Department? We don't need the Commerce Department to have commerce?

No, absolutely not.

Homeland Security. Isn't that a role for the federal government?

Not really, not the way that's designed. That's the biggest bureaucracy of them all. There are some parts that are OK. You know, they put the Coast Guard in there, and they put FEMA in there, and everybody's bunched together. And I think it was failure of government on 9/11, not the fact that we didn't have the Department of Homeland Security and . a national ID card, and this constant surveillance and loss of our privacy.

Failure of government how?

We spent $40 billion on intelligence gathering, and it didn't prevent (the 9/11 attacks) from happening. But the government was in charge of the airlines. FAA, they were supposed to inspect the people as they went on, and you weren't supposed to resist any takeovers, and (passengers and pilots) weren't allowed to have a gun. Maybe if you and I had the airlines, we might have said, "Hey, you know, we want to protect our passengers. Maybe we should have a stronger door on there, maybe we ought to give our pilots a gun." So 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

So government creates too many rules, and the wrong ones?

That basically it. Most of the time well-intentioned -- but good intentions will not solve our problems.

And...

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate saying we should get our troops out of Iraq -- now. Here's more of my edited interview with the congressman.

Some people say that if we don't attack the enemy there, they'll attack us here.

Ron Paul: I think the opposite is true. The radicals were able to use our bases in Saudi Arabia and the bombing of Iraq (from 1991 to 2001) as a reason to come over here. If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do some shooting.

s this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.

I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.

Many say the surge in Iraq is succeeding, that we're at a turning point now, and we are creating a model of democracy in a part of the world that hasn't seen that.

That's the propaganda. I don't happen to believe that.

And if in most of Iraq, some religious fanatic comes to power and has money to buy nuclear weapons, we should just leave him alone?

The Soviets had the technology. They were 90 miles off our shore, and they had nuclear weapons there. But we were able to talk to them. We took our missiles out of Turkey. They took the missiles out of Cuba. We should be talking to people like this. It's the lack of diplomacy that is the greatest threat, not the weapons themselves.

You say we shouldn't be the world's policemen. Isn't it our responsibility to help others?

It's OK for us to personally help other people. But to go around the world and spread democracy -- goodness, no -- too many unintended consequences. It usually requires force. I think we should only do those things under the prescribed conditions of the Constitution.

Is war ever justifiable?

Sure. If you're attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.

So in World War II, we were justified?

Sure.

How about going into Afghanistan after Sept. 11?

I voted for that authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.

The Korean War?

Totally unjustified.

Kosovo?

Absolutely unjustified.

Vietnam?

A horror.

The first Iraq war? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He might have invaded the next country, and the next.

I bet Israel would have done something about it, and I bet Saudi Arabia maybe would have talked to Israel. I think if it would have been left to the region, they might have taken care of Saddam Hussein in 1990 and we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

What if there's genocide and terrible suffering in a country?

It's a tragedy, and we can have a moral statement, but you can't use force of arms to invade other countries to make them better people. Our job is to make us a better people.

You'd pull American troops out of Korea, Germany, the Middle East, everywhere?

I would. Under the Constitution, we don't have the authority to just put troops in foreign countries willy-nilly when we're not at war.

If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?

Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.

If China invaded Taiwan?

That's a border war, and they should deal with it.

If Canada invades Montana?

I think that might be a little bit different. Montana probably could take care of it, but we'd probably help them out from Washington if that happened.

That's a role for the federal government?

Oh, sure.

Moving along...

U.S. congressional representative and Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has been called "Dr. No" because he repeatedly votes against legislation he believes gives government too much power. If it's not in the Constitution, he says, the federal government has no business doing it. He even votes against appropriations to his constituents. Here's Part 3 of my edited interview with Rep. Paul.

Your district is subject to floods, but you vote against FEMA. Why?

Ron Paul: Because I think FEMA helps create the flood problems. (Without subsidies,) if it's risky on the Gulf Coast to build there, the insurance prices will go up. If (they're) too high, nobody will build there, or they'll build there with full risk. Flood comes, wind blows your house away, you don't get reimbursed. So there might be (only) modest building in those areas. But if the government subsidizes the insurance, saying, "If you build there, don't sweat it, we're going to bail you out," more people move into the flood-prone areas. Then who are the people that have to bail you out? Somebody that lives out in the desert. It's unfair, it's not good economics. You create more problems, more houses get flooded, and it becomes a general problem rather than an individual problem. We have undermined is the principle of measuring risk. Then people do things that they wouldn't have otherwise done.

You also say, "no farm subsidies."

No, I can't quite find (the farm-subsidy program) in the Constitution.

Don't we need farm subsidies to make sure we have food?

It is totally unnecessary. I think (subsidies) push the prices of food up, and maybe (that) makes it more difficult for poor people to buy food. If there's a subsidy, it means the taxpayer was taxed to pay a huge corporate farmer. So it hasn't helped the people. And why should we assume that the farmers wouldn't be productive? They're hard working people. I never voted for farm subsidies, and I represent a farm district.

They forgive you for that?

The farmers will support me, but not the (farm lobby) organizations.

Most crops don't have subsidies. Yet we have plenty of (unsubsidized) peaches and plums.

When I go to the grocery store, I always marvel: Isn't it wonderful how we can see so much fresh produce there, and the prices aren't regulated? It was a fallacious argument back in the '30s that the Depression came from free markets and therefore we had to have a safety net. We gave up on believing in freedom and understanding how the market works.

You talk about freedom and tyranny. I seldom hear politicians use those words.

Those are our only two choices. We've had a grand experiment in this country, where we emphasize freedom. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty, to restrain the government. But we have forgotten that. Now we have an interpretation that means that we spy on the American people, encroach on their privacy, take care of them, run the "nanny state" -- and then we have secrecy in government. So we have it reversed. People say, "Ron, you want to go back to the dark ages of this strict interpretation of the Constitution." Well, I want to go back to the Constitution, but I don't consider it the dark ages. I think the dark ages the days were when all you had was tyranny. Freedom is new. Tyranny is old.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are enough? We don't need 55,000 pages of tax code?

Isn't that fantastic? Truth is simple. The more complex (government) is, the more leery we ought to be of what they're doing. When they say we have to solve the problems of 9/11 (by passing) the Patriot Act, that's complex. Four hundred pages, and they dump it on us an hour before we vote. You can read the Constitution and understand it, but you cannot read and understand hardly any of the legislation being passed.

And lastly...

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.

Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.

We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue. Today it's a big issue because people are hurting; they can't keep up with paying their bills. They see (illegals) using food stamps, in the emergency rooms, demanding bilingual education in the schools. The costs are going up.

So get rid of all those programs? Every one?

I would. Get rid of the incentives and work toward a real solution.

You oppose "birthright citizenship," which says that the child of an illegal immigrant who gives birth in America is a U.S. citizen. But that right to citizenship is in the Constitution, isn't it?

There's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment. It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here. But it's a little bit confusing. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There's a question on that, and I want to clarify it. I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose and get on the welfare rolls.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home."

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country. There was a time when (immigrants did that). That was when they didn't expect to get easy amnesty.

So, these are some of his views. Something to think about. For more, please go to his Website. Remember, when it's your turn to vote, educate yourself... and vote for whom you believe in. It's the only way to make your beliefs truly known.

(Many thanks to the transcripts from Real Clear Politics.)

We Will Bear-y Them With Bears

I wrote about the Teddy Bear in Sudan previously.

Perhaps you've wondered... What Can I Do?

Now, YOU can have an opportunity to make a difference.

Over at Teddy Bear Muhammad, you can purchase a Teddy Bear with an adorable t-shirt reading, "My Name is Muhammad".

A portion of the cost goes to support the USO.

But, perhaps you're wondering, who would want one?

Might I suggest the following shipping address? I'm curious how many they would receive and what the reaction might be...

Embassy of Sudan
2210 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20008

Just a little something to let them know we care.

One of My Favorite Aussies

IS BACK!!!

Oh, how I've missed this guy. Periodically, he'll come and check in on the blog, usually spend close to an hour, and leave me all sorts of motivational comments.

So, in case you've missed what the pleasant chap from Melbourne has to say, here it is.

(hehehe)

From the post Protection from Highly Offensive Material:

Anonymous said...

The word is; OFFENSIVE, you poor illiterate yank der.
You certainly are a believer in free speech eh. Like the rest of your inbreed you are pathetic.
"yore eever wid us or yor agin us"
We're all "agin" you, got it yet. What you gonna do, invade 6 billion?
America the only country to have been found guilty of international terrorism by the UN.
What hypercritical scum you are.

December 29, 2007 12:25 AM

And then there is this one from The Barbaric Six:

THE YANK BUSTER said...

I suppose that when a group of Yank 'soldiers'(???) run amok, burst into a home kill he family, including children, they find there and then rape a 13 year old girl before murdering her is not barbaric then eh?
I suppose they are defending freedom and saving the world from terrorists.
You are a seriously deluded, chauvenistic creep, I suggest you get help, quickly, or at least before NOV 08.
Oh yeah, another neo nazi has bit the dust, Howard ex Aussie PM. Not only did his party take a beating but he lost his own seat, and put them out of contention for what will probably be another 10 years. The new PM's first two acts; ratify the Kyoto accord, and pull combat troops out of Iraq.
Ahh how refreshing to be amongst sane, rational, normal Human beings again. Tell me have you got any in your toilet of a country?

December 28, 2007 9:46 AM

And finally... A New Low:

What do you call 10 Yanks at the bottom of a river?.... A good start. said...

Your troops commit mass murder and illegally invade other nations. I wouldn't put it past them to have come up with a con, especially a lame one like this. Although it would be reaching the extent of their imaginations at least they aren't killing anyone for a change.

December 28, 2007 9:56 AM

:)

The Drew Carey Project Continues

In this episode of the "Drew Carey Project", Drew continues his discussions about eminent domain.

Protection From Highly Offensive Material

We, as a nation, are blessed. We know this. And now, we've been happily saved from having to endure some extremely offensive material on our public airwaves.

Yes, NBC has refused to sell ad space to a despicable organization known for obscene and vile hate-filled material.

However, in the interest of free speech, I will be happy to enlighten you to those materials right here.

Click below to watch the rejected ads, foolishly submitted to NBC for airing to the nation. Be warned, this is SICK stuff.

See? Disgusting.

Oh wait, maybe it's just disgusting that NBC wouldn't want this material to air on their networks. Just so you know who you're watching...

The Barbaric Six

A friend sent this to me from another blog, apparently Jerry Pournelle.

Thought it was worth sharing. Click on the link to go look.

The Barbaric Six

Well, in Louisiana the Reverend Jackson and other black leaders seem to be saying that if some high school students hang a rope from a tree, they get to burn down the school, beat a white kid senseless, and generally act like barbarians.

Liberals, who expect blacks to behave this way rather than to behave like citizens, encourage this sort of thing. They like feeling paternalistic. Having grown up in an aristocratic society where we were supposed to look out for blacks and defend them against the lower class crackers, I can tell them: it's not a job you really want. Encouraging people to be in tutelage rather than grow up doesn't have a very high payoff either psychologically or economically. I got the hell out of that society by joining the Army at age 17 (having convinced the recruiting officers I was 18; after all, I was a high school graduate), and I have not missed that aspect of the Old South since. I don't want to be responsible for other people who are expected not to act like adults.

Hanging a noose from a tree is not a crime. It's not a nice thing to do, but then rap music played at high volume accusing all women of being ho's and inviting violence against the police and authorities is not nice. Does that mean that if a group of kids decides to destroy the boom box and beat its owner senseless they should be justified and defended by marches? If so, then we are talking about revolution and ethnic cleansing, open warfare. Let them fight it out to exhaustion. Bring Iraq to Louisiana and Mississippi and California.

Is that really what the liberals who are flocking to Louisiana want?

I expect black and white citizens to act civilized, and finding excuses for barbarism does not seem like a worthwhile activity.

Kudos to Restaurant Manager

Yes, yes, I know... he's against the children.

But, he's also right.

When a mother could not quiet her screaming child (and possible allegations of her being disruptive as well), he asked her to leave the restaurant.

Yes!

Way to go.

And I say that as a single father. It's not always easy to get out. BUT, my enjoyment does not come at the expense of other's. All part of the joys of parenting. Sometimes, you don't get to eat out. Not with your kids.

If you're in the Louisville, KY, area, please patronize this restaurant.

And maybe, it wouldn't hurt to drop by www.ocharleys.com and let them know you support this manager!

You Have GOT to be KIDDING Me!

The Associated Press is reporting that the mother and step-father of Tawana Brawley are wanting the State of New York to re-open the investigations into the `incident'.

"New York State owes my daughter. They owe her the truth," said Glenda Brawley. She reiterated her stance that her daughter was indeed raped by a group of white men who smeared her with feces and scrawled racial epithets on her body.

The truth.

If I recall, an investigation was thoroughly done. No evidence of any sexual assault was found.

In fact, subsequent allegations went a long way to disprove her allegations. To the point that legal liabilities were found against the Brawleys and Rev. Sharpton.

But now, the State of New York owes her. What, pray tell, will come forward twenty years later that wasn't discovered during the INTENSE media scrutiny twenty years ago?

She's even changed her name - to escape, no doubt, the stigma that has become associated with this case and how it's gone down in history. Yes, back in 1988, she was given a new, "beautiful" Muslim name.

By whom?

Louis Farrakhan. He did get a fairly good quote in the article...

Mr. Farrakhan, who had invited Miss Brawley to the convention, told an audience of 10,000 on Sunday that he also rejected the grand jury's findings, and he vowed vengeance on those who, he said, had attacked the girl. ''You raped my daughter and I will kill you and dismember your body and feed it to the fowl of the air,'' he said.

How very special. Once again, the Religion of Peace shines through.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it's she, and her family, who owe the state, and owe something to The Truth.

Until then, we're just wasting time.

Civilized Religion

Some people write better than I... one of those is Orson Scott Card. Want to pleasure your perusing palate? Take a peek.

What Is a Racist?

What is a racist? Good question. The definitions of racism and the use of the term have grown over time. It once was rather simple - one who believed that his race was superior to another's.

Most often, and in the conventional wisdom, this was used in terms of whites who believed that blacks were inferior - based upon their race alone.

It could be used in terms of other cultures, too... for example, Japanese have long felt a superiority toward gaijin.

But now, it's a word that it thrown wildly about, and through PC, it quickly silences the opposition. It's a power word.

So, what IS a racist? We have a definition from the University of Delaware. Through their residential life program, they have given us this: “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

Lovely. It's like the concept of predestination. Apparently, all whites are racists... no matter what your thoughts, your beliefs, your life choices, or anything. You're doomed to the damnation of your racist attitudes.

Anyone else see the problem with this viewpoint? First, if you lump everyone into the racist category, then even those who aren't racists (contrary to the theory, but let's assume it's possible) may succumb to the inevitableness of their inherent racistness.

Second, why bother attempting to reform? Hey, you're already damned to be a racist... why try to reform? You're doomed. There's a chance some will revel in their inevitable racistness. Uh oh.

Third, can no one else be racist? The theory doesn't truly address this... Can we doom other races to inherent and inevitable racism?

And, lastly, isn't the concept of classify an entire race as being deficient... racism?

Victory for Decency / Defeat for Freedom of Speech

I'll admit to being torn on this. It would seem like such an easy decision.

We've all (sadly) become familiar with "Reverend" Fred Phelps and the members of his Westboro Baptist Church, many of whom happen to be his family as well. They have a tendency to show up at funerals for Soldiers (and other servicemembers) and to loudly protest the funeral. Their basis of reasoning is that homosexuality is a sin, and the military endorses homosexuality through "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Therefore, God is mad at the US and supports the killing of the Soldiers.

(If I got that wrong, please correct me.)

Understandably, these actions really tick off grieving family members. I know I would have been livid.

Well, one father of a slain Marine (Semper Fi, Marine!) sued the good reverend and his church for damages for protesting at his son's funeral. And from these (and here) news stories, a jury has awarded the father nearly $11 million in damages.

Will they collect? Not likely. But, it's a good victory.

Or... is it?

I've always said that freedom of speech, true freedom, means to support and defend the right of someone to stand on a street corner, and to shout at the top of their lungs, the very beliefs that you find most abhorrent to your own.

And that is precisely what Westboro Baptist Church does. They stand in public places, stand on the flag, or other such desecrations, and shout obscenities about how "God loves dead Soldiers" and things like that... at the funeral for the Soldier.

Makes my blood boil. Yours?

Good. It should.

What they do is a demonstration, in perhaps its coarsest, vile form, of precisely what our country stands for, and what our Soldiers fight for... the true vitality of that First Amendment we hold so dear.

I can't endorse what they say... it makes me ill. However, I will fight to the death for their right to say it. Or, what's the point of it all?

My Thoughts on a Few Issues

Tis the season for politics. So, why not share where I stand on a few points of interest?

I classify myself as Libertarian, but I refuse to join the Libertarian Party. Why not? Because, they refuse to support the effort to stop the Islamofascists, at least, not until they come directly to our shores.

Taxes

I am a supporter of the FairTax. Do you realize that the budge allocation in the 2008 Budget Proposal for the Internal Revenue Service is over eleven billion dollars!? That means that the service that manages our ever convoluted tax code has to take in eleven billion dollars before a single penny goes to any other part of the government... like the Army, or roads, the CDC, or what have you... That's INSANE. Take a look at the FairTax... and study it. It's a very valid proposal, and for starters, we can save approximately eleven billion dollars.

Amendment X

I'm a strong believer in the Constitution. It's the roadmap to our government and our country, and I'm willing to bet that most people are only sketchilly familiar with it. Are you? Take a look here for the whole thing.
Amendment X is a special one though. It's designed to limit the role of the Federal government. We all hear about the government being too big, having grown larger, or the famous quote, "The era of Big Government is over." Candidates campaign on the issue all the time. But, did you know that the Bill of Rights already has taken care of the issue... if we merely held our government to the fire? Amendment X reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
How about that? It limits the powers and growth of the government right there. Let's get back to that, shall we?

Term Limits

Unnecessary. What we should be asking for are informed voters with spines. Every two years, we as Americans are given the opportunity to completely replace the ENTIRE House of Representatives and a third of the United States Senate. Term limits are offered right there. Don't like your representative? Vote him/her out. Instant term limits.

War

Not the Iraqi theater or the Global War (World War IV, as some call it). No, war in general. The last time our country declared war was World War II. Since then, we've committed our forces numerous times (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Desert Storm, OEF, OIF, Cambodia, Laos, and that's just the Top 10). All without a declaration of war.

It seems such a triviality, but... declaring war shows a level of committment. That the Country is formally determined to defeat an enemy. Why don't we do this anymore? We declare war on poverty, hunger, AIDS, drugs, crime, what have you... but actually declare a military war? Nah, no guts for that.

Education

Abolish the Department of Education. $58 billion. And we're still slipping... Return control of schools to the local communities. Who better to know how to teach the local kidlets? The local parents. That's where the funding comes from... and the kids... and the values. Imagine the drive to ensure your community has good schools if it's truly up to the community.

Drugs

Legalize them. Yep, I know, lost a lot of folks right there. We've been told how evil drugs are. And, in truth, they do some nasty things to people. But, it's their choice. But, SCEagle, what about what an intoxicated person does? Well, do we not already HAVE laws? Person is high and drives their car and kills someone. We HAVE a law against killing someone. Vehicular homicide, for instance. Also DWI. But, if you want to sit in your home and get high... go for it. Prohibition didn't work... why do we expect a different result with a "war" on drugs? By the way, DEA = $1.8 billion.

Defense

We need to increase our spending here. Obviously, we have quite an enemy right now, and we are stretching our resources to the bone. Let's get serious about this, shall we? Nuff said.

Abortion

Personal opinions aside, why do we feel that one law can fit a nation of over 300 million people, of such diversity (hey, I've paid attention in my diversity classes) spread out over such a large area...? Each of our states is more in tune for the people in that area... If Rhode Island's populace votes for full abortion, then that's what they decide; and if New Mexico says no, then no there. Yes, it's a patchwork. But that's how it SHOULD be. Each state is different, each population different, and the laws should reflect those folks' wishes and intents.

Crime

There are way too many federal offenses. How often do we hear that a citizen was arrested on local charges, acquitted, and now the feds are pursuing the same charges, but on a federal level? Sure, there are crimes at the federal level - treason, for one. Kidnapping (across state lines) would be another. But this is ridiculous. Let's trim it back down. If it's a local crime, then leave it local.

Apologies

No, I'm not apologizing for something. It's done way too often. Every time someone ruffles someone else's feathers, there are vocal demands for an apology. And soon, a well-worded, carefully crafted apology is trotted out. We're even apologizing for actions by now dead people against other now dead people. Huh? An apology made by someone who was not at all responsible carries weight? Pah. Apologies are becoming worthless because they're so overused. Stop it! An apology is most sincere when it's offered, not when it's demanded.

Health Care

We're serious? We're actually saying that because our own health care is not a priority to us, we expect the whole country to take care of it? Because the government has shown such success with every other public welfare priority.
And the idea that people don't have health care... pah. First, anyone can go to the emergency room for an emergency. Also, for the poor, truly poor, we have MedicAid. For seniors, MediCare...

For the rest of us... health care is like anything else. I'd like a bigger house. Should the country buy it for me? No. I'd like a nicer car? Same question. Now, for me personally, health care is free. And folks, let me assure you, while it's nice to not pay anything, the bureaucracy and quality can be nightmarish. We DO NOT WANT THIS nationwide. Don't believe me? Enlist... try it out. We either make health care a priority in our lives or not. We buy the health care that we can afford and that we feel is appropriate. That's how it should be.

Immigration

What we're really discussing is Illegal Immigration. It's illegal. Thus, the name. So, what's the question?

These are just a few of my thoughts and positions... more to come later.