A Ban on Dancing

No kidding. Twenty-three years after Footloose, this is still around.

I understand some folks (Baptists, for one) are against dancing on religious grounds. Fine. Part of the great melting pot (a term that's fallen out of favor in lieu of "multiculturalism") that is our country.

But to legislate against it?

Safe Sex

Safe Sex

While we're all aware of how Safe Sex can protect you from disease, and even a fairly decent chance of preventing pregnancy, did you know that it could conceivably save the planet?

No?

Awhile back, I'd debated writing about the British woman who had herself sterilized to avoid overpopulating the planet, depleting its resources, and generally causing the destruction of the environment.

It was dismissed as a young woman who made her decision, and while we may not agree with her reasoning, there's something to be said for standing up for your principles. Also, there was the belief that her failing to reproduce will prevent the promulgation of her genes into the gene pool.

Did you know there's a whole movement?

Really.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

This group encourages people to not reproduce so we can stop harming the planet. Eventually, humans would die out, and the planet would recover (the assumption being that it's desperately harmed already).

There are even some catchy cartoons on the site. There's one where storks delivering babies drop them a la bombs into nature destroying forests, fish, and even Bambi.

One of the best, and I'm not truly sure how I managed to watch all the way to the end, was "The Wit and Wisdom of Cancer".

I'll give you a second.

Yep, it's the hilarity, complete with stand-up comic, of the allegory of cancer cells destroying a body, with the body of course being "Gaia" - Earth's alternative nickname.

It's important to know what's out there. What people seriously desire. And some people think the best thing for the human race is if we all die. They see a newborn not as a miracle, but as a devastating future for the planet.

Educate yourself. Take a look.

Maternity Leave for High School Students

There's an article in the Denver Post about a push by high school students to have the school district grant "maternity leave".

Lori Casillas, executive director of the Colorado Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Parenting, and PRevention, had this quote, "Schools need to say, 'This is what we do to support your learning.' That's not happening."

The students want four weeks away from school.

I'll ask the question. How is their learning supported... if the student is not in school?

The School District does try. They have a school for pregnant students (the article says girls, but really, I feel pregnant and girls is redundant - pesky four weeks of extra learning might have helped there). That's pretty supportive, I think. Sadly, there's a waiting list.

Kayla Lewis, a Senior, 18 years old, and five months pregnant, pushed for the maternity leave at a recent school board meeting. Wouldn't a month of school be hard to replace for a senior? For those who hated math, four weeks = 20 days. Most school years are 180 days. So, missing a month means missing 1/9th of the year.

By comparison sake, from Health and Biology classes, the human gestation period is coincidentally nine months in duration. So, I ask these new mothers (and many are still children themselves), what effect do you think missing a month of gestation would have upon your baby? Let's say we just skipped the 4th month of gestation. Just didn't do it. What would happen to the baby? I'm sure it wouldn't be quite so healthily developed.

What happens to a child's education when they miss a ninth of their school year? How do you recover from that?



I'm not indifferent to the fact that teen pregnancies will happen. They do. Sadly, too often. However, the school is there to support education, which means, having the student in class. There are other agencies of the government which will support the teen pregnancy.

And remember (except for cases of rape), the pregnancy was a choice. A CHOICE. (The other half of being "Pro-choice", as I like to think...)
Sex = Risk of Pregnancy. Sex = Acceptance of Risk. Therefore, Sex = Living with the choice and decision.

Sigh.

(And I must comment on the newspaper's headline "Birth leave sought for girls"... um, Biology makes that redundant. I'm curious though, if the school board encouraged Paternity leave, too (oh my!), would more of the young men step up to "finish what they started"?)

Please Explain This to Me

In the past four, nearly five, years... the United States military has suffered 3,911 deaths in Iraq.

I'll save the trip to the calculator. That's a little over 800 per annum.

This massive death toll has spawned worldwide protests, marches, changes of governments, etc.

Less than a thousand per year. (And please, PLEASE, I am NOT attempting to lessen the deaths of any ONE of those.)

However, according to the American Cancer Society, there were an estimated 12,332,300 NEW cancer diagnoses worldwide in 2007.

12 1/4 million.

New cases. Not counting the ones already existing.

The ACS also estimates 7,214,285 DEATHS from cancer in 2007.

Where are the protests?

Where are the calls for government action?

Candidates for office - What is YOUR position on this deadly disease? Everyone has a position on whether we should stay in Iraq (some have more than one - it never hurts to have a spare), but who is calling for action against cancer?

In the 1940s, the Manhattan Project cracked the Atom.

In the 1960s, the Apollo Project reached the Moon.

When will it become an imperative to try to reduce, or dare we dream, ELIMINATE this cause of death from the world's surface.

How many more must die, each day, until it becomes important?

Code*Pink - y'all have a good color... Are you with me?

We can fight back this disease, that turns the body against itself... a different, yet familiar, form of insurgency.





There are so many things that government does poorly... but, some things we've done well. Let's put an end to this disease. Let's bring LIFE to so many.

We can do it.

If it's important to us. It is to me. How about you?

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.)

Worth Living?

We are a risk-averse society.

An example I often give is from when I lived in Germany. I observed how different the driving there was compared to that which I was accustomed in the States. It was safer, even if the speeds were dramatically in excess of anything in America.

How can that be? We've lived under the theory (as seen on billboards and bumperstickers for years) that Speed Kills.

How can autobahns replete with vehicles often cruising at 150 MPH be safer than here in the States where you "Drive 55 to arrive Alive"?

While there are certainly many reasons... the German culture, attention to detail, safe driving habits... I believe one of them is the near certain result of what happens when a Mini loses control at 150+ MPH. No matter what safety features, there's nothing left of machine nor occupant. Period. Devastation.

Compared to here, where we work VERY hard to ensure survivability no matter what. There are driver side airbags, passenger airbags, side airbags, curtain airbags, radar, sonar, run-flat tires, computer controlled steering, brakes, rollover protection, etc. We are determined to make all accidents survivable.

The end result is that we do not fear a wreck. We can afford to be careless... sure we might bounce off of something, but... we'll survive. Consumer Reports and the dealership salesman both said so... not to mention all the TV commercials touting the latest crash test result.

This expands into everything we do. Quite simply, we don't like the idea of dying. We spend gobs of money staving off Death in our last days. We put helmets on our children as they bicycle, strap them into everything, even if it's just for a short while, and curtail holiday traditions lest there be the slightest rumor of a possible chance of a risk (Trick or Treat? No... The neighbor down the street read an article on the Internet about a person who knew a friend who's nephew found a razor blade in a Mars bar.)

Which brings me to my question... well, almost. Please, bear with me for a moment.

I work under the Theory of Opposites. In order to define one thing, there must be an opposite. How can you define Peace - without the concept of War? Life without Death is not Life, but mere... existence? Ends must have Beginnings (and vice versa), White and Black, Wet and Dry, etc., etc.

So, back to my question. How can we have things Worth Living For if there's nothing Worth Dying For?

Hundreds of years ago (and in many cases thousands), people climbed into leaky, barely sea-worthy boats (ships being too generous of a term), and sailed off, never knowing if they'd return.

One hundred years ago, men would take to the skies, often with the very real possibility of returning to the ground in a less than controlled fashion.

Fifty years ago, we would strap people to rockets with more explosive power (as witnessed by their propensity to explode unexpectedly) and launch them into the unknown.

No longer.

We send robots to do our exploring. We send robots to fight our battles.

We watch others do great things. We save risk for Reality TV.

But risk ourselves? No.

So, I ask. What's Worth Living for if nothing is worth Dying for? (My apologies to the grammar police.) I don't mean being reckless; that's foolish. But surely something is worth risk.

It's one of the reasons we have trouble understanding the terrorists and islamofascists. For all we disagree with them, they DO have the courage of their convictions. They believe so strongly in their beliefs, they are willing to forego Life itself to achieve it. (Sure, the same can be said of our military, but let's admit it... our military is in no hurry to die - witness all the armor and precautions we take, and just walk up to any Soldier and say "Risk Assessment" to them and watch the eyes.)

What would You die for? All that we've put into living... what would you chuck it all for? Parents will likely say their children... but, is there anything else? If someone said, you walk into that room, and you're dead... what would you consider to be worth that choice?

Because, if there's nothing worth dying for... then what are we living for?

Have We Lost Our Imagination?

(Crossposted from A Storm In Afghanistan.)

When was the last time we had an endeavor that captured our attention?

Truthfully, less than a month ago. The New England Patriots (a professional football team in the NFL, for those not familiar) had the first undefeated season in NFL history.

Ok, it wasn't the first. It was the second. The first being the 1972 Miami Dolphins (who coincidentally came very close to having an unvictorious season this year). The Patriots were notable because this was the first sixteen game undefeated season. The 1972 Dolphins having not played sixteen games in their regular season, but fourteen. Of course, there were also two playoff games, and the Super Bowl... giving them seventeen winning games. Which, as you can see, is different than the sixteen games... or something like that.

Anywho, it was a big deal. The game was broadcast on three different networks. This was to ensure that everyone in America would have the opportunity to witness history being made.

So... before that?

Olympics?

World Cup?

America's Cup?

Presidential Elections? Nah, those sadly define apathy.

Surely there's been something...



Anyone?


Perhaps it's our quest to cure Cancer. AIDS? World Hunger? (Nope, those concerts quickly came and went in the eighties.)

Would you believe that what seems to capture our attention these days isn't success? It's failure.

Britney Spears is losing her mind, career, kids... tune in now to watch the latest. Baseball's steroid scandal. The failing of our schools. The salivating of the continuous death count of the Iraq Theater. Murders. Abductions. Virginia Tech. Even the fallacy (yes, I wrote fallacy) of Global
Warming predicates itself upon the humans failure by destroying the world, environment, children's self-esteem, and ________ insert your own item there.

What do we have to enlighten and motivate our youth?

What can we do to excite them?

Where can we find Hope for their future?

Something... um... dare I dream... positive?


In the 1960s, there was the Space Race. Space has now become a mundanity that excites few. And who can blame them? The Space Shuttle, which we are risk averse to launch after two losses over a seventeen year period, has the perception of being no more than a high-tech pick-up truck. We have the International Space Station, where a continuous human presence has been maintained for over seven years, is quickly becoming an irrelavancy to be checked off of the checklist than to be exalted. We'd once dreamed of it having seven (or more) scientists living and working aboard it using many different laboratories. It's reduced to three with fewer labs, and having taken forever to complete. It's final assembly will be the satisfaction of just finally finishing the race, not by trying to win it.

Our space program is quickly stalling out... the Shuttle is already doomed to no more flights after 2010, whether the replacement program - Constellation - is ready or not. And that continues to be scaled back, redesigned, and set up for failure much in the way the Shuttle was prior to its launch in 1981 (yes, folks, twenty-SIX years ago).

This nation... we need to find a focus. A Positive focus.

Yes, personally, I would like it to be a space focus. A new, fruitful expedition of meaningfulness.

However, we need something. Something that will light the fire of the mind of our next generations.

What do you suggest?

And just a thought, but what do our leaders suggest? Or, our potential future leaders?

Don't know? Let's ask them. And not take a shrug, or a nice form letter, as an answer.

There is more to LIFE than just marking time and waiting for the next event to come to us. It's to be savored, and to be created - We can do it. If we want to, that is.

It's time to lead us to our future, it's waiting for us.

Change... For the Sake of Change?

This is the observation of a good friend of mine, M*A:

(I'll paraphrase.)

After the Iowa Caucus, it dawned on her. There were Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards... all of them proclaiming their desire to change America. To transform it into what it should be, because there is something wrong with it.

A woman.

A black man.

And a man who's house is 28,000 square feet.

What's wrong with this picture? One hundred and fifty years ago, one of those would have been a slave. Ninety years ago, one couldn't have voted, much less been a United States Senator and run for President of the United States of America. And the latter, to have risen through his career to have the wherewithal to live in a house so immense that it boggles the imagination of most Americans...

Yes, something must be wrong with America.

What's wrong with celebrating who we are and the promise we hold for our future?

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.

Some Died to Give You Freedom

To people throughout the country, our war in Iraq is many things: a noble struggle of Good versus Evil; an example of government or a President run amuck; or many other things... to everyone, it's something different.

And now, apparently it's a way to get free tickets to a Hannah Montana concert.

???

Yes, a winning essay in a contest for free tickets was submitted by a six year old girl (and likely with substantial help from mother). It's opening line was suitably gripping - "My daddy died this year in Iraq."

Just one little tiny, niggling detail. It wasn't true.

While many families, and particularly children, have lost their loved ones in Iraq - this little girl had not.

Her mother is quoted as saying, "We did whatever we could to win."

She taught her daughter how to lie, to sacrifice her integrity for the temporary joy and thrill (and what a thrill for the young girls) of a HM concert.

She taught her daughter that the real sacrifices of those who aren't coming home, and their families left behind, is something to be exploited, the emotions to be be manipulated.

Sigh.

Here's a link to the article in USA Today.

There is good news: the girl lost her tickets when the truth was discovered. And while it's possible that she'll get another chance to get tickets to HM, whether purchased or otherwise... there are some little girls (and boys) who can write "My Daddy died this year in Iraq." And nothing will change that truth for them, no matter how many HM tickets come their way.

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.

Did You Notice?

Yesterday. Friday. Truth be told, not much happened. End of the work week... Everyone looking forward to getting away.

It actually was mentioned in many of the papers I took a peek at.

Day of Infamy...

December 7th...

An earlier generation's 9/11 (though not as quickly forgotten and pooh-poohed as ours)...

While "Remember Pearl Harbor!" has no more cachet these days than "Remember the Maine!" or "Remember the Alamo!" (though if you ask any Texans, they'll tell you that that last one is still pretty catchy), it still holds many lessons for us.

History often does, if one is willing to go to class.

Pearl Harbor introduced the American public to the concept of "It *CAN* happen here" as the Japanese ('Japs' in the no longer PC vernacular) reached out and touched American territory in a way not imagined.

Imagination. That is often our greatest failure, isn't it? So often, the warning signs, the information, is readily available to those who have the imagination to solve a jigsaw puzzle never before seen. Too often easily done in hindsight, the oft-ignorant conclusion is that accomplishing the same in foresight is simple and expected.

That in this War for Oil (WWII, folks), a nation could sortie a massive naval force, sail thousands of miles undetected, and launch a surprise attack that could massively cripple our forces, and violate the gentlemanly rules of war? Pah! All evidence to the contrary, it was difficult to *imagine* that such was possible... Or at the very least, remotely PROBABLE.

In the late 60's, NASA (and the nation) suffered the first deaths of astronauts aboard a spacecraft. No, not thousands of miles away, but on the ground, in full view of everyone... Why? For a myriad of reasons, but the fundamental one being a failure of imagination. For all the contingency plans, no one imagined a routine test aboard an unfueled rocket to be hazardous.

In aviation, many accidents are the result of the crew and aircraft getting trapped into a corner that no engineer ever imagined possible or a risk.

And with 9/11, we never imagined airliners being used as human-guided missiles to be a real, cogent threat.

Yet, it happened.

One of our first lessons, as a nation, in the need for imagination, was Pearl Harbor. We were pulled kicking and screaming from our safe cocoon into a war that had already enveloped the rest of the world for several years.

These days, there are fewer and fewer stewards of that memory walking amongst us. They are joining their shipmates at a rate that is sapping their dwindling number. Often, local Survivors' Associations have disbanded, due to a lack of membership. There's not many left to tell the tale, and even if there were, would we stop to listen?

December 7th comes annoyingly in the midst of the shopping season, party whirlwinds, and the more mundane facets of our hectic, blessed lives.

If we were to stop and listen to the tale, as it softly becomes a hoarse whisper, we'll be taught. We'll be reminded of the lesson that it *can* happen here; if only, you can imagine it. And remember, imagination does not solely belong to those who believe the American cause to be just and right.

Anyone can imagine...

Imagine what we will be remembering in the years and decades to come.

Thank You to Ben Stein

I've been a big fan of Ben Stein. From first seeing his deadpan delivery in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (is that movie really 21 years old?!?!), to enjoying his writings in his columns.

He's delightful. Witty. Intelligent.

Here's a little video for you...






(Thanks to "My Daily Rant" for both the link and the blogroll.)

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...

Drew Carey Project - Episode 4

In this latest episode, Drew Carey explores the Dallas Police Department's raids on poker games at the local VFW.

Eminent Domain

The latest from the Drew Carey Project.

Eminent Domain is one of the quiet concerns that many people are unaware is even happening to the egregious level that it's reaching.

Take a peek.

Offensive to Religion

Just a short question... something to ponder, if you will.

Which do you think would be more offensive, insulting, and threatening to a world religion...

The artistic work "Piss Christ"...






or

a Teddy Bear named "Mohammed" by some seven year olds...




(Image from Teddybearfriends)


Just something to ponder...

Disgusting! or... You Get What You Pay For

Michelle Malkin has a wonderful little blurb up... I highly recommend you take a peek, but perhaps not after eating.

We always hear, as she reminds us, that people are doing the jobs Americans won't do. That Americans have priced ourselves out of certain jobs.

Perhaps, and I'm just going out on a limb here, we get what we pay for. And just maybe, we should be willing to demand a little bit more...

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.