Uncommon Insanity

Proof....

2011-09-02T21:29:00.002-05:00

that humans are not as smart as we think we are. So-called 'lower' species are outwitting and training us at every turn. Take dogs for example. Not only do they remind us if we haven't fed them on time or wake us up if we haven't taken them out when they think we should have. Now they have started deciding when we need to take breaks from our video games. When a two year old dog puts her nose on the power button of the 360 because you didn't pet her when she wanted then it's proof that they have finally passed us on the evolutionary scale. They know how to control our electronics addictions better than we do. We are completely controlled by our 4 legged furry masters. I, for one, welcome our new Purina-eating overlords.

ALL HAIL LORD LASSIE! DOWN WITH TIMMY THE OPPRESSOR AND HIS WELL OF DOOM!!

Why I'll never use VisionBank in Topeka

2011-07-11T20:57:00.005-05:00

Some of you know that I work at a local cigar shop part time. It helps pay the bills and I get to smoke at work. It doesn't really get any better than that. Every now and then however the store employees have to deal with someone who seems to think the world revolves around them. Tonight was once such night.

Gary Yager works for a place called VisionBank. It's also a local business. The issue this evening stemmed from Mr. Yager's idea that he is somehow special and that rules and hours of business don't apply to him. The store I work at closes at 8:30 PM on weeknights. This is nothing new. It's been 8:30 for years. Mr. Yager comes to the door almost 10 minutes after closing, after the register has been closed out and the credit card batches tallied. When I explain to him that we're closed and the deposits have been completed and that there is no way to do a transaction at this point he makes it clear, in very graphic language just what he thinks of that idea. One quote is, "You tell the owner that I'm never buying a fucking cigar here again if you don't let me in right now. This is fucking bullshit." Sounds like a well-adjusted, community-minded guy, doesn't it? And when I ask for his name he hands me his business card then proceeds to hit me with the door while continuing his tirade.

Needless to say I notified the owner of the situation as soon as I was able to get the front door locked again. But Mr. Yager's actions speak to an issue that is about as offensive as it's possible to be. The idea that he's better than someone else and can browbeat them to do what he wants. Like because he's well-off and works for a bank that somehow he's entitled to treat a guy who works two jobs to make ends meet like a punching bag. Whats even more annoying is the fact that this guy works for a bank. What would Mr. Yager do if one of his tellers let someone in after hours to do one last transaction? Promote them? doubtful. Make them employee of the month? Not bloody likely. What he'd do is fire them immediately. Yet somehow he's supposed to be treated differently than the peasants such as myself. Here's a clue for the Mr. Yagers of the world: You are not special. You are not entitled to be treated any differently than anyone else. You are not better than me just as I am not better than you. If you act like an ass to someone who is simply doing their job then don't be surprised when you're treated the same way.

Oh, and Mr. Yager, if you somehow come across this and think about getting an attorney involved keep in mind that the store has HD security cameras so your actions and your words were caught in all their technicolor glory. I'd love to see you explain to a judge or jury how me not opening the store up after hours justified the verbal and physical abuse you decided was needed. Also, I will be passing this little episode on to everyone I deal with while advising them that perhaps a bank that employs someone as prone to violent outbursts as you appear to be might not be the best place to keep their accounts. While I doubt it'll drastically effect your bottom line quickly, keep in mind the number of people that come through the cigar store and how many of them are quite wealthy and don't like bullies any more than I do.

WWZJD?

2011-04-24T19:09:00.002-05:00

Happy Easter everyone. Today's discussion deals with an idea that's been gaining a bit more traction in certain learned circles as of late. There are many people out there who put forth the theory that the big JC was, in fact, the first vampire. They point to the very obvious vampiric overtones in the "This is my blood. Drink this in remembrance of me" as proof that Christ was establishing himself as the patriarch of a new vampire species. This idea has been used in various stories. Most successfully, IMHO, in The Shadow Saga by Christopher Golden. However, while this is a compelling idea, there is an alternate theory that I think is an even more interesting interpretation.

Simply put, Jesus is a zombie. I know that zombies are traditionally mindless, ravening beasts intent only upon devouring every bit of flesh they can get their dessicated hands on. There are examples throughout the various media used to document them that show examples of them retaining their mental faculties. Even some of the early data put together by Romero show some of the zombies remembering how to use phones, doors, or even track down hidden entrances. It's not unreasonable that the first zombie, before generations of viral mutation, would retain full use of their memories and knowledge.

There are a few other indicators of this in Christ's own actions and words. There's the obvious comment where he tells his disciples to eat of his body. A more telling reference involves an incident after his resurrection. As Christ is appearing before the disciple Thomas, Jesus tells Thomas to feel his wounds. If Christ had been a vampire those wounds would have been healed. Simply put, vampires heal, zombies don't. And there's another, very telling, piece of evidence against Christ being a vampire. Jesus appeared in sunlight both before and after his return to the living. And let's not forget the raising of Lazarus. In the biblical tale Lazarus stumbles out of his crypt and he never says a word. A lack of coordination and speech is a fairly common indicator when it comes to newly created zombies.

In the end I think it's obvious that all indications of JC being vampire are red herrings put into the bible to distract people away from the blasphemous truth that every zombie horde that's tormented humanity through the ages is rooted in He who is purported to be the Lord and Savior of the human race. So be thankful this Easter. Enjoy your Easter baskets and candy and eggs dyed all sorts of interesting colors. Just remember to ask yourself What Would Zombie Jesus do? I think it's safe to say he's not interested in our hearts. He's come for our brains.

And no for something completely different....

2011-02-10T20:40:00.005-06:00

Those who know me know that I'm a reader. I read more books than Michael Moore eats donuts. I'm always reading. It's gotten better, or worse depending on your point of view, since I got an ebook reader. With the ability to carry entire libraries around with me I almost never stop reading. In my search for new authors to get into I recently discovered a guy by the name of Andy Remic. I got sucked into his Clockwork Vampire series and then started his Combat K series that I picked up one of at the local bookstore. While looking for more of his work in ebook, of which there only appear to be two so far, I happened upon another author who got me completely hooked. to the point that I managed to read everything of his that I could find in the space of two weeks. This includes a couple of short story collections, a stand alone novel titled A Dance of Cloaks, and a five book series that goes by the moniker of The Half-Orcs.

His name....is David Dalglish. His name....is David Dalglish. Almost feels like a scene from Fight Club there.

Anyway, for anyone that's looking for a solid series that's about the characters and not just the latest wanna-be Tolkien then check this guy out. I'm going to warn you up front that this is not Shannara. This is not Middle-Earth. This is definitely not Harry freakin Potter. A good portion of The Half-Orcs is dark and brutal. It was bad enough that after a particularly rough scene I had to put the book down and walk away for a few minutes. That's how angry I was at what had just happened. But, and this shows the power of the work and the characters, I came back. I not only came back to finish that second book in the series, but over the next three days I finished the rest of the series because I HAD to find out where these characters where going and what was going to happen to them and their lives. The only comparable situations for me in recent history both happened in the movie Serenity where Joss Whedon, blessed be his name but cursed be his name, killed off two of my favorite characters in Shepherd Book and Wash. From a logical standpoint I understand that pain and loss have to be part of any character in order for them to be someone we can relate to and feel for. That doesn't mean I have to like seeing them go through it.

Another very, very cool thing about this author is his response to fans. I finished the second book, The Cost of Betrayal, this past Sunday. I emailed him shortly after I completed it and started off by letting him know how displeased I was with how his characters were being treated. I then thanked him for writing the books, let him know that I loved the characters and that I was looking forward to what was going to happen next. Within fifteen minutes I had a response....and not a generic form letter response either. If he gives permission I'll post his responses in their entirety later. Yes, I said responses. This author actually carried on an email conversation with some random joe who contacted him out of the blue. How many published authors would take the time to respond to one email, let alone several? That alone pretty much guaranteed him a fan for life as far as I'm concerned.

Here's to a long career writing fantastic stories filled with amazing characters and all the triumphs.....and tragedy they encounter in their journeys.

UPDATE: Below are the emails from the author. And I just finished his sequel to Dance of Cloaks called A Dance of Blades. Great read. So go pick it up and keep this guy writing. I have spoken, that settles it.

Scott,

But...but...but I -like- Joss Whedon :-)

And your email doesn't sound angry in the slightest. It sounds invested, which is beyond flattering, trust me. Let's see...I underestimated Kayla's popularity (you're far from the first to be pissed about her dying). Kinda wish I'd kept her around now. As for Aullienna, that sucked writing it. Beyond miserable. But her death echoes throughout the entire series. It never goes away. I needed that final separation, a death that was no one's fault and everyone's fault. I've had readers stop the series at her death, and at times, I can't blame them.

The next book for you, Death of Promises, is probably the weakest of all of them. And when you finish book four, I might have to hide from you. But I promise, promise, that the series has a wonderful, happy, satisfying ending. Just in case you start wondering if I've lost my mind as you continue the series, and thinks continue to look bleaker and bleaker. *grin*

Thanks so much for the email, and more so for the compliments!

David Dalglish

---

Feel free to become a fan at www.facebook.com/thehalforcs or swing by my website at ddalglish.com

--- On Sun, 2/6/11, Mindwyrm <mindwyrm@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Mindwyrm

Subject: Half orcs

To: "ddalglish@yahoo.com"

Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011, 11:55 AM

Okay, I just finished the second book in the series. I've got the

entire series and am looking forward to the rest of the story. I've

also read A Land of Ash and A Dance of Cloaks. I have two things to

say regarding your stories.

First, thank you for doing stories where the characters come to life

and matter to the readers. It's rare for me to find a set of

characters that I actually care about and want to see find some

semblance of happiness. Even Qurrah. That being said, can u stop

acting like Joss Whedon and killing people off? I read A Dance of

Cloaks first and was so pissed off when Kayla was killed. And then

when Aullienna was killed I had to put the book down for a few minutes

and come back later. In all honesty I understand why characters have

to go through that kind of pain. So I don't expect you to change and

really don't want you to alter your writing. It's just frustrating to

grow to love these people on the page and then see them broken like

that.

All in all, keep up the good work. I know my email reads as if I'm

angry and don't enjoy your stories. Nothing could be further from the

truth. It's because I'm enjoying your stories so much that I got so

emotionally involved. That's the kind of writer I look for. Thats the

kind of author that will see me buying their books and trying to

convert other readers as well. I look forward to many years of your

work.

All your Biz are belong to us

2009-10-20T22:50:00.002-05:00

For those of you living in the exceedingly misnamed Golden City that is the capital of Kansas there's a new assault on the ideal of private property. It's called the smoking ban.

Basically the smoking ban is exactly as it sounds. The city council, nine people, decided that business owners aren't smart enough to make their own decisions as to what activities their customers can engage in. They decided that, in the interest of "public health", smoking cannot be allowed except in certain types of businesses.

The many letters to the editor regarding this all seem to be harping on the idea of smokers rights versus non-smokers rights. I hate to break it to those people but this is NOT about smokers or non-smokers. It's about whether or not owners of private property or businesses have the right to control their own property or business.

There is currently a petition to get the ordinance up for a public vote but I have a problem with that as well. We, as voters, have no right to tell a property owner what legal activities their customers can engage in. Last I checked, as long as you're over 18, smoking is a legal activity. It's the owners choice as to whether or not they'll allow smokers the freedom to light up or not. I don't have the right to walk into a restaurant and demand a smoking section so what makes non-smokers think they have the right to demand a non-smoking section?

Simply put we are becoming more of a nanny state ever day. This is being couched in terms that remove it further and further away from the actual issue. Down this road lies states like California where you can be tickets for smoking in your backyard if a neighbor complains about the smoke.

Bottom line, we all have the ability to choose what businesses we deem worthy of our business. If there's a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking it's my choice to frequent that establishment or not. The same goes for non-smokers. If you don't like the smoke then stop going. If the business falls off enough the owner will change their policies in order to stay in business.

What will you non-smokers do when your favorite bars or restaurants start losing business and eventually close because those 'evil' smokers have stopped spending their money at those same bars and restaurants? Will you demand the city council pass an ordinance that those same bars and restaurants stay in business? After all, it's about your rights and not the business owners.

Here's my message to all the non-smokers that are zealous about defending the ban: go fuck yourselves. I will not allow you, or some half-assed body of lying, two-faced SOB's, to dictate what I can do on my property.

LFD

end of line

2009-01-03T02:09:00.008-06:00

If you could go to Loch Ness tomorrow and prove or disprove conclusively the existence of the monster, would you? Should you? When all the questions are answered, when all the superstitions are stilled, when science has unraveled all the mysteries, what will we do? Would you want to live in such a time? Would we be able to live then?

This is the opening series from a George R. R. Martin story. Now I have issues with Martin and his apparent inability to finish the Song of Fire and Ice series.(hint, hint George. Some of your fans are growing impatient and frustrated.) That aside, it made me think about the idea of wonder. The idea of curiosity. Science, in and of itself, is wonderful and, more often than not, creates more questions than it answers. I do not see this as a bad thing. I see the unknown and wonder as positive things. Without the awe that drives us to question, "What if?" or "I wonder...." we wouldn't have a tenth of the scientific discovery we've had today. Where did we lose this ability to question, to dream.

If you look at modern education we are spoon-fed from cradle to grave exactly what the 'experts' want us to know. When was the last time a teacher actively encouraged a student to think for themselves? I had one teacher in high school that genuinely encouraged this kind of independent thought. Most didn't, or couldn't, be bothered to take the time to deal with logical analysis. If it wasn't in the book they weren't interested. This is the kind of educational system we've created for the children of this country. We're creating drones. It's no wonder that so many technical and scientific jobs are leaving the country. Today's children come out of high school ill-equipped to make it through college and even more poorly equipped to do any job that involves anything more complicated than pushing a button or inserting tab A into slot B.

And now our government once again wants to show the public that they are "doing something" to fix the 'crisis' we're in right now. The reason that they're going to get away with it is because the few people that actually take the time to stop and think about what's happening and ask the right questions are a tiny minority. Most people hear the politicians hot air on TV and think they're going to get money for free. They don't pay attention to the fantastic job public education is doing now. They are incapable of thinking this through to realize that no money is free. TANSTAAFL people. If you don't know what that stands for shame on you. Now go look it up.

We have to get back to being a skeptical society. We have to question the experts and the authorities. We have to be able to look at the world around us and see when the reality doesn't match the garbage they're trying to force feed us. If we can't get back to that kind of independent, rational thought then we are doomed to failure. We'll be no different than the brainwashed hordes were in the USSR or are now in North Korea. It's not too late.....not yet anyway. I can easily envision a point within the next decade where this downhill slide is irreversible but we're not there yet.

On a completely personal note, a friend of mine passed away here recently. He was a Marine aviator in Vietnam. He was an attorney and, eventually, a judge here in Kansas. He was the epitome of a good man. Even after losing most of his leg to cancer I never once heard this man complain about anything or say an unkind word about anyone, even when he was well within his rights to do so. The Marines guarding the Pearly Gates have added another to their order. You will be missed my friend. You are missed.

Captain Max Opperman
USMC
Semper Fidelis

Nom per Deus mi amici

Election soundtrack

2008-11-04T22:38:00.002-06:00

R.E.M's It's the End of the World As We Know It

Appropriate don't you think?

End of line.

UPDATE: For the throngs of people, all two of you, who have pointed out that the song above contains the line "and I feel fine." here's why I feel fine.

First, most of a bottle of Dalmore Cigar Malt tends to ensure that I feel no pain.

Second, and more important, the election wasn't the blowout that most people thought it would be. The electoral vote went his way in dramatic fashion but he's winning the popular vote by about 5%. Sounds like a lot until you factor in what went into his win. Six hundred million dollars only buys five percent? And lets not forget the complicity of the media in hiding everything that could make Obama look bad while crucifying his foes. Don't believe me? Go look for stories on Joe the plumber or Sarah Palin's tanning bed and see what you find. Then go look for stories about Obama or Biden and their history's. Any mention of Biden's daughter and her arrests? Nope. Any stories on the shady dealings Obama had with Rezko? Not outside Fox News.

So basically you have the perfect storm for democrats. An unpopular president. A financial crisis(caused by democrats, extended by democrats, and, when republicans tried to stop it, guaranteed by democrats). An ungodly ability to raise money, even questionable money. Massive turnout in previously apathetic demographics. And, to top it all off, a media that turns a blind eye to anything that might raise eyebrows on the democratic side, including the flat-out lies by people like Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid regarding the Wall St. meltdown. Put that all together and Obama only won by 5%??? How the hell, with all that in his corner, did he only win the popular vote by 5%? Democrats will never see this kind of opportunity again. especially after the people begin to see just how little a democrat controlled government gives a damn about them or their needs. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America. Check your civil liberties at the door.

Welcome to Hope and Change....

2008-10-17T09:19:00.002-05:00

Okay you obama supporters, if you need any more proof that you're on the wrong side of the battle here then there's somethin wrong with ya. Explain to me how it's okay for a private citizen to ask The Anointed One a question and then have his private life plastered all over the world for it? To the point that they are posting Joe's personal info all over the place, including information regarding his tax status and medical bills he owes. Not only that they've posted his ex-wife's info as well. Hell, Obama's campaign treasurer has tax liens on him and his companies but you don't hear any of that in the media. And given Obama's take on health care reform Joe should be a perfect poster boy for what Obama wants to do given his past due medical bills. So why shred him? Why get personal? Cuz throwing tantrums and calling people names is the extent of their debate skills. They can't deal with criticism or rational thought.

They go off on him not having a plumber's license(in Ohio you don't have to have one as an apprentice as long as your boss does) and then they go after his boss's license as well. What the fuck man? So if I ask Obama a question his supporters get to put all my personal info out there and tear my life apart lookin for dirt? Fuck that shit.

This should piss everybody off but far too many people are sitting in their basements rubbing their hands together in glee that the person who had the audacity to question Obama is getting "what he deserves." Obama went into his neighborhood. Obama was walkin around. this wasn't a setup. this wasn't a trap. this was a voter asking a politician a question and getting dragged through the mud for having the gall to ask it. This is the kind of president you want? These are the kind of people you want to associate with? Then fuck you too.

When your candidate is so weak that he has to have you worms crawling out of the woodwork to tear down anyone who dares question him then he's not good for this country. He's not going to be able to be the leader of the greatest country in the world. When you have to attack people instead of dealing with their arguments you're not ready for any kind of responsibility either.

Going after Joe is probably the most despicable thing any of you have done this campaign and that's sayin somethin. Molotov cocktails and hacking e-mail are really just the tip of the iceberg here. Don't believe me? Go look it up. Try thinking for yourself for once.

BTW, I know his first name is Samuel. So what? I go by my middle name too. The talking head goin after Joe this mornin on Fox apparently only considers first names real names cuz he kept sayin, "Joe isn't even his real name." Guess I've been lyin to people all these years then, including the DMV and the tax man cuz I use my middle name on EVERYTHING.

Bottom line, personally attacking someone just for asking a question is wrong. period. end of story. Be careful what kind of precedents you set people. Because I promise you that this is one chicken you won't want comin home to roost. Welcome to Hope and Change aka Recess on the Playground. Can't wait to see who gets picked last for kickball.

Yup, still a racist.

2008-10-16T08:45:00.002-05:00

I say that because, according to John "Never Met A Marine I Couldn't Smear" Murtha, since I'm not voting for Obama I must be racist. It's amazing to me the level of stupidity that's shown up this campaign season. Obama was supposed to be the "post-racial" candidate. The one to help us move beyond seeing skin color and instead be able to see ability. Nice dream anyway.

So, tell me. Which candidate invoked race every time he turned around? Which candidate said, "oh, by the way, did I mention he's black?" Which candidate said, "I know I don't look like the other presidents on the dollar bills." Hmmm? Give up? Here's a clue: he's black. That shouldn't be a big surprise because he already told us all this. Over, and over, and over. If you want to play the race game that's your call but don't sit here and tell me you're above that and then play the same race-baiting bullshit that Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan have been doing for years. Of course, we shouldn't really have expected any different. After all, Obama was mentored at the knee of Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.

It's really startin to piss me off how much garbage is being spewed about race in this campaign. I really don't give a damn what color your skin is. Can you do the job? Yes? Then I'll consider you for the job. Period. End of story. Does racism still exist? Of course it does. Will it be the reason Obama loses? No. Because the reason Obama will end up losing is too many people in America don't agree with his politics and policies. They don't agree with socialism. They don't agree with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrne, and Jeremiah Wright. They don't agree with Michelle Obama that this country is just now worthy of pride. And, like me, they don't agree with the implication that if they don't vote for Obama that they're racist.

That all being said I'm not a big fan of McCain. I disagree with him on far too many issues for me to be able to vote for him. Like the last few elections I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. I guess it's too much to ask for a candidate that I can actually support as opposed to simply holding my nose and punching the ticket.

On a related topic, can we please get some honest politicians in office somewhere? Of all the institutions in this country the right to vote should be the most sacred regardless of party. However, Ohio Sec. of State disagrees. Almost 200,000 potentially fraudulent voter registration entries? Not to mention the story that Michelle Malkin put out the other day about voters from outside Ohio all using the same address in Ohio to register to vote and getting absentee ballots even though they have nothing to do with Ohio. Throw in the ACORN issues in ten states, including them registering more voters in one state than actually live there, and you've got a huge mess that is being pretty much ignored by the media because the people involved in the fraud are supporting Obama.

You have a sheriff getting in trouble for supporting McCain while on the job but LEO's and DA's in Missouri flat out state they will use their position and power to stifle any negative comments about Obama and nothing...NOTHING is done about it. Welcome to America my friends. Free speech is allowed only when you agree with the media and it's socialist masters. Perhaps it is time to go John Galt. Or maybe Paul Revere or Thomas Jefferson.

Make no mistake, this country is in the middle of a cold civil war. Obama wins and it will no longer be a war. It will be a massacre. His supporters have already shown their willingness to resort to violence to shut up anyone who dares say anything negative about him. What makes you think that will change if he wins? The only thing that will change is that those who feel that success should be shared with those who haven't earned it will be in control. Those who feel that the people who bust their tails to make it big shouldn't be able to keep the rewards their work brought them. Those rewards should be doled out to others because, as Obama puts it, "when you spread the wealth around it's good for everyone." My response? FUCK THAT SHIT!!

This is an open comment to all who feel that the sweat of my brow is reward enough in itself. I refuse to bow to you. I refuse to allow you to play Legislative Robin Hood because some people can't cut it. I have failed. I have been without a job. I have been, and currently am, without health insurance. Guess what? Nobody owes me a damn thing. The government doesn't owe me a handout. The rich don't owe me a portion of their wealth. I failed. And I'm getting back up by myself. So fuck you and get your hand out of my wallet you greedy little bastards.

end of line

Top Ten: Barack vs Windows Vista

2008-10-06T14:43:00.002-05:00

1) Vista has user access control. Obama has reporter access control and truth squads.

2) Vista has blue screen of death. Obama's teleprompter has the same problem.

3) Vista has the Evil that is Bill Gates. Obama has Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bernadine Dohrn, and Michelle Obama.

4) If Vista dies you can go to an older version called XP. If Obama dies we get an older version called Joe Biden.

5) Vista was created by a huge group of greedy corporate suits. Obama was created by a huge group of greedy politicians.

6) Vista has a very friendly appearance with no substance to back it up. Obama has a very friendly appearance with no substance to back it up.

7) Vista has many versions for different users. Obama has many versions for different voting blocks.

8) Vista was billed as being a positive change for users yet made many users wish they'd never changed. Obama is billed as being a positive change yet will make many taxpayers wish they've never voted for him.

9) Vista's source code is proprietary and thus unavailable to the public. Obama's early political history is covered up and thus unavailable to the public.

10) Vista is a top-heavy, resource-hogging, slow-responding, pain in the ass. Obama is.....well, maybe Microsoft should have called Vista Barack instead.

Support the Troops Motherfucker

2008-09-19T21:40:00.003-05:00

Steve Almond recently posted an editorial that is apparently his attempt at gaining the prestigious Biggest Fucking Asshole and Waste of Oxygen award. The statue for this is, of course, a big puckering rectum.

Go read the editorial then come back. Done? Good. Now calm down. Put the gun down there skippy. Shooting him isn't the answer. Steve appears to believe that the troops, and by inference, those who support them are prone to violence and trigger happy. Normally I would be the first to disagree with him but i have a violent reaction to stupidity and Steve appears to have a terminal case.

His comment about how the "the most insidious byproduct of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has been a reflexive sanctification of the military" is the most infuriating thing I've ever read. Period. So let me get this straight there bucko, the most underhanded and deceitful result from 9/11 was the fact that people decided the military was worth supporting? It wasn't the passing of the most invasive legislation ever in the Patriot Act? It wasn't the creation of the largest government increase ever in the Dept. of Homeland Security? Nope. It was the people of this country deciding that the military that fights, bleeds, and sometimes dies for them was worth backing to the hilt. Good call there Steve. I'm glad to know that you're here to explain to we proles that that things we believe in are simply our knee-jerk reaction to one of the most tragic events in our country's history. Guess none of us could have ever supported the military before that date. That simply never occurred to you did it? Cuz what kind of inbred, uneducated hick would support the military without a reason?

Here's the difference between American's and people who simply live in this country. Psst, that would be you Steve. You require the military to be involved in something you approve of in order to support them. American's don't. We understand that it takes a special kind of person to willing offer themselves up as the shield between us and the evil in the world.

But, for arguments sake lets apply your logic to other government funded programs. If, in order to support something, I am required to have full agreement with the program then I no longer support Medicaid, Welfare, any pork-barrel projects, raises for civil servants, and, of course, the IRS. There are myriad other programs out there that don't feel "morally necessary", as you so eloquently put it, so I refuse to support them. In fact, I refuse to support the bailout of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. There's no morally justifiable reason for the government to do that. I'm waiting anxiously for your editorial on those actions as things you aren't supporting now.

You go on to make a comment about there being a lack of "financial and moral oversight" for the military. Does that explain the "guilty until proven innocent" assault on the Marines accused in Haditha? We've got soldiers crippled by a set of ROE's so ridiculously stringent that our own troops are hesitant to fire back at times for fear of being brought up on murder charges. Don't believe me? Ask the troops. You could ask Seal Team 10 but the only survivor of that team has already answered that question you pathetic little twit. We hold our troops to a standard unmatched EVER in history. The fact that you choose to ignore this simple fact and instead make comments about "atrocities" and "savagery"committed by our troops without a single source cited says an amazing amount about your ethical standards. The sad thing is that even if you had just one example you'd use that as proof that all of our troops are guilty. So, since one left-wing liberal committed acts of terrorism, can you say William Ayers, are you all bomb throwing cowards?

I'm guessing that you don't like you're own pathetic standards applied anywhere other than your own personal agendas but I thought you might want to see just how full of shit you really were. But, call me crazy, I have the feeling that you have no issue with the blatant hypocrisy you're exhibiting cuz, as Misha always said, "If standards are good, double standards must be twice as good."

I do have one last question Steve, do you have enough mouthwash to get the taste of your own bullshit out of your mouth?

end of line.

Verbal Beatdown

2008-09-03T22:24:00.003-05:00

Hey Rudy: Biden said he didn't get his veep nomination in writing. You were a US Attorney at one point. Anything he can do if Obama changes his mind again?

Hey Sarah: Obama called. He'd like you to stop kicking him in the balls. And he says his wife wears lipstick. Does that make her a hockey mom or a pit bull? He's confused.

Global Warming

2008-08-13T14:00:00.003-05:00

Given the recent hoopla over James Hansen's....um... shall we say less than scientific handling of temperature data for global warming some people have started to doubt the Gospel of the Warming. I've had many discussions over the past few days regarding this lack of faith with other belivers and we came to a realization. The reason for the lack of faith has to do with how the Message of Warming is being given to the unwashed masses. Contrary to the opinion of the High Priests Gore and Pelosi the masses are actually capable of reading and understanding. Maybe not at the level of we believers but capable nonetheless. They know that all this talk of carbon offsets is really just that much malarkey.

See, the problem is that they know that carbon dioxide is NOT the primary greenhouse gas. The primary greenhouse gas is water. Good, old-fashioned H2O. So when His Holiness The Gore and He Who Shall Not Be Questioned, Barack the Obama, speak of carbon offsets and reducing emissions the unbelievers know it's just so much hot air. What is needed is a new approach to the Message. We need to show our people the light and the only way to do that is with Truth. And the Truth is that we need to reduce the amount of water entering the atmosphere dramatically. There are two major human activities that contribute to excess moisture making it into the skies and slowly smothering our beloved Mother.

First, all forms of physical exertion in the outdoors must cease. Every person who works outside, exercises, jogs, or even just sunbathes is sweating. What happens when we sweat? The moisture from our bodies evaporates into the atmosphere. When you figure six billion humans sweating their bodies water into the atmosphere the damage we are doing is unforgivable. This must cease immediately. Granted many people may die due to the lack of food as farmers are no longer able to work and the lack of exercise will cause those of us left to have expanding waistlines but it's a sacrifice we all must make for The Mother.

Second, all washing of clothing must be immediately terminated. Every time we wash, and then dry, our clothing all of the water in those clothes enters the atmosphere. When we again look at this effect as extrapolated over 6 billion people we're dumping un-supreme deity-ly amounts of water into our air. We can't continue this reckless activity out of some unnatural desire for clean, fabric softened clothing. It's irresponsible and an affront to Gaia for us to treat her so shabbily.

We must resign ourselves to being filthy, stinking, fat, and naked in order to protect our Blessed Mother from the scourge that we, as humans, have become. The true sacrifices will be made by those such as His Holy Oracle the Gore who will have to contine being clean, clothed, and living in comfort and having to live with the psychic and emotional trauma of knowing just how much damage they are doing to Her Blessed body every time they bathe, excercise, or wear clean clothing. But I'm sure it's a sacrifice they're willing to make.

Life imitates art?

2007-10-10T03:33:00.000-05:00

Recently one of the movie channels that specializes in "classic" movies did an almost constant run of that fantastic film, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." While watching it I was struck with an awesome realization. This movie is the perfect, and I mean PERFECT, analogy for modern politics.

First, you have Nurse Ratched. She thinks she knows what's best for the patients. She's so confident in this knowledge that she'll use any means at her disposal to get her wards to do as she wants. Guilt trips, manipulation, or even brute force; it doesn't matter to her because, after all, it's for their own good. So, as should be obvious to any rational being, Nurse Ratched is the representative of the Democrats in this particular film.

Second, there's the star of the film, Randle Patrick McMurphy. He's a firm believer in the most return for the least effort. He wants the patients to think for themselves and not simply do what they're told so he's also a big proponent of individuality and self-expression. And, when it comes down to it, he's not afraid to go to bat for his people regardless of the consequences. Obviously Murph is the Republican stand-in for this flick.

Finally, for those third party people who just got off the short bus I haven't forgotten about you. There's even a guy in this movie to proudly represent you all. There's a scene where Murph is trying to get some of the patients to play a basketball game against the guards. One of the patients, brilliantly played by Danny DeVito, just stands on the court getting in people's way or throwing the ball against the fence cuz he really doesn't know what he's doing. Sounds like a pretty good explanation for the effect the third party candidates have anymore.

So, from here on out, every time you see or hear Hillary just remember that she's really Nurse Ratched's intellectual progeny and you'll be far better equipped to ignore the pointless drivel she spouts.

A little respect

2007-04-17T10:17:00.000-05:00

First, to those affected by the tragedy yesterday I think it's safe to say that nearly all America is thinking and praying for you.

Second, to all you jackals and jackasses who are trying to use this sadness for political gain you need to sit down and shut up. Right now. This means you Fred Phelps. This means you New York Times. This means you Brady Bunch. Sit down. Shut up. Pain and suffering are not leverage. Using this horrific event as a soap box shows how morally bankrupt you are. Leave these people and this situation alone. The survivors are going to have a hard enough time dealing with what they've witnessed without you vultures standing over them. Leave. Them. Alone. I'm sick and tired of you pathetic excuses for human beings using every tragedy to further your own agenda. Show a little respect. Try to remember what it was like when you were still human.

Movies as Art? Whatever

2007-03-30T10:28:00.000-05:00

Given the recent hoopla surrounding the movie 300 and it's obvious political overtones, obvious to those who also see the violence inherent in the system in a Monet, I decided to do a review of some popular movies of the last few years and see what political messages were being inserted by those nasty Hollywood people.

Independence Day: This is soooo obviously an anti-immigrant film. The "aliens" are described as invaders and locusts who use up all the resources and then move on. This isn't even subtle. This is blatantly about the Mexican undocumented workers who come here seeking a better life. What's even more infuriating is that they send the black man to break into the aliens home in order to destroy it. This kind of racial stereotyping has go to go. Who wrote the screenplay for this? David Duke? Pat Buchanan? The only thing missing in this was a Jew pissed off that someone was using his property without permission. Oh wait, we had that in Jeff Goldblum's character. Yup, this movie was all propaganda and probably underwritten by the Minutemen Group and various white supremacist groups as well.

The Last Samurai: Yet another film designed to make white males appear superior to all other humans. The Japanese are either greedy, weak, or pig-headed and none of them can do anything until The Great White Hope arrives to show them the way. Cruise's character even references Thermopylae so it's even more obvious that Hollywood was prepping us for the release of 300 even back when this came out.

V for Vendetta: Most people took this as a slam on the Bush Administration but it really was just the opposite. Think about it. All the people working for the government were rabidly anti-American. They also happened to be involved in human experimentation, plots to kill their own citizens, and violent oppression of the masses. They were also all killed for their sins by the honorable protagonist. So, to sum up, enemies of America are vicious, brutal creatures involved in the most heinous of crimes and they must all be killed. I sense the hand of Karl Rove.

Shrek: What could possible be more innocent than a comic children's movie? No one would stoop so low as to use this genre for political indoctrination. How wrong you are. Let's start with the Lord, a white male again, ordering all magical creatures to be cast out of the kingdom. Yes I know the Lord was height-challenged but that was simply an attempt to muddy the waters. His edict to force all the magical creatures into the swamp was a poorly veiled attempt to show children that we should get rid of anyone who's different from us. The fact that they used an ogre, an ugly, smelly ogre, as the hero is more proof that the writers wanted children to empathize with Lord Farquaad and be scared of the ogre and the multi-cultural diversity he represented.

As you can see, the blatant politicization of films is nothing new. 300 is just the most recent example, albeit a bit more over the top, of the shameless depths to which Hollywood has stooped in order to indoctrinate our populace and, even more frightening, our children with "traditional" values. Everyone should be up in arms over such attempts at brainwashing our young into a modern day version of the Hitler Youth supporting George W. Bush. Write your Senators and Rep's. Legislation needs passed. Call the UN. We need a Food-for-Movies program. I volunteer to oversee the project and I promise that corruption will be less than half of that which plagued the Food-for-Oil program. I'm not greedy after all.

Stupidity in Action

2006-10-19T13:31:00.000-05:00

As is evident from many of my posts I live in Topeka, Kansas. What little news I read in print usually comes from the local paper. Recently the local paper has given excellent fodder for letters to the editor or blog posts on here. One editorial that was printed today I simply had to respond to. I went ahead and sent a letter in but there's no way I can say everything I want to in such a limited format. For the registerphobes in the group I'm reprinting the text here.

***************************************************************************************

Karl Rove's red-hot buzz phrase for this fall's election is "cut-and-run Democrat." It's meant to be hurled with a derisive sneer at anyone who dares oppose George W's war of lies and failure in Iraq. But wait -- the obvious response to this is that those in the administration itself cut and ran long ago.

When it comes to standing firm in Iraq, who is actually standing there? Not Mr. Bush's two daughters or eight nieces and nephews. They're all of prime enlistment age, but they chose to cut and run rather than sign up for their Daddy's war. Not the loved ones of Cheney, Rummy, or any of the other ardent warmongers in Bush's top circle -- they cut and ran, too.

Then there's Congress. A recent "New York Times" article practically wailed that Sen. Max Baucus' nephew had been killed in Iraq, saying it "showed how death and grief can invade the halls on Congress." Indeed, this young man's death is horrible, as are those of the 2,700 other Americans who have been sacrificed in this wretched war. But while feeling the pain of this one senator, let's not forget that Congress continues to throw our young people, our public treasury, and our global reputation into the wasteland of Iraq -- yet, of 535 members of Congress, only six have close relatives whose lives have been put at risk there. The loved ones of the other 99 percent of lawmakers have chosen not to take a stand in Iraq.

The same is true of the right-wing media blatherers, the military contractors that are profiting from the war, the Wall Street financial powers, and the other elites who damned sure aren't volunteering to have their kids become "boots on the ground."

To stop this war in its tracks, require that all these cut-and-runners be a part of it. If Bush's war is not worth putting their families at risk, it's not worth the risk of any family. Rep. Charles Rangel has a bill that confronts the hypocrisy of these cut-and-runners. To learn about his Universal Service Act, call 202-225-4365.

*************************************************************************************

Last I checked, there was no criteria for federal office, or any office for that matter, that required a relative be in the Armed Forces. Who the hell does this joker think he is to use someone's family against him like this? The only thing I can think of is that he's had a psychotic break and thinks he's Jack Bauer now. That or the attitude is a holdover from his days with the Russian Mafia.

I just don't get it. Where does this guy get off? You can't question John Kerry's service record but you can question why relatives of politicians aren't enlisting? Why does he even care what their individual choices are? The only reason a politician's family should be brought into the picture is if there's some illegal activity that involves the politician directly. Anything else should be hands off. If you want to call someone's personal service into question go right ahead. Call Bush on his National Guard stint. Ask Gore about his "roving reporter" status. Question Clinton about his draft dodge. Go for it. But leave their families alone. Seriously. Don't fuck with me on this.

I do have to give Hightower credit for guts though. He spends half the column ranting about how people who aren't volunteering. His solution? He specifically mentions Charles Rangel's Universal Service Act as the fix. What's the USA you ask? Good question. It's pretty much the draft all over again. Stop and think about this for a second. Hightower is pissed off that a small group of people aren't volunteering. His solution is to do away with volunteering at all and make service mandatory. Back to an army of conscripts. Back to the single biggest political albatross ever. Talk about punishing the many for the acts of a few.

This kind of emotional extortion on Hightower's part is one of the reasons so many people, myself included, are completely disgusted with the political process. Every time a commercial break comes on anymore I have to change the channel or hit mute cuz I'm so tired of listening to "my opponent is a horrible person worth of the fires of Hell while I am perfect and beyond question" ads. It's pathetic. Nobody actually deals with issues anymore. It's all hate and anger. There's no respect. There's no debate. The political process has turned into a name-calling orgy of disrespect that would even the most hardened of cut down artists find distasteful. Don Rickles at his worst treated his targets better than people in the political arena treat each other.

The other thing that annoys me about this editorial is that Hightower, like so many loudmouths, seems to think that Iraq is the only place soldiers have died in recent years. Afghanistan? Don't care. Somalia? Isn't that in Africa somewhere? Bosnia? Clinton was behind that right? That's okay then. Where were your cries for Roger Clinton to enlist? Or any of Madeline Albright or Janet Reno's families? Why weren't you complaining then Jim? Why don't you just admit that your attacks aren't motivated by any concern for the troops and that it's all because your party isn't in charge anymore. At least then I'd be able to credit you with being more honest than your brethren who make the same ridiculous comments you do.

Definition of Insanity

2006-09-11T16:38:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I'm turning into a letter to the editor whore but I really have no choice when people like the less than rational person below. He wrote into the local paper recently with his opinion on the sanity of President Bush. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of Bush but the author below takes it just a wee bit too far. And surprise, surprise the paper printed my response so we'll see if he takes the hint or not.

***************************************************************************************

In a speech Aug. 31, President Bush said it is not time to change our policies in Iraq, but instead to change our opinions.

For once, I agree with him. Therefore, I'm changing my opinion. I no longer think of him as incompetent and misguided, but insane.

One of the classic definitions of insanity is repeating the same ineffectual actions over and over, but expecting different results.

GLEN D. MONTGOMERY, Topeka

***************************************************************************************

Here's the response I sent into the paper:

According to Glen Montgomery insanity is the process of doing the same thing over and over again but expecting the results to be different. He applies this definition to President Bush and his Iraq policies. The problem with this is that Mr. Montgomery apparently doesn't realize that decades of talks and appeasement had been tried with no result. To insist that President Bush is insane is asinine. If five years is a long enough time to label his approach to terrorism insane then what should we call the people who maintain that negotiations are possible?

Take a look at who we'd have to negotiate with. Many believe terrorist claims of "convert or die" or "drive them into the sea" to be rhetoric despite the savage and bloody methods used by those same terrorists against Muslim and non-Muslim alike. How many different wars have to be fought before you realize that appeasement doesn't work? How many millions have to die before you realize that their words aren't merely for effect? Neville Chamberlain tried appeasement with Hitler and the world paid for it. Israel tried it with Palestine and faced more suicide bombs. They tried it with Hezbollah and Hezbollah raided Israel killing several soldiers and kidnapping two more. How many years of "negotiations" had been tried prior to that? Did those "negotiations" work? Obviously not. It is time to try something other than paying the Danegeld over and over and expecting different results. That's insanity Mr. Montgomery and it appears that you're certifiable.

***************************************************************************************

The sad thing about this is that Mr. Montgomery truly is insane by his own definition. He's viewing events through a narrow window that apparently only allows him to see a few years at a time because if he ever bothered to look at history he'd see that appeasement of aggressors has been tried time and time again and it has never worked. The most frustrating thing about people like Mr. Montgomery is that no matter how many times their approach has failed they always want to try it again. But the first time you run into an obstacle trying something different they expect you to admit defeat immediately. I'd be willing to bet that Mr. Montgomery is one of the people who feel that we need to throw more money at education despite decades of history and numerous studies that show more money doesn't mean better education. I'm as equally sure that Mr. Montgomery, and those like him, probably think that Social Security's future solvency don't require any changes other than taxing the most wealthy portions of society. In fact, they usually think the answer to most problems can be solved by higher taxes or some other form of Socialism.

Am I being unfair to Mr. Montgomery? Possibly. I don't know the man and I am extrapolating out quite a bit from a rather short letter. If I am misjudging Mr. Montgomery then I am truly sorry. Somehow I doubt I'm far off the mark though. Anyone who would see fighting back against the bin Laden's and Ahmadinejad's of the world as insane has got to be mental or very, very stupid. Anyone who is incapable of learning from the mistakes of the likes of Chamberlain has got to be either mental or very, very stupid. And, God help us, there are far too many crazy and stupid people in the world today.

Action meets reaction

2006-08-07T11:50:00.000-05:00

Let me see if I've got this straight. We have a man, let's call him BG, resting behind the wheel of his car. Someone calls this into police as a 'suspicious vehicle." The cops, who are doing their job, respond to the call and wake BG up. BG then attempts to take off. He rams two patrol cars and nearly ran over one of the officers on the scene. The officers opened fire and ended up fatally wounding BG after he was driving through someone's yard to try and get away.

To any rational person this would appear to be a straightforward situation where the cops had no choice but to act as they did given the threat to themselves and the citizens in the area posed by the obviously reckless BG. The story should stop here but it doesn't. The story doesn't stop because of the abject stupidity of some people in this world.

BG's relatives just can't understand why he had to be killed. "He was a good person. He didn't deserve this," is how the mother of his children is quoted. One daughter says, "His life was taken unjustly," followed by "They could shoot out the engine. They could have shot out all four tires."

For those of you keeping score at home we'll take a look at those statements one by one.

First, was he a good person? How many good people do you know wake up to see a cop at their window and their first response is to ram multiple police cruisers? How many good people do you know would then attempt to run down one of the officers? I don't know about you but I don't know any good people who treat police that way.

Did he deserve it? Was his life taken unjustly? This isn't a situation where he was in custody and subsequently killed. This is a case where he had demonstrated ample resolve to damage property and attempt to take human life. How does he not deserve to be punished for that?

The last two statements are the most asinine of all. Yet more proof that bad TV and worse movies are rotting the brains of America. Here's a quick auto lesson for you. If you shoot out the tires on a vehicle the car can still be driven. It won't be as fast or as maneuverable but it's still more than capable of damaging property or even killing someone. As for shooting out the engine don't be absurd. Even if you took the radiator out the car could still be driven for quite a ways. Shooting an engine out with a handgun is next to impossible. The bullets don't have the energy to crack the block or rupture the pistons. Put down the remote and pick up a book. It's amazing the things you can learn when you're not watching Desperate Housewives or General Hospital.

Don't get me wrong. This death could have been avoided but not through any action on the cop's part. Unless you count not responding to calls an action. I suppose they could have allowed themselves to be run over but if you suggest that as a viable option then you and I are going to have serious issues. BG's actions determined how this situation played out. Period. End of story.

To the officers involved:

You're going to question yourself and your actions. You wouldn't be human if you didn't. You wouldn't be good cops if you didn't. Everyone is telling you right now that you did what you had to do. That's very true but it's also very useless. You are going to have to deal with the fact that your actions resulted in a loss of life. Very few of the people around you are going to truly understand what you're going through. That being said, you're not flying solo here. I know it's going to feel like it to an extent but you have people within the PD who are there if you need them and, contrary to how the media likes to portray it, you have citizens in town who believe in you and what you do. Stay strong and we'll be waiting for you whenever you're ready to come back.

Huh?

2006-05-11T22:23:00.000-05:00

Somehow, I've become a racist yet again. I'm still trying to figure it out. I was having a conversation with a friend of mine about immigration. I said the two words that appear to act as some modified Bat Signal for the crazies: illegal immigration. Those two words got me branded as a racist, more specifically it got me branded as racist against hispanics. It didn't matter that the friend I was talking to was hispanic. It didn't matter that I grew up in a predominately black and hispanic neighborhood. What mattered was that I dared to speak blasphemy by saying that illegal immigrants are criminals.

"They're not illegal immigrants you cretin. They're undocumented workers."

My response is that undocumented workers are deadbeat dads working under the table to avoid child support. Illegal immigrants aren't defined by the work they do but by how they entered the country.

"So why don't you join one of those crazy white supremacist groups if you hate Latinos so much."

I'm sorry, where did I mention skin color or nationality? Where in the definition of illegal or immigrant does it say anything at all about hispanics? Where does it say that in order to be an illegal immigrant you must speak spanish? Where does it say that only those who cross the southern border of this country are illegal? What about the other three borders? Are the people who enter illegally there not illegal immigrants? What are they then? Just confused peopel who should've taken the left at Albequerque?

To those less than rational beings in the audience(this pretty much includes all the Liberals out there) being against illegal immigration is not a racist stance. I have no problem with people who enter this country abiding by the laws we've enacted. We can have a discussion about whether or not the laws should be changed but it still stands that the law is being broken as it is currently written. That makes an illegal immigrant from any country a *gasp* criminal. Period. End of discussion. How much faith can we put in people who's very first step into our country was in and of itself a criminal act?

No, I'm not saying all illegal immigrants come into the country and go on killing sprees. I know a large percentage of them work lousy jobs for even worse pay in order to make a better life for themselves and their families. I understand that. But if a man is robbing a 7-11 at gunpoint to feed his family do we let him go and not convict him of the crime he committed? No. We realize he had his reasons but those reasons do not relieve him of the consequences of the crimes he committed. When are you people gonna get it through your heads that being an illegal immigrant is not some romantic hero deserving of your protection? I don't care where they're from. I don't care what language they speak. I don't care what color they are. How am I a racist for thinking that a breaker of the law is a criminal?

It occurs to me that the true racists in this case are actually those who automatically assume that illegal immigrant=hispanic. Why? Illegal immigrants come from all over the globe. Mexico doesn't have an exclusive call on crossing the border in violation of immigration laws. Why do you insist on saying that being an illegal immigrant and being hispanic are synonymous? You see skin color and nationality. I do not. You use racism as a smear campaign against those who would want to enforce the laws. I see racism as something to be fought against, not used as a political tool. You decry racism but do not hesitate to use it when you feel it will gain you political points. You are the worst sort of hypocrite. If you had the courage to stand by your convictions across the board I could find some modicum of repsect for you but as it is you are beneath my contempt. You have reached that happy place where you are so pathetic that I can't waste the energy it would take to despise you.

I have been ridiculed. I have been screamed at. I have been called all manner of foul names. Why? Because I dared to see illegal immigration as something other than an issue of race. I saw it as an issue of broken laws. Ironically, according to you, that makes me a racist. At this point, given your application of the word racist to anyone who stands for law and rational thought I will wear that label proudly. I will not wear it as you apply it. I will wear it as a badge of honor that I have exposed your scheme as the pitiful sham it is. I will wear it proudly and without shame. Call me racist. For whenever you do you show the world just how small-minded and contemptible you truly are.

Enjoy the ride.

Overstreet strikes again.

2006-04-06T09:49:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Welcome to readers of His Highness and much thanks for the link.

Okay, I've had it with this woman. It appears there's not a single thing in this world that's not an example of racism for her. Same procedure as before: I'll post her column and then the letter I wrote to the paper in response.

**************************************************************************************

TRUTH OF WAR ON DRUGS
Glenda Overstreet

"The statistics on drugs was a low key issue so we had to get the public's attention in order to make it look really bad. ... We had to keep milking the federal cash cow to pay for staffing and to help increase staffing, so we offered people an opportunity to get high. Once they passed a joint, they became a 'big time' drug dealer."

That was part of the message delivered Wednesday at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Topeka by Jack Cole, a former New Jersey undercover narcotics officer who acknowledged he felt bad about what he did while in law enforcement. He now is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

It amazes me that validation of a reality here in Topeka must come from an outside entity who has put down the pretentious barriers and reached down to the core of acknowledging what is right. To get there, one must go beyond individual feelings, thoughts and emotions and that isn't always easy. After hearing Cole's presentation, I had a great deal of respect for a man who had gone beyond the barriers of life.

His message is disturbing, yet necessary, because many people still have their heads in the sand when it comes to issues of racism. Cole spent more than 30 years in law enforcement, including a period of time as an undercover detective. He shares the message of police corruption to acquire and maintain funding and the truth of institutionalized racism in law enforcement and the judicial system.

Cole compares the U.S. incarceration rate with South Africa's during apartheid. In 1993, South Africa incarcerated 851 of every 100,000 black males. In 2004, the U.S. incarcerated 4,919 per 100,000 black males.

Cole said the Bureau of Justice statistics indicates that every black male born today has a one in three chance of serving prison time.

Why is that important? Because not only is there institutional racism, but the result is disenfranchisement.

Fourteen and one-half percent of the black men will never vote again. Opportunities for funding, housing and education are lost. And after prison it is virtually impossible to protect oneself because felons can't own guns. This is a perpetuating matter with long-term effects.

Now that we have surveys representing feedback from people in all walks of life, government statistics, and the experiences of a retired narcotics officer, what is the next excuse for supporting those who perpetuate this kind of behavior? It is because of people like Cole and interim Topeka police chief Steve Harsha, and others who stood up to face their colleagues whom they knew were wrong, who deserve our respect and admiration. Taking such positions generally isn't popular. However, those few good men are the souls of the earth. Just keeping it real.

************************************************************************************

Here's what I sent as a response and I hope it gets printed.

Glenda Overstreet cites a Bureau of Justice statistic that 1 in 3 black men will likely serve time in prison as proof that the justice system is racist. That's almost 5 times the chances of a white man serving prison time. But why stop there? According to those same statistics 12% of men are expected to serve prison time versus 1.8% of women. That makes men almost 7 times as likely as women to be imprisoned. By Ms. Overstreet's logic the justice system must be sexist as well.

The fact is that the people committing the crimes are the ones being imprisoned regardless of race. Instead of griping about the justice system being racist perhaps Ms. Overstreet's time would be better served trying to reduce the number of crimes being committed by the black population she's attempting to champion.

Ms. Overstreets broken logic doesn't end there. She goes on to say that this 'institutional racism' is truly important because of the disenfranchisement that goes with being a convicted felon. Convicted felons lose the right to vote. They lose access to various opportunities for financial aid, and in some cases jobs. By committing a felony these people have stated for the world to see that they will not abide by the rules and regulations that society has in place. So why should these people then benefit from the generosity of the society that they scorned? This is simply one of the consequences they have to face as a result of having committed the crime in the first place.

Also, Ms. Overstreets contention that felons are unable to protect themselves because the can't own firearms is inane. Just the idea of legally arming convicted felons is ludicrous. Using the Bureau of Justice statistics again almost 40% of felons have multiple convictions for violent acts and 53% were on probation, parole, or pretrial release at the time of their arrest. An even more telling stat: of the 272,000 convicts released in just 15 states almost 68% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years. Given this evidence of recidivism explain to me, and to the law abiding citizens of Topeka and Shawnee County, how arming felons makes any kind of sense?

This is intended as a wake up call for Ms. Overstreet. It's not about the color of your skin. It's not about the language you speak. It's not about what god you pray to. It's about the choices people make with their lives. Break the law, get caught, and go to prison. Period. All you're accomplishing by crying "Racism!" every time you disagree with something is desensitizing the community to the true examples of racism in the world.

************************************************************************************

No apologies. No olive branch. No mending of bridges. Overstreet has proven time and again that she's not interested in reason or rational discussion. All she's interested in is making sure everyone knows what color her skin is and how the entire world is racist against the black people. I'm guessing she went to the Cynthia McKinney School of Public Speaking.

Who you callin a racist? Stupid cracker.

2006-03-03T10:09:00.000-06:00

There's been a bit of hoopla lately over an editorial and some e-mails being exchanged between two officers of the Topeka PD and a columnist for the local paper The Capitol Journal. First I'm printing the column and then the editorial written by the police officer. The officers in question are currently on administrative leave pending review for things such as "racial insensitivity."

*************************************************************************************

Glenda Overstreet's column

I recently had the unfortunate experience of attending a court hearing that was being conducted to determine the sentencing of a young African-American man who had been tried on drug charges.

As I walked into the courtroom and glanced around, I couldn't help but notice that he was the only African-American man in the room. The setting included the judge, the defense attorney, the prosecutor and about a handful of court attendees who could have been observers. The young man looked up at me as I entered as if in relief.

After the defense attorney presented his argument for leniency in sentencing, the prosecutor stood to present his argument. After the judge sat quietly listening to the arguments from both sides, she finally turned to the defendant and asked if he had any remarks.

The young African-American man eloquently read from handwritten notes that hung from his handcuffed hands as he poured out his innermost thoughts regarding the trial and his potential sentencing.

Almost as soon as the young man finished his three- to four-minute presentation, the judge began repeating the sentence that echoed the statement previously presented by the prosecutor. It was as if the young man hadn't spoken at all -- or he hadn't been heard or seen at all.

The young man was present without family, any notable friends or a support network to stand by him in such a traumatic environment. I then found out that he was from a different state altogether. So many times we hear from people of color who have become the victims of this "justice." Perhaps it is because we have become a society that has become so exclusive that it no longer matters. But in fact, it does.

When you or anyone you are close to becomes introduced to the judicial system, the first thing you are advised to do is to remain silent so as not to harm your case. This applies even and especially if you are innocent. So, you struggle, like this young man struggled to find a place in life where he could have a say. Yet, it was too late. But then again, perhaps not. Perhaps these words will resonate with those who care.

So where are the voices of the world for your son and for mine? For your daughter and mine? It was Martin Luther King Jr. who indicated that "the day you become silent about things that matter is the day you begin to die." Does this mean there are alternatives to silence? If so, that is where I am -- supporting the things that matter. Just keeping it real.

***********************************************************************************

Ken Eaton's letter to the editor:

I have noticed that in Glenda Overstreet's articles, every other sentence she writes "African-American." It's like she needs to remind everyone who she is. It's like she's better than everyone because of it. I'm not going to write "Caucasian American" in every other sentence in this letter. I know who I am, and I don't feel the need to be so arrogant. Besides, it's great here in America. How is it in Africa? Have you even been there? If it's so great in the "homeland" why are you still here?

Her article on Feb. 17 made me break my "editorial hiatus" and I felt the need to respond. Overstreet says she went into a courtroom where a "young African-American" was being sentenced on drug charges. She was appalled that he and she were the only "African-Americans" in the courtroom, and somehow finds this an injustice. Maybe if this "man" had, (like in his speech to the judge), so "eloquently" obeyed the law, he wouldn't have been there in the first place, but like everything else the government sponsored/endorsed hate group called the NAACP does, she makes an attempt to shift the blame elsewhere. No, don't let this "young African-American" take any responsibility for what he has done. Let's make him the victim because this "young African-American" didn't have any family there for his support. To blame his family for not coming wouldn't be right. Ms. Overstreet, being a colored person does not give you a "get out of trouble free card" to be used when you want it.

Mrs. Overstreet must also be a "street lawyer" because her legal advice to anyone accused of anything (even if you are innocent -- wow) is to "remain silent so as to not harm your case." Incredible. It sure looks better if you are innocent, to remain silent and not help out so the "guilty" party can be found. Is that what you told Cortez? It appears to me that you have an axe to grind, and just so you know, I won't be reading your racist articles any longer and your credibility as a journalist and your NAACP branch no longer exists. Yeah, I used the word "colored." If you don't like it, change what the fourth letter in "NAACP" stands for.

Topeka just showed again how much it bends over backwards for the black community by hiring a black city manager. I would love to see how much more "qualified" our new manager was over the other 30 candidates. I have never seen the city in such a hurry to get its current employees such a great contract like they gave this man, (outside of the City Council giving themselves a 25 percent raise). Maybe it's because most of us are the wrong color. Ms.. Overstreet, because of the color of your skin, you are not better than everyone else.

************************************************************************************

Here's where the stupidity starts in the area. There are no calls for Mr. Eaton and a fellow officer who exchanged e-mails directly with Ms. Overstreet to be fired. Let that sink in for a second. Police officers, on their own time and in their own homes are voicing their opinions in regards to what they felt to be an openly racist column. Since their opinions are considered politically incorrect we now have a torch and pitchfork mob crying for the monsters to be destroyed. It now appears that you are not allowed to have an opinion once you go into public service unless you're of a minority.

Think about this people. Think long and hard. With all outcry about Bush's cracking down on freedom of speech, which is mostly BS, we have a verified, hardcore example of people being punished for voicing their opinions. It would be one thing if they were using their position as a platform for racist comments(Mayor Nagin anyone?) but not only did these officers use their own time and computers for this they didn't make a single racist comment in any of their correspondence. Yet because the object of their ire was a black woman who'd written a race driven article they are being hung out to dry. These are men who hold their lives secondary to the ideal that someone has to stand against the evil men of the world. These are men who live and work the motto "To Protect and Serve" yet they're being dragged through the mud for having the audacity to have their own opinions.

This is just the next logical destination on the path of stupidity the local officals have driven us. There have been complaints over the past few years about 'racial insensitivity' within the TPD. Read that again. Not profiling. Not racism. Not abuse. Not criminal acts. Racial insensitivity. You can protect and serve officers, but make sure you don't hurt anyone's feelings. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but be certain that you're sensitive when you do so.

The worst part of all of this is how unevenly this standard is applied. If you're a minority then you can say and do anything you want. I give you the Kanya West, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All three of these people make inflammatory and 'insensitive' comments so often that I think they're not human. They're full sized talking dolls and somone is just pullin the string to get them to spit out the new "evil white people" comment of the day. Does anybody bat an eye when these people go off? No. Why? Cuz they're minorities.

Funny, but to me it seems kinda racist to apply a standard based on skin color. But I'm one of those stupid crackers. What could I know about racism?

Battle of the Letters Part 2

2005-12-23T08:44:00.000-06:00

Well, I've gotten into another letter to the editor war. I'm going to put all the letters here and then my response to her most recent missive.

*************************************************************************************

When WWII veterans say the atomic bombs were justified because they saved their lives, they're saying it was all right to burn thousands of innocents because they put themselves above them.

That's hardly heroic. And now we live in terror that terrorists will drop such a weapon here. Whose fault is that? When Pandora opens the box, Pandora is to blame.

Anyone who has it will use it -- as we did. Now our hands are as dirty and bloody as those of our enemies.

The army tested the bomb on helpless farm animals and radiation on our own unsuspecting citizens. And you wonder why I don't feel protected?

This war is no different from Vietnam. It is illegal, it's wrong and it has no end. And terrorists are more numerous and dangerous than ever. And the government will hide in shelters while citizens pay the price.

Call me an ingrate. Call me a traitor. But you're nuts if you continue to support Bush, his war and his warriors. Yes, his warriors. They voted for him and they're fighting his war quite willingly.

M.J. CLINE, Topeka

*************************************************************************************

M.J. Cline seems to be confused in a recent letter. She starts off by decrying the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan as a horrible decision that the United States is to blame for. She then goes on to say that if a terrorist organization uses nukes on the U.S. that the U.S. is to blame for that as well. Do you not realize how contradictory this is? Who gets the blame for bombings now? The person pulling the trigger or the victims?

In the case of the Japan bombings, you say the bomber is to blame, but then you say that if the U.S. is bombed it's our fault. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

In reality, Ms. Cline is showing her true colors here. She's part of that crowd that believes that everything the U.S. does is wrong. She completely ignores anything that would threaten that view, such as the inherent contradiction within her own letter, because that particular crowd doesn't operate under the banner of logic or reason. They can't let silly things like facts get in the way of their opinions.

I find it most ironic that Ms. Cline feels the need to voice her opinions as gospel considering her history of issues with people who believe in the Gospel. Hopefully, one day people like Ms. Cline will start looking at those troublesome facts and truths before forming their opinions instead of the other way around.

*************************************************************************************

No, Scott, my letter was not self-contradictory. Whenever a country uses an atrocious weapon on another country it will have that same weapon thrown back at them sooner or later. It's fact of life. Read history.

No, I do not present my word as gospel, nor do I fight with anyone else for believing in the Gospel. You attempted to put me in some "crowd" to discredit my views. It was a favorite trick in the '60s to identify anyone against the Vietnam War with a handful of violent pretenders in order to discredit them. It worked for a while, but they eventually overcame. They turned out in the end to be the true majority.

The troublesome fact that people like you don't want to face is that most Americans now want out of this mess in Iraq. You just can't set up democracy in a country that doesn't know the meaning of the word. Apparently you don't either. Dissent is our sacred right.

M.J. CLINE, Topeka

*************************************************************************************

Ms. Cline, you continue to make me laugh. I appreciate that. Your most recent example of your sense of humor was when you said that a democracy can't be established in a country, you were referring to Iraq, that doesn't know the meaning of the word. I suppose you could have been serious when you said that but that would require that you pay no attention to what's going on in Iraq now. You know, those pesky free elections that are one of the hallmarks of democracy. I guess the 70%+ turnout of voters in Iraq just shows how much they don't want democracy. Since that's a higher voter turnout than we've had in this country I would think that would be ample illustration that the Iraqi people want democracy, but that may just be me being brainwashed by the evil right-wing conspiracy machine.

I'm not going to even bother addressing the rest of your statements. If you're so willing to completely ignore basic facts such as the massive involvement of the people in Iraq to establish a democracy then no actual fact will stand in your way. You don't have time for facts when you have your opinions.

*************************************************************************************

This is the primary series of letters. There were some side letters involving throwing the word traitor around along with freedom of speech and I'll include those in another post. These are what I'm concerned with now.

As you can see, Ms. Cline and I have nothing like common ground here. As far as I'm concerned, she's off her rocker. In my last response to her I ignored a couple of her points cuz it was obvious, to me, that she is not the type of person to acknowledge facts that are contrary to her viewpoint. I'm going to address those points here.

First, she tries to maneuver out of her earlier statements saying the US would be to blame if an nuke was used on us. Her earlier statement was that, "now we live in terror that terrorists will drop such a weapon here. Whose fault is that? When Pandora opens the box, Pandora is to blame." That statement doesn't simply deal with the possibility of an atomic weapon being used it places the fault for it squarely on the US. her last letter stays away from playing the blame card and instead says,"Whenever a country uses an atrocious weapon on another country it will have that same weapon thrown back at them sooner or later. It's fact of life." Basically she realized playing the blame card didn't work and tried to backtrack. Problem with that is that she made a completely asinine statement. She tells me to, "Read history." for examples to back her statement up. Well, here's some history for her. The Japanese used kamikaze pilots to attack the US in WW2. Did the US, or anyone else for that matter use kamikaze against the Japanese? The answer is no. In Gulf War 1, Saddam used various nerve agents against our troops. Did ANYONE use those against Iraq in the first or second Gulf War? Again a no. How about in Vietnam? The Vietcong used torture, poisoned traps, and car bombs against the US. Did we use the same tactics against them? No, we didn't. History doesn't back you up Ms. Cline. I suggest you read a bit more before you try to argue a historical point.

The US passed out blankets infected with smallpox to the Native Americans at one point. By Ms. Cline's logic that justifies anyone to use bio-weapons against us. Eco-terrorists have spiked trees and laid traps for loggers. By Ms. Cline's logic the loggers are fully justified to retaliate in kind. By Ms. Cline's logic the US would be justified in hijacking airliners and flying them into major cities of countries that support terrorism. You'll have to forgive me Ms. Cline, but I'm playing the BullShit card on you and your argument here.

She does make one semi-valid statement in her most recent letter. She claims that I put her in some 'crowd' to discredit her views. While I did say she was part of a particular group she is wrong in assigning blame to me for her being there. Her comments and views put her there, not me. Considering her habit of labeling all who disagree with her as brainwashed Bushites I think it's amusing she has issues with being put in a 'crowd.'

Finally she claims that "most Americans now want out of this mess in Iraq." this is demonstrably false as even the MSM has shown. A recent poll by CNN shows that 59% of Americans don't believe US troops should be pulled out of Iraq until our goals are reached. Only 35% wanted to set a specific timetable for withdawal. I realize that numbers are sometimes difficult for people to deal with so I'll spell this out. In order for Ms. Cline to be right, more than 50% of the population would need to want out of Iraq now. In face, the opposite of Ms. Clines views is the correct one as a clear majority of Americans disagree with her. I don't expect her to acknowledge this fact however. I truly expect to see these facts ignored or that she'll make a poor attempt at discrediting the poll cuz we all know what a right-wing media outlet CNN is.

I'm pretty much done with trying to debate with Ms. Cline in the letters anymore. She has made it painfully obvious that responding to actual facts and figures isn't what she's interested in. All she can do is try the old magicians trick of drawing your attention away from the real action. She figures if the quality of her arguments is bad she can make up for it by yelling and calling names at the top of her lungs. But what do I know? According to her I don't know what democracy is simply because I called on her to deal with facts instead of opinions. Think she's got it a bit confused?

What's good for the goose....

2005-12-19T10:41:00.000-06:00

Well, I didn't get to finish up my thoughts on the reality denying viewpoints that I mentioned in my post the other day and something new has caught my attention so I'm going to have to put closing that out for a bit. Instead you get to read some more about Mirecki.

For those who aren't familiar with the situation Paul Mirecki was chair of the religious studies department at the University of Kansas. He wrote an e-mail that expressed his opinions about intelligent design and his desire to teach a class that would expose ID for the poorly masked religious doctrine that he believed it to be. This e-mail was released publicly and due to the inflammatory wording he used and constant name-calling throughout the text he attracted quite a bit of negative attention. In all fairness to Mirecki, I agree with him that ID is not science and is essentially creationism in a new dress. That being said, you cannot resort to the sort of mocking and blatant disrespect that he engaged in without expecting some consequences.

Here's what's happened to Mirecki so far. After a meeting with his faculty he drafted and signed a letter resigning his position as chair of the religious studies department. He requested that the class he mentioned in his e-mail be cancelled. He reported being assaulted by two men early one morning. He has since gotten an attorney, claimed he was forced to resign and threatened to sue the university for failing to support him. He has also expressed displeasure with the way the local authorities are investigating the attack.

I'm going to go through this one point at a time. Mirecki wrote, and signed a resignation letter. He now claims that he was forced to do so. The problem I have with this is that everyone involved in the discussion agrees that they thought it would be better if he resigned but that the choice was, in the end, his alone. In fact, his fellow professors have stated that Mirecki admitted that his resignation would be the way to go. Now he wants to cry foul? KU has multiple avenues for a professor, let alone a dept chair, to pursue if they feel they are being unduly pressured to step down. Mirecki availed himself of none of those options. Is that proof that he wasn't forced to resign? No, but it is suggestive, and coupled with the many accounts where Mirecki was the one to make the final decision about his resignation I think this point is settled. Mirecki resigned voluntarily.

What about the class he had scheduled? Why was that cancelled? It was cancelled because Mirecki and KU both decided it was a good idea. For different reasons I'm sure but both parties agreed on this. In fact, KU has stated in no uncertain terms that they like the idea of the class and feel it should be taught in the future. Given the attitudes at KU right now regarding the class it just makes sense to put it off for at least a semester.

Now we get to the assault. Mirecki's story has small changes here and there, but that's to be expected with the situation and multiple retellings. Early iterations of the story had Mirecki taking a pre-dawn drive to "clear his mind." Later versions he was on his way to breakfast. The general area of the attack is south of 31st street in Lawrence and that is an almost rural area. Few, if any, streetlights and sparse housing. Mirecki stated that a pickup truck was tailgating him. He pulled over to let them pass. When the truck stopped and the men in the truck got out Mirecki did the same. That's when they proceeded to beat him. I have a few problems with his story, but nothing insurmountable. His first story of a drive to "clear his mind" makes sense given the area of the attack as it's a very peaceful area to drive through in the early AM. If he was going to breakfast, as he later claimed though, I'd wonder what he's doing that far south as there's really nothing out there. My main problem with his story though is the timeframe. The attack is listed as early in the morning when it was still dark. If that's the case then how did the guys in the truck know it was Mirecki in front of them? Mirecki's report doesn't sound like a chance encounter but if it wasn't then how did they find Mirecki? Follow him from his home? Why? If you've made the decision to assault and intimidate someone then it would make more sense to do it in their home away from a chance car driving by. Those questions aside, I see no real reason to doubt Mirecki's story at this point. Could he have made it up? Of course. It's also just as likely that some pinheads beat him down too. We'll have to wait and see.

My problem with Mirecki now is his response to the situation. Threatening to sue after voluntarily resigning isn't appropriate. Threatening to sue because KU "denied me my Constitutionally protected right to speak and express my mind" is laughable. If they were going to deny you your right to speech then you never would have been able to write the e-mail that started all this hoopla. If the University disagrees with the position you put forth they are under NO obligation to support you. You're a big boy now stand up for yourself.

The thing that most annoys me right now about Mirecki is his response to the police. He's loudly complained about the sheriff's investigation claiming that being questioned for several hours about his story is being "treated more like a criminal than a victim." I'm not sure what Mirecki expected the cops to do, but last I checked, going over the story to make sure nothing was overlooked is just good procedure. Mirecki also claims that the sheriff's seizing his car and computer made no sense to him. I'm going to assume that Mirecki had a possible concussion cuz I can think of three or four explanations for either just off the top of my head. Mirecki's complaining is, in the end, going to do more damage to him and his reputation than the beating ever did. Shut up and let the cops do their job. You are not a cop, you are a professor of religious studies so you do NOT know what the cops need to do. I don't care how many episodes of CSI or Law & Order you've watched.

To sum up: Mirecki mouths off; resigns as dept. chair; cancels class; gets beat down; complains to any and all who will listen. In the end, Mirecki has hurt himself far more than any of the 'fundies' he was ranting against in his e-mail.

One more interesting point in all of this. There is no call to understand the cultural mores of the guys who beat Mirecki down. If they were muslim and this had been a riot, honor-killing, violent rape(see Sweden), or murder of a film director we'd have heard hundreds of talking heads going off about how it wasn't the muslims fault. That Mirecki should have been more sensitive to their culture. Double standards anyone?

2005-12-13T21:48:00.000-06:00

I was asked today why I haven't posted lately. While a part of it was the fact that I'm almost constantly busy, the other part was that I've had a hard time putting anything together to post that wasn't based purely on anger. In all honesty part of my anger was frustration with myself and where I was that I was redirecting at others. That's one of the reasons I held off posting because I do NOT want to use others as a scapegoat for my personal frustrations. Since I've managed to work myself past that point I'm back to posting.

What I'm going to touch on briefly tonight and will, hopefully, have time to address in more detail tomorrow is something that became apparent to me only recently. What I've noticed is the fundamental problem in modern politics and, by extension, policies. There are basically two types of people out there right now. Those who see reality for what it is and try to deal with it rationally, and those who ignore reality as it is and insist that the world is how they think it should be despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. If you're feeling defensive right now then you are probably in the latter category.

One prime example is on the matter of gun control. There's been a lot of hoopla lately over Martin's declaration that he will call for a ban of handguns in Canada. A quote from the article on the Liberal party's website states that "By banning handguns and enforcing a comprehensive policing efforts, the Liberal government will get these dangerous weapons off our streets and help to stop gun crime." For the logical readers the obvious flaws in this statement need no explanation. For those that are 'rational-thought challenged' I'll spell it out for you. Gun crime is, by definition, committed by criminals. Criminals, again by definition, are those who have ignored and broken the laws of the society within which they exist. Making yet another law for them to break will NOT decrease gun crime.....unless you count the citizens who will refuse to turn in their guns for fear of having no way to protect themselves when one of those criminals shows up on their doorstep. This is an example of someone who defies reality as it is and is insists that the world MUST be as they see it instead of as it actually is. Those in the US in favor of gun control should take note. I, for one, will refuse to abide by any legislation that takes away my ability to protect myself from someone who is threatening me or mine. Period.

Another example is the war in Iraq. Despite many positive changes in Iraq, despite the number of soldiers and Iraqis proclaiming that Iraq is better off than it was and is becoming a nation of people proudly involved in the direction their country is heading the mass media in this country insists that Iraq is a 'quagmire' and that the entire war is a farce designed to strengthen Bush's administration. Given Bush's approval ratings this is demonstrably false. If Bush wanted to simply strengthen his adminsitration he would have stopped after Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was political suicide. The politicians do NOT care how many people in Iraq Saddam had killed. They do NOT care about actually furthering democracy in the world. All they see is a chance to score points with the voters with carefully chosen soundbites. They refuse to accept the facts of what is truly going on and instead insist that what they believe to be happening is actually the truth no matter what evidence you use to prove them wrong.

The final example I'm going to use tonight is the group of loud-mouths on the far right crying out about a 'War on Christmas.' They say that people using 'Happy Holidays' or 'Seasons Greetings' is proof that there's a vast conspiracy against those of the Christian faith. Get it through your skulls that Christmas is NOT the only holiday to be celbrated at this time of year. The world does NOT revolve around you and your 'sacred' institutions. I could just as well proclaim that Christians are involved in a war against the Roman celebration of Saturnalia. That statement would actually be more accurate, all things considered.

Learn to face facts and deal with the world AS IT IS. You'll find that you can accomplish more of actual value that way.

Sad Day

2005-11-02T10:13:00.000-06:00

Well, I decided to remove Dadahead from my sidebar and won't be visiting his site anymore. I was actually torn about this because I did genuinely enjoy some of the discussions that went on at his blog but after Dada wouldn't hold Gilliard accountable for his most recent offense.

I'm not going to get into what Gilliard did because it's already been covered. I'm going to touch on what Dada did because I don't think, other than here, that it's been discussed. Dada tries to make the point that it's not his place to tell "black people which symbols of racism they are allowed to appropriate." Dada tends to be very vocal when the Neo-Nazis are in town but when it's a minority being racist that's okay? How does that work exactly? How black do you have to be in order for being a racist to be okay? What's the percentage? Does it apply to any other minority? I've got Blackfoot blood in me so can I be a racist too? That kind of "it's okay for them cuz they're black" attitude is to much BULLSHIT!!! Sorry, I'm just really pissed off at this stupidity.

Racism is something I have a particular disgust for. I grew up in bad parts of town. My family was the only white family for blocks. I've lived with minorities my whole life. There is NOTHING different about blacks, hispanics, asians, or whites other than skin color. The melanin content of epithelial skin cells is MEANINGLESS!!! If it's wrong for someone like David Duke to spout his garbage then it's just as wrong for someone like Steve Gilliard to act the same way. The fact that Dadahead is willing to allow Gilliard to be blatantly racist simply because he is black is not only wrong, but unforgivable coming from someone who claims to have issues with racism.

Dadahead has previously made comments that race shouldn't matter but that people like Neo-Nazis have made it an issue. What Dadahead refuses to admit is that anyone who uses skin color as a justification, a crutch, or an excuse for inflammatory actions is a racist. A black man can be just as much of a racist as a white man. If racism is truly to become a thing of the past we have to condemn racist acts regardless of the color of the perpetrator. Being black is not a "Get out of Jail Free" card when it comes to being a racist. You have no business denouncing racism as evil if you are unwilling to stand up against in all it's forms.

What Gilliard did was racism. What Gilliard did was wrong. Plain and simple. If you need more proof that Gilliard is, in fact, a racist read his response to the outcry against his post. He claims the only people angry at the post were "white racists with mock concern who wanted to lecture me on race, which I could give a fuck about. In their world, black Democrats are on the plantation..." So Gilliard refuses to acknowledge the idea that what he did was a racist act and claims that anyone who calls him on it must be a racist. Why does he feel he can do this? Because he's black. In the comments someone points out that the original pic Gilliard posted was potentially offensive and Gilliard responds, "Just explain that I'm a black person..." Gilliard complains about blacks in the Republican party harming the black community. I've got news for ya Gilliard. Your blatant racism does far more to harm the black community than anyone voting Republican ever did.

Sorry Dadahead, I know this probably doesn't matter to you cuz you'll get traffic without me listing you, but I've gotta cut you out of the list. I will NOT frequent or link to someone who supports racism and that's EXACTLY what you're doing by not holding Gilliard accountable. It doesn't matter that he's black. Or, it shouldn't matter that he's black, but you allow that to influence your decision. By seeing Gilliard's skin color instead of his actions you are no different than the Neo-Nazis you profess to hate so much. At least they're honest with themselves. Hopefully one day you'll be able to be as honest with yourself and realize that what Gilliard did was wrong and you need to speak out against it.

Jesse Jackson is a racist.

2005-10-26T14:02:00.000-05:00

Racist (n):

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I made a claim in the comments of this post that upset at least one person. I maintain that Jesse Jackson has done more to hurt the ideal of racial equity than David Duke ever could. To a lot of people that position is ridiculous but when you stop to think about it, it does make sense.

David Duke is marginalized by his very adherence to the idea that non-white races are inferior. The only people who take him seriously are those already in agreement with his ideals/point of view. He reaches a very small audience that is getting smaller as time goes by. Jackson, on the other hand, is embraced by politicians, media, and populace and so his word reaches a much wider, and much more receptive audience. He uses his position, in words anyway, to denounce racism but his actions have done more to reinforce racist thought than anything Duke could have ever done.

The first thing Jackson does that's harmful is to almost immediately jump in on any situation involving blacks and label it as a race issue regardless of whether or not race is even a factor. One recent example is Jackson's calling out of the media for using the word 'refugee' during/after Katrina. Jackson wanted them to be called 'displaced persons' because he claimed that calling them 'refugees' was racist. Since the word refugee literally means someone who is searching for refuge there is NO racial connotation to the term. This kind of grandstanding by Jackson is drawing attention away from legitimate cases of racist behavior and turning Jackson into "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." It's getting to the point that Jackson won't be able to label a definitive case of racism and be taken seriously. He is marginalizing himself and, by extension, his cause over time.

The primary mistake by Jackson though is in his approach to blacks in general. He thinks that reparations are owed to the black community. He repeatedly asserts that black Americans are incapable of bettering themselves without some from of outside help. What kind of message does this send to people? This kind of self-defeating tripe demeans the character and strength of blacks everywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Jackson is doing this on purpose. I believe that he honestly wants to make things better and his intentions, sometimes anyway, are completely altruistic. His actions though are doing more to eat away at the foundations of racial equality than the vocal supremacist groups could ever do.

To sum up, Jackson is doing a phenomenal job paving the road to hell but failing us all with his short-sighted attempts at addressing racism. We have to get past the point where someone's skin color makes a difference. As long as people like Jackson and Duke, as well as programs like affirmative action, constantly reinforce the idea that the cellular levels of melanin in someone's skin matters we will NEVER achieve the ideal that people like Dr. King worked so hard to bring about.

Back on the playground

2005-10-18T11:24:00.000-05:00

Someone explain to me how it's bad thing when those on the right call lefties traitors or terrorists but it's okay for people on the left to call others names, mock their choice of fiction, or even where they live? Can you say hypocrisy?

I got into a discussion yesterday on this post. I asked questions. I made assertions. At no time did I label anyone. Yet I am called a troll. I am spit upon. One poster has no comment about anything I said but makes fun of a novel I have listed as a favorite and the fact that I live in Kansas. I'll repeat that. This person didn't have ONE SINGLE STATEMENT about anything other than me personally. How is this not hypocritical? If you can only call names or attack the person instead of the argument how can you possibly think you have any grounds to complain when you are treated the same way? If you disagree with someone that's fine. If you have a rebuttal for an argument they've made that's fine. If all you can do is mock the person then why do you even bother? That's not debate. That's not discourse. That's heckling.

I have never understood this mentality where people feel if they yell loud enough then something they don't like or want to hear will just go away. These are the people who are so concerned with protecting free speech, until someone disagrees with their point of view. Some of the people responding to my comments went so far as to state they would simply ignore anything I said from that point forward. How do you expect to make any meaningful progress in this country if your response to disagreement is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming, "I can't hear you!!!" till they leave you alone. This accomplishes NOTHING. These people aren't looking for progress. They aren't looking for accomplishment. They're looking for reinforcement of their own worldview and that's it. If your convictions need constant reinforcement from those of a like-minded view then you really don't believe in your own assertions. If you require reassurance that you're right then you didn't really have faith in your opinions to begin with.

There were a couple of reasons I started this blog. The first was to put down in words some of the things I thought. The other was the fact that many times what I wanted to say in response to someone else's post was far too long to politely put in a comment. This is not, as was called in the above post, a right-wing blog. That's so painfully obvious that I'm not going to even bother responding to that claim. If you want more info on where I stand on things you can see here. Those are not right wing beliefs. They are not left wing beliefs. They are common sense beliefs reliant on the fact that we are each responsible for ourselves and our choices. This is not a political viewpoint I have. It's a way of life. I chose to start posting. I chose to comment on the above post on Bitch's site. And then some of you chose to act like a playground bully instead of adults. You'll have to forgive me for not respecting your response and treating it with the contempt it deserves.

The Right to Die

2005-10-13T10:58:00.000-05:00

Given the recent noise made about the Federal government interfering with an Oregon law as well as posts such as this I decided to weigh in on this subject.

The two situations above aren't exactly the same but the underlying principle is. Does someone have the right to make a choice that will be harmful or fatal to themselves? There are those who say that we must intervene when someone does this even if only "for their own good." They would say that we have a moral obligation to step in and prevent these people from "acting on impulse" or when "not in their right mind." While I can understand why people would feel that way it is still the incorrect response. The arguments they'd put forth for getting involved, when all is said and done, boil down to the idea that the person intervening knows better. This is, far and away, the most arrogant, self-serving pile of garbage I've ever heard. Our country is based on the idea of individual liberty. On the principle that every person is free to make choices for themselves and are responsible for the consequences of those choices. The moment we started letting the government get involved "for our own good" we began to see the erosion of that ideal.

The Feds extortion(and that's what it is) of doctor's in Oregon is just one more example of how far we've wandered from the Dream that is America. A bit of background for ya: Oregon has passed a law, twice now, that allows doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medications to terminally ill patients that request it. The doctor does not, and in fact cannot, administer the drugs themselves. All they can do is prescribe and, typically, observe in the home when the patient decides the time is right. The Federal government has decided to threaten the doctors since they can't do anything about the actual law itself. They have stated that they will revoke licenses and consider fines or criminal prosecution for any doctor who prescribes such medicine. So to be perfectly clear: the voters of Oregon have passed a law allowing this activity. The Federal government cannot overrule the states own law in this case and has decided to intervene in a dirty, underhanded fashion. Nice to see our elected officials hard at work.

The second of the two situations is similar only in that the person involved has decide that he will no longer pay massive medical bills to artificially prolong his time on this earth. His feeling appears to be that when it's his time there's no Get Out of Jail Free card that will grant him any extra time. He's decided to face this on his own terms and leave something behind for his children other than piles of medical bills. This would appear to be a clear-cut case of someone making a choice for themselves that no one can say anything about. Unfortunately this logic seems too much for some to grasp.

Both of these situations hinge upon the idea that we are all responsible to make our own choices. The problem is that too many people don't, or won't, trust others to be able to make their own decisions. They don't believe that the common man is enlightened enough to make those calls. This attitude is why we end up with laws about wearing seatbelts or against suicide. The people who advocate this kind of interference in other people's lives are usually the first ones to say, "Somebody should do something" or "There ought to be a law." This point of view is not based on logic or freedom. It's based on emotion. Their blatant meddling in other people's lives allows them to feel all warm and fuzzy because they did something to "help someone who wasn't able to help themselves" while ignoring damage they are doing to the idea of personal freedom.

If you feel that people cannot be trusted to make their own choices then you are no different than every petty dictator and despot that ever lived. You are just another tyrant trying to inflict your values and decisions on me and mine. Stop meddling and leave people to choose for themselves. Your motives are irrelevant. To borrow and old saying, there's a very hot place with a very well-maintained road leading to it that you are helping pave.

RenFest Goodness

2005-10-10T12:03:00.000-05:00

I'd forgotten how much I truly enjoy RenFest. Turkey legs, Scotch eggs, and mead oh my. First time I'd ever worn a kilt and will NOT be the last. Those suckers are so comfortable there's probably a law against it. Get outside and it's barely 40 degrees outside and it's bit chilly but as the day warmed up it was much more comfortable than it would have been walking around in my typical jeans and sweatshirt.

Got to see a great act called The Limey Birds. Check these ladies out people. Funny, talented, and GORGEOUS!! Go buy their CD's. This is how they make their living and they are very, very good at it. Their timing was incredible and their ability to improv was spectacular. I hope they come back next year.

There was one major downside to going in a kilt...well, two actually. It gets old having to field the same "What are you wearing under that kilt?" question and then got pulled out of a crowd to be in the "Best Kilt" contest they were having. I'm just not big on being up in front of the crowd. Here's a pic of myself and my two buds that went with this year. The women we went with were conveniently absent from all photos so you're stuck looking at us. I'll let you guess which one I am. Anyway it was a great time and I highly recommenend attending any RenFest near you. If the Limey Birds are there you are ORDERED to attend. Trust me, that's on order you'll be glad you followed.

Serenity: Part Two

2005-10-10T11:52:00.000-05:00

Well, I said I would revisit this topic after the movie had been out a bit so here I am.

I did enjoy this movie but I am very, VERY upset with Whedon right now. Far and away the most interesting character in the Firefly series was Shepherd Book. A minister of a peaceful religion who knows about firearms, the wounds the make, and somehow carries enough clout to get immediate medical treatment when Serenity was captured by an Alliance cruiser. What is his story? Where did he come from? Who is he? We'll never know now because Whedon KILLED HIM!!!! What in the world was he thinking? And then to kill of Wash as well? Why didn't you just blow up the gorram ship with all aboard and make a clean sweep of it.

My frustration over those deaths aside it was, all in all, a fantastic movie and I would like to see them do a sequel that maybe has some flashbacks to better explore Book and why he and Inara weren't onboard at the beginning of the movie. Are you listening to me Whedon? That's a Las Vegas sized, neon-lit HINT!!! Listen to the Mindwyrm for he is wise.

Belief

2005-10-04T08:54:00.000-05:00

There's a meme that's been running around lately about points of belief and then I was listening to NPR and they ran a segment called "I Believe..." so I will take that as a sign from an unspecified deity or deities who may or may not exist and may or may not resemble this.

I believe that you, and you alone, are responsible for choices you make. Not your parents, not your friends, not society, not the government, not people who died hundreds of years ago.

I believe that you are guaranteed certain rights according to the Bill of Rights and Constitution but one of those rights is NOT the right to not be offended. You also do NOT have the right to force your beliefs on me and mine. If you don't like what I believe that's fine but don't try to make me put my beliefs aside just because you can't handle anyone believing anything other than what you do.

I believe that you are responsible to care for yourself and your family. If you are not in a position to do so then work harder to get yourself there. Do NOT expect the government, and by extension me, to bail you out.

I believe that the government is NOT to be a social conscience. Programs like welfare and Medicare are nothing more than forced charity and I, for one, am tired of being told that I HAVE to contribute for programs that I do NOT agree with.

I believe that politicians have lost sight of the fact that their jobs were to be public service, not service to their own pocketbooks.

I believe that what I own is mine. It is NOT on loan from the government to take back anytime they wish.

I believe that the right to bear arms has no limitations. If you can afford it then you can buy it and carry it. I believe that any laws restricting the purchase or carrying of weapons is unconstitutional.

I believe that the facts tell the story in regards to the complete and utter ineffectiveness of gun control laws when it comes to curtailing crime.

I believe that those who view the government as the Great Caretaker are either too lazy to care for themselves or feel that we are incapable of making our own choices so the government has to step in for our own good. I believe that is the MOST insulting attitude to see in a politician anywhere.

I believe that the extremists who hate America and everything it stands for will not stop attacking us if we try to ignore or appease them. They have never needed a reason to attack us other than our continued existence and success which is a slap in the face of their belief systems.

I believe that it doesn't matter who you sleep with as long as they're a consenting adult. This also means that it's none of the governments business if you decide you want to get married. If a church decides they don't want to perform the service that is their right but as it is a personal decision the government should have no say in it whatsoever.

I believe that if you choose to commit a crime then you are a criminal. You have forfeited any claim upon the rights guaranteed a law-abiding citizen. This means, no cable TV, no weights, no three hot meals a day, no conjugal visits, no dignity.

I believe that as long as people such as Jesse Jackson and David Duke insist on doing nothing more than reinforcing the differences between people we WILL have racism. If you emphasize someone's color, even if you think it's for a positive reason, you are merely entrenching racism that much more.

I believe that it doesn't matter what color you are or what country you're from as long as you're willing to work hard to succeed then you will do so.

I believe that if you immigrate to a country then you should learn the language of that country and NOT expect the citizens of that country to change themselves and their government to suit you.

I believe that if you enter the country illegally then you are a criminal. You are not an example of the American Dream. You are not someone to be glorified. You are to be found and deported.

I believe that if you enter the country legally then I will welcome you and your family with open arms. You have shown enough respect for yourself and your new home to abide by the regulations that govern your migration.

I believe that the US of A is the greatest country in the world. Period. End of story.

I believe that the UN is a useless drain on resources of many, many countries.

I believe that a terrorist is just that. Not a 'freedom fighter' or an 'insurgent.' They are spoiled children lashing out because they can't have their way and if that means they have to kill thousands of innocent people they don't care.

I believe that as long as people insist on ignoring fact and instead relying on their opinions to form public policy we will continue in the negative, socialist direction this country has been going for decades.

I believe that as long as we are more concerned with the self-esteem of our children as opposed to their education we will see more and more public schools graduating un-educated people unable to compete for anything other than "Do you want fries with that?"

I believe that those who resort to emotional arguments or name-calling do so because they cannot refute the logic behind the points their opponent is making.

I believe that there are many people out there who will label me a cold, heartless bastard instead of addressing any of the points I made above. I believe if you are unable to have a rational discussion about it then don't bother with the names. I've been called much, much worse and the name-calling didn't bother me then either.

IFC No More

2005-09-29T09:34:00.000-05:00

Well, it appears to be official. It looks like Pataki pulled the plug on the IFC at originally planned. I know there are those who would disagree on this but I feel this is a good thing. I think the idea of the IFC as envisioned was a horrible idea. Even leaving out the controversy about potential exhibits within the IFC it was still not a good plan. The way the center was being designed it was painfully obvious that the IFC was, while not necessarily intended, going to overshadow the memorial to the people whose lives were lost on that day.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with an IFC being setup somewhere else but the WTC site is not a good place for it. I understand the arguments given by the proponents of the IFC but I disagree with their conclusions. They profess to be trying to establish a symbol of what freedom represents on the very site where freedom was deliberately attacked. They say that this would be a tribute to those who have fallen defending freedom through the ages and where freedom can be discussed from various viewpoints. Very noble, but flawed.

It is, in my opinion, a mistake to take a place that should be about honoring the lives lost and the courage of those who worked with no thought for themselves to assist those who in need. The monument should not be cheapened by the placement of a center to 'debate' the meaning of freedom. The Pearl Harbor monument over the USS Arizona isn't there to encourage debate about the meaning of liberty. It's there as a tribute to those who gave their lives on that day in the service of their country. The monument to those who died on 9/11 should be no less respectful. To put in place an institution wherein that sacrifice is no longer honored but, in fact, disrespected on the very site of the attack is reprehensible. It was an attempt to use the scene to lend an air of legitimacy to what was a politically motivated proposal. The mere fact that they dismissed out of hand the issues many had with their plan for the IFC illustrates their motives that much more. If they truly were interested in a free discussion of freedom then they would have at least listened to the large number of dissenters. They did not because they were not interested in anything other than their own agenda.

By all means, let those who wish it build an IFC, but don't expect those of us who have any respect for the dead to stand aside and watch you publicly vandalize the graves of those lost so you can score a political victory.

I am a leaf on the wind.

2005-09-28T09:16:00.000-05:00

Well, I got to go see the screener of Serenity last night in KC. First off, let me say that there were some aspects of the movie that I was VERY disappointed in. The one character's story that I want to hear does NOT get told and there's no chance that it can get told now either. After the movie has been out a few days I'll say more on this but I don't want to post any spoilers for those who plan on going.

Now that I've gotten that unpleasantness out of the way I will say that the movie was overall very good. The writers and actors stayed true to the original characters/story very well. They do a great job of explaining what the issue with River was and why the Alliance was so intent on getting her back.

The villain was a kind of evil that we see far too much of these days. He was a believer. A zealot. He wasn't a psychopath or a money-hungry megalomaniac. He was just a man doing what he thought he had to do in order to "make a better world." Someone easy to identify with in many ways but at the same time someone easy to hate given his actions.

And, of course we have the rest of the crew. Captain Reynolds, Zoe, Wash, Kaylee, Jayne, and Simon(River's brother). Reynolds is still the conflicted anti-hero that seems to be all the rage these days. Kaylee still wants Simon. Simon, still focused on caring for his sister, is oblivious. Jayne is still a moron with an itchy trigger finger. Zoe and Wash are still the happily married couple.

For fans of the show you're now asking, "You forgot Inarra and Shepherd." No, I didn't. They're not on the ship at the beginning of the movie. There's some back story between the series and the movie that we don't get much of. It's not necessary to the overall story of the movie but it would be nice to know what happened. Supposedly there's a comic series out there that covers it but as yet I've been unable to find it.

Overall the movie was very good but I still need to find Joss Whedon and have a little 'chat' with him about why certain characters got treated as they did. The way those people got handled in the story pretty much makes it next to impossible for anyone to pick up Firefly and run it as a series in a way that I'd be happy with. The movie almost felt like Joss didn't want to hand Firefly over to the TV exec's again so he wrapped the movie up in such a way as to make it very doubtful that we'll see Firefly again. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing Sci-Fi try. Bottom line, if you were a fan of the series you HAVE to see this movie. If you weren't a fan it's still a damn good flick and would be worth the ticket price.

I have a pet.

2005-09-28T08:46:00.000-05:00

Do you want to run this ship?

2005-09-26T09:51:00.000-05:00

Yes, I am a Firefly junkie and if all goes according to plan will see the Serenity screening tomorrow in KC. Here's the quick breakdown on the film:

Joss Whedon, the Oscar® - and Emmy - nominated writer/director responsible for the worldwide television phenomena of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE, ANGEL and FIREFLY, now applies his trademark compassion and wit to a small band of galactic outcasts 500 years in the future in his feature film directorial debut, Serenity. The film centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he has left to family –squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal.

If you ever watched the show you should know a good chunk of what's going on but I'm also hearing that there was a comic series that bridges the original TV show to the movie and explains the absence of some major characters. I've been unsuccessful so far in tracking the series down but will put info up if I can get my hands on them. Anyway, it looks like it's gonna be a phenomenal movie and, depending on how the movie ends, hopefully will lead to someone picking the series back up.(are you listening Sci-fi channel?)

Conspiracy

2005-09-14T15:18:00.000-05:00

Okay, I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh, but the AM sports stations were on commercial break so I switched over for a minute. I wish I hadn't.

There is now a new conspiracy theory about the levee's and lack of evacuation of New Orleans. The funny thing about Rush spouting off about it is that this theory originates with one of Rush's perennial opponents: Louis Farrakhan. Basically Farrakhan made a statement during one of his many pointless speeches that he had it from a "very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry." As Farrakhan has proven his racist point of view through the years I'm not at all surprised to hear the kind of nonsense coming from him, but as they say on infomercials, "Wait, there's more!!"

Here's where it gets even better. A caller from Charlotte, NC named Moses calls in to defend Farrakhan's statements saying that Farrakhan said 'blown up' to disguise his source. The caller claims that Farrakhan didn't think the levee had been blown up necessarily but that it had been destroyed to get rid of the blacks and protect the whites. The callers logic for this was that Blanco had wanted to get rid of the major welfare drain in the slums part of New Orleans and so orchestrated the destruction of the levee's combined with hindering the rescue and reconstruction efforts.

So we have one theory that claims the levees were destroyed to get rid of the black part of NO. Add to that the theory that Blanco was behind it all to get the welfare families out of LA and lower the resource drain. So now we have a state government conspiracy to run the blacks out of New Orleans and spread them out to other states so Blanco would have more resources to work with. I just kept waiting for the caller to say something about the AIDS virus being released into Lake Ponchatrain before the storm so that people caught in the water would get infected.

Now I would expect even a moderately rational person to dismiss both of these claims out of hand. The frightening thing is that Rush started talking about how Moses might be onto something. So now we have Rush latching onto a crackpot theory with absolutely NO proof behind it. Am I the only one thinking that it might be because he really, really doesn't like Blanco? I would say this theory rates right up there with Farrakhans "rode in a spaceship" belief.

Pleas, please, please people use your heads. Don't just swallow the tripe that you're being fed by 'experts' or talking heads. If someone claims something go look it up to make sure it's right. Analyze what you're told and decide after thinking and research whether or not it's right. Don't assume that because someone has a talk show or you've heard their name before that they know what they're talking about.

Both of these asinine ideas above are demonstrably false but that doesn't stop people from acting like they are Gospels handed down from On High. If people applied a bit more skepticism in their daily dealings we wouldn't have near as many inane ideas floating around as fact. We'll always have con men like Farrakhan or Koresh around but we'll be able to limit the damage they can do if we can get more people to think about what they're listening to.

Nonsense

2005-09-12T15:08:00.000-05:00

Mike, The Mad Biologist is someone I read because he tends to have well-thought out posts even if I don't agree with him on the conclusions he reaches. This however has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read. Go read it and then come back. I'll wait.

Finshed? Now go read it again.

Now that you're back let's address what Mike had to say. The primary point of his post seems to be that we as a nation have created a fictional description of the events of that day in order to better sleep at night. This premise is based on his assertion that the it was just bad luck that the civilians in the WTC "worked in the wrong damn building" and we couldn't deal with that reality. He also feels that the firefighters and police who kept going back into the WTC aren't really heroes because they didn't rush "into those buildings with the express intention of dying."

First of all, the civilians who died didn't work in the wrong building. They worked where their jobs were. That makes the WTC the right building for them. What was wrong about the building? That some worthless cowards decided to attack innocent civilians instead of military targets? That they were good enough and bright enough to have jobs with the companies that operated out of the WTC? I don't see those as reasons to blame the victims.

Secondly, a hero is not someone who rushes headlong into a situation knowing that it's going to kill them. A hero is someone who puts other before himself. Police, firemen, and soldiers are heroes EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES. They put themselves in harms way so that others don't have to. They go into every situation knowing that they may die. That's part of the job. The job they volunteered for. No one forces them forward into the flames or into the hostage situation or into the firefight. No one forces them to put their lives at risk so people like us can sleep soundly. That is why these people are heroes. A hero can be you. It can be me. It can be the guy walking his dog down the street. In stories the hero is almost always the biggest, or the strongest, or the most handsome. In real life, the hero is none of these and all of these. The hero is the everyday guy who comandeers a bus to get as many people as he can out of a drowning town. A hero is the firefighter who braves sniper fire to get to a wounded paramedic. A hero is the soldier who cradles a mortally wounded child trying to hold back his tears. Heroes are all around us every day. And those men and women who died in the WTC trying to get John Q. Public out are all heroes and forever will be.

MAIREANN NA CURAIDH GO DEO

I have...

2005-09-09T11:31:00.000-05:00

A new hero. Go listen. Now. Why are you still reading? Get thee hence.

Tribes

2005-09-06T12:23:00.000-05:00

Bill Whittle has a post that I know has been linked on a bunch of other blogs but I feel I would be remiss if I didn't include it here. His analysis of the growing split within this country rings eerily accurate. Read it. When you're done, read it again. This is not open to discussion.

Explain something to me...

2005-09-02T10:41:00.000-05:00

How is is that some people out there are so blind to reality that they'll even deny fact when it's staring them in the face?

The best example is Dadahead and most of his commenters. They go on and on about "Bush is to blame" and "Bush should have stopped this" or "Bush cut funding." First of all, Bush isn't the reason the storm happened. Neither is global warming. Check with the NOAA for stats on hurricane frequency if you don't believe me. Second of all, as Eric stated so well in his comments to a Dada post, Bush is not a dictator. There are laws that govern what he can and cannot do in regards to declaring martial law and sending troops or Nat. Guard in. This is for those who appear to be hard of hearing: THERE IS NOTHING BUSH COULD HAVE DONE!!!!!!! In regards to the funding cuts, last I checked, Congress still made the budgets. Basically, what it boils down to is these people are allowing their personal hatred for Bush and the administration dictate their reasoning. When you show them the facts they put their hands over the ears screaming "I can't hear you" in the hopes that you'll go away. I hate to break it to these people but facts do not go away just because you don't want to hear them.

This is potentially the greatest personal and economical tragedy to strike the US ever. This is a time where we should be seeing what we can do to help the people involved. This is a time where we get to see who truly cares about this country and it's people and then we get to see those who only care about political gain. To those who turn this into a political attack, you disgust me. This isn't about you and your petty, anti-administration tantrums. This is about real people experiencing real suffering. Your almost celebratory frame of mind is glaringly apparent in your gleeful bashing of Bush for things that even Superman would have been hard-pressed to correct.

And Bush is evil??

2005-09-01T15:38:00.000-05:00

This is, IMHO, the lowest form of scum possible. People are trying to help get medical patients evacuated from a hospital and these wastes of oxygen are takin potshots at the medical personel as well as the National Guard troops. There are also reports of roving gangs of armed thugs roaming throughout NO at will. The airlift of refugees from the Superdome was stopped because some idiot fired a shot at one of the choppers. Medics have been requesting armed escorts because of the threats they've received from the very people they're trying to help. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand scared. I understand hungry. I understand tired. What I do NOT understand is this mentality that assaulting the people who are trying to help is acceptable. I may be wrong for saying this, but I hope there are some hungry gators or pissed of venomous snakes that run into these lowlifes pretty soon.

I guess bashing Bush for Mother Nature isn't enough for some people either. This guy has turned this into a gun control issue. That's right, no limits when it comes to using death and destruction to forward your own political agendas. It's abhorent and evil when Bush and his cronies do it but it's perfectly acceptable, and in fact, some are claiming it's necessary and "all they can do" in a case such as this. This is a clear cut case of blatant hypocrisy of the worst sort. What it boils down to is these people didn't get what they wanted in the last two elections so they can do and say whatever they want until their tantrums get the desired result. I've got news for ya people: It's crap like this that loses the Dem's more votes. It's crap like Howard Dean frothing at the mouth with more stupidities. It's crap like the constant sour grapes every time an election doesn't go your way. Grow up. Just because you don't get your way doesn't mean you can act like a spoiled brat. You're not going to always have your way and you might as well get used to it now.

Finger pointing

2005-09-01T11:16:00.000-05:00

It's official ladies and gentlemen. The blame for Katrina and it's devestation can be laid directly at the feet of President Bush. After all, he is the reason global warming has been ignored(bad science should be) and he's obviously controls Congress so when they kept passing budgets to reduce FEMA funding he was really the one calling the shots. Another little known fact is that Katrina wasn't just a part of a decades long weather cycle as those pesky rumor-mongerers over at the NOAA would have you think. The reason Bush couldn't speak with Cindy Sheehan is cuz he was out in Air Force One doing donuts to get Katrina to spin faster and become a true Category 5 hurricane.

Anyway, while I've gone a bit above and beyond what some of the people out there have done, this is not too far off from what some people are thinking. Everything that goes wrong in the world is Bush's fault. Granted, I'm not too fond of the man or the job he's done but I deal with the real world where real people have real limits on what they can and can't do. One thing that Bush can't do is start a hurricane. Another thing Bush can't do is set the budget for the country. Another thing Bush can't do is make bad science policy(global warming). Get over it guys. Bush is not the evil that you want to make him out to be. He's just a guy like anyone else. If he were truly as evil as you profess him to be you wouldn't be around to make those comments. You'd be 'disappeared' faster than you can say "Jimmy Hoffa." If Bush truly had the budget power that you seem to think he has then he wouldn't have to go to Congress every time he wants more money for Iraq. He'd have cut the funding to Social Security and Welfare already and gotten rid of all those social programs that Republicans love to hate.

What I really think is amusing is the way these people go off on how the Dem's need to take back control of the Congress. Why? If Bush controls it all then congress is meaningless. Either Congress is essential to running of government or only the Presidency is. Make up your mind folks. You can't cry for both and expect to be taken seriously.

One last thought about all of this: For those of you who whine and complain about how the Repub's and Bush spin everything and politicize everything you have now lost any right whatsoever to claim that again. You have not only used this tragedy to rail Bush for budget cuts that he didn't design but you've also tried to tag him for his 'lack' of leadership in regards to global warming. You've taken two pet issues and tried to piggyback them on the death and destruction left by a natural disaster. You have become that which you claime to despise. How do you reconcile that with your high ideals?

Just wrong

2005-08-30T11:57:00.000-05:00

Yet another example of the level of callousness we have reached in this country is some networks treatments of the pummelling of the South by Katrina.

I was watching the NFL Network the other night and heard something I literally didn't believe I'd heard. I turned and asked the roomies if I was imagining it or not. We all heard it and were all just speechless. The anchor was talking about the damage to the Superdome where people were sheltering from the storm. He spoke about parts of the roof being torn off and flooding on the lower levels. Now, most people would be asking where the refugees within the dome would be evacuating to or if they'd just try and stick it out. Instead, this individual asked if the damage to the Superdome would delay the Saints home opening game next month. I'll repeat that in case it didn't sink in. This anchor completely ignored the people who were currently homeless and living in the dome and asked about a FOOTBALL GAME!!!

Now, I realize that this anchor was on the NFL Network which is a football oriented channel(shock and surprise) but when you're dealing with a natural disaster that has essentially wiped out an entire city is it really appropriate to ask about whether or not a football team can play a game? Have we really reached the point where we are so desensitized to the people around us that we're more concerned about a game?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge football fan. I watch as much as I can when it's football season, but I realize there are things more important than the game. If there's a wreck outside my house I'm gonna go help the people out. The game isn't important at that point.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm being too hard on the guy. He does work for the NFL Network after all. I just think that the degree of detachment he displayed by asking that question is disturbing.

Unreported Terrorist Attack

2005-08-23T11:09:00.000-05:00

Recently we had a terrorist attack within my place of business. Here are the applicable communiques from/with the terrorists. Names have been removed to protect co-workers from vicious retaliation from these....well, vicious pen-nappers.

I am looking for a very special item. It may look ordinary to you, but it is very special. There has been a misplaced pen that needs to come home. It is a black and mostly silver Zebra mechanical pen. If you found it laying about, or if seen it as it ran across the floor, please bring it back to me. I would be most grateful.

Thank you for your assistance,

As you can see it all started with a simple request for the return of a missing loved one. This heartfelt cry resonated through the office sparking an energetic search for the lost pen. Gasps of horror wear heard across cubicle walls upon receipt of the following e-mail.

Never!! The capitalist pigdog pen must be sacrificed to show the solidarity of our cause. Down with evil ink pens and their imperialist masters. Long live the fighters.

Your friend,

Mohammed Atta-boy bin Il Jong

Fearful of any harm befalling the innocent and far too young pen the company decided not to involve the police and requested the safe return of their beloved writing utensil.

Please let the pen go!! It's only been on this earth a short time and deserves a chance to live till it's ink has run out. Imagine if it were your pen. Would you want to see it taken in such a manner? Please send it back and we can treat this like a bad joke

The reply left no doubt that we were dealing with deadly serious, though misguided, individuals.

This is not a joke. The revolution lives on. We will be releasing a tape of the de-capping of the pen along with our demands......wait, if we've already de-capped the pen how can we demand anyth......Damnit. Brother Abu Hugo al bin Zaraqwi Chavez go get another pen to sacrifice.

Hugo?

He's dead?!? You idiots!! Robertson said kill Hugo Chavez, not Abu Hugo al bin Zaraqwi Chavez!! That's it!! No soup for you!

To the heathen owner of the evil Zebra, take consolation in the fact that your pen, though an infidel, died for a much higher cause. I can't tell you what that cause is because we can only do that with appropriate press coverage but it's a very high, noble cause. Think Krispy Kreme's for all level of cause. You fat Americans should understand that.

At this point the people around the office started nodding in understanding for they did know the glory that is Krispy Kreme and did agree that it should be available for all on demand. With such a strong case before them the cubicle dwellers returned to their desks with a better understanding and feeling of comradeship with the nappers of the pen.

Epilogue

As there was no press coverage for this incident and no law enforcement involvement(surprising considering the donuts involved) the perpetrators of this insidious scheme were never apprehended. The owner of the lost pen has mourned her loss and moved on. She's even recovered enough to purchase a new pen(she had to get a Bic as she couldn't look at a Zebra yet). And, to prove they weren't such bad guys, the terrorist kidnappers sent her a box of a dozen glazed Krispy Kreme's to show they had no hard feelings.

The moral of the story is something that visionaries like Michael Moore and Jane Fonda have been saying for years. The terrorists aren't bad guys once you get to know them. Just don't be American, non-Islamic, and above all, don't buy Zebra pens. They really hate those.

Book it

2005-08-19T10:57:00.000-05:00

For the record, I am a bookworm. I read just about everything I can get my hands on. Normally, this takes the from of fiction. More specifically it's usually sci-fi. However, there are the occasional exception. I'm currently reading 3 different books and none of them are sci-fi.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer

So far this has been an amazing read. In the past my choices of literature about WW2 were usually confined to stories about specific battles or operations. This book is something I would say everyone should read at some point in their lives just for the history that you wouldn't normally get from a textbook. More on this when I've finished it.

The Elder Gods by David and Leigh Eddings

I've only read one other book by these two and have found it near impossible to read anything David wrote solo. The other book they wrote, and I enjoyed immensely, was Redemption of Althalus. These are quick reads due to the simplistic writing style but the story and characters don't suffer for it. They are people(or gods) that you can identify with and understand. A similar example would be just about anything John Ringo writes. Very simple writing but solid story and fantastic characters. The Elder Gods is just book one in what is, so far, a three book series. Hopefully the continue through the series with the same success.

Battle Royale

Warning, this is not a book for the squeamish or easily offended. Some of my favorite authors are H.P. Lovecraft and Clive Barker so graphic violence or psychological suffering are par for the course with me. This import swiftly became one of my all-time favorites so I'm reading it yet again. The basic storyline is that there's an Asian country where the state has a mandatory 'Lord of the Flies' style program. They take a class of junior high students to an isolated area and force them to kill each other until only one is left. Phenomenal characters and just a great overall story. I highly recommend this book but with the above warning as my qualifier. Don't read it and then complain to me how it was too bloody or disturbing. If you liked the book, the movie was pretty good too. Not sure if it's available in the states or not(thank god for bittorrent).

Anyway, these are just what I'm reading right now. I'll probably have them all done before Sunday and move on to something else. For those interested, here's my list of favorite authors.

Robert Heinlein
Stephen King
Clive Barker
H.P. Lovecraft
David Wingrove(Chung Kuo series is incredible)
Ayn Rand
Anne Rice
George R. R. Martin(finish the series damnit)
J. R. R. Tolkien(duh)
Douglas Adams
Michael Moorcock
Frank Miller
J. Michael Straczynski
Neil Gaiman

Have fun people. Remember to put down the remote or Xbox control every now and then and go read.

Elephants

2005-08-18T15:24:00.000-05:00

Well, better late than never. I used the lefties as my whipping boys the other day and now it's on the right-wingers.

People used to believe in the Republican party as the small government, lower taxes, lower interference party. Well, thanks to this administration those feelings have fled the vast majority of citizens. The Republican party has only manged to prove one thing while they ran things: that they were no different than the Dems. You have instituted the creation, not expansion but brand spankin new creation, of a so-called Homeland Security Dept which constitutes the biggest addition to government bureaucracy in decades. You have lower taxes but not cut spending so that our deficit is getting worse. I know the CBO projected a lowering of the deficit, but that was also short term. They project a sky-rocketing deficit down the road.

My biggest issue with the right side of the political sphere right now is not the beginning of Homeland Security or the fiscal mismanagement. Those are both areas where they had help from the Dem's but can still be corrected if we ever got some responsible politicians. My major issue with the right wingers right now is your inability to understand that I may actually be capable of making my own decisions. You are making the exact same mistake that people like Hillary Clinton make. You think that you can tell us what to do because it's for our own good. Guess what? I am fully capable of choosing what is and isn't for my own good. I don't need you to tell me what guns I can buy, what video games I can play, or what movies I watch. If I do something stupid and get hurt then it's my fault. Not yours. You can keep your hands and your principles out of my life. Thanks, but no thanks. For a party that professes to believe in liberty and personal determination you are making yourselves out to be liars.

The elephants are also just as guilty of partisan attacks as the donkey's are. They have no problem engaging in personal attacks for political gain. This obsession with eradicating the political opposition has become the hallmark of modern politics and it's doing no good for anyone.

Bottom line, both parties are nearly identical. The differences are superficial at best and currently, both are bad choices for anyone who believes in the ideals of personal responsibility and the liberty that goes with it.

Let this be an example to you

2005-08-17T10:27:00.000-05:00

Okay, I know I said I was gonna take on the Republicans yesterday but due to circumstances beyond my control, that didn't happen. It's not going to happen today either as something that I feel is more important has cropped up. I will get to those elephants though, don't worry about that.

Today though we've been starting to see some of the results that come from giving in to terrorist acts. Israel has begun their pullout from Gaza. This has been the purported goal for Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, and just about every anti-Israel group out there...well, one of their goals anyway but killing all Jews just isn't on this weeks agenda. Anyway, what's the first thing to happen when the pullouts begin? Do these groups say, "Thanks, that's all we wanted." Nope. In fact, they're already making noise about how this pullback is just Israel's way of making borders "without negotiation."

Considering that these groups are now saying "First Gaza and we won't stop till Jerusalem" I'm interested in what 'borders' these people would want and why they think Israel needs to negotiate. Did the Arab nations try to negotiate borders after the British withdrawal in '48? Did they try to negotiate before staging a multi-national attack in '56? No and no. Get this through your skulls people, Israel is there and is not going anywhere. For that matter, you got what you wanted so shut the hell up and sit down.

What will truly be interesting is how those who cry about Israel's 'atrocities' and 'illegal occupation' will say now that they got what the wanted but the Palestinians still want more. Will they say to the Palestinians, "You got what you wanted you need to stop and leave Israel alone" or will they find some new way to justify demanding Israel give up more land and security? This is what's called a suckers bet.

To those who feel that Israel has been the bully in this situation I have a question for you. When is enough? How far out into the sea do you need to push Israel before you can say they've given up enough? They are surrounded by countries that would love nothing more than to see them dead. They are vastly outnumbered by their enemies in that region. They have suffered through decades of suicide bombings and vicious, unprovoked attacks on their country. What would you have them do?

They have, in my mind, actually responded with amazing restraint. How long do you think it would take the Israeli military to level every Palestinian dwelling in Gaza or the West Bank? I give it 2 to 3 weeks and that's if they took their time. How many of your family members or neighbors would you be willing to watch die before you decided to take the battle to the enemy attacking you? If you are of the Jane Fonda/Michael Moore school of thought you don't need to answer, you would've been destroyed in the first "illegal" or "unprovoked" or "reckless" or "(insert word used to describe Israel in the media here)" attack on Israel back in '47.

Wake up people. Giving the terrorists what they demand only gives them reason to ask for more. This war with terror isn't about Afghanistan or Iraq. It's been ongoing for decades. The Palestinians response to getting what they wanted is indicative of all terrorist reaction; "You gave in on this, now give us more."

When will we ever learn?

2005-08-15T13:45:00.000-05:00

This really doesn't surprise me at all. It's just another example of a regime using the negotiating table to buy some time. North Korea anyone? Will the politicians ever begin to learn from their mistakes? Somehow I doubt it.

Granted, this recent incarnation of political idiocy was the EU's baby but the problem is the same on our side of the pond. Politicians have become more obsessed with defeating their political rivals than with dealing with the enemies of their respective countries. George Galloway is a perfect example of this, as is Howard Dean. Both of these 'gentlemen' resort to personal attacks against their political opponents but rarely say anything that actually deals with true issues. Until the politicians become more interested in their country instead of themselves we'll have problems like this.

We currently have several nuclear nations in the world and, so far, the US is the only one to use them in anything other than testing. The reason that DPRK and Iran are so worrisome though is because they are both countries with no reservations about selling their weapons on the open market. Iran is already supporting the terrorists in Iraq with shaped charges and high yield explosives. What makes people think that they wouldn't be willing to give the terrorists nukes and then point the finger at the US? Or for DPRK to sell nukes to Hamas or Hezbollah to use against the US or Israel? Far-fetched? Maybe, but still more than possible enough that we should be concerned especially when a country enters into good faith negotiations with no intention of accomplishing any form of compromise.

The most troublesome thing on the domestic front is how the left is looking more and more like the EU in regards to negotiations and giving people a second chance...and a third and fourth ad infinitum. It shouldn't be surprising considering their approach to various social issues(throw money at it) or education(more government oversight) or crime(disarm citizens). None of their approaches have ever been proven to work. Quite the opposite in fact. The ares in the US with unarmed populations have higher murder and robbery rates. The education programs with the most government intrusion are the worst when it comes to graduating kids and the social programs that they keep throwing money at are getting more and more in debt. If they're willing to ignore the history for their own choices at home, why would they act any differently when dealing with foreign powers? As this most recent flap with Iran shows they didn't.

So why is it typically one side of the political spectrum that errs over and over in this same way? Pretty much it's how they view people at a fundamental level. If you look at the Dem's in the US you'll see a constant pattern of politicians believing the people are good at their basic level. That given the opportunity we will all make good. Silly things like facts and history don't interest them because they 'know' that they're right and these people are really not bad. Sound familiar? It should. There's another group that says the same kind of thing: abused spouses. Regardless of how much evidence is given they will still defend the person abusing them because "they really don't want to be that way. They really want to stop and be good."

I know that I'm gonna get blasted for equating people on the left to victims of abuse but the same pattern hold true across their policies for the last 4 decades. Until they realize that the world is not the happy place they want it to be and deal with reality as it is they will not break out of their cycle. The sad thing about their mentality is that it's a self-perpetuating delusion. If anything bad happens to the US then it was cuz the other guy was provoked by the right. If anything good happens then it just reinforces their view of humanity. Who needs truth when you can manufacture your reality?

For the Repub's cheering me on right now, make sure you come back tomorrow when I deal with your party. We'll see if you change your tune.

You have the right to remain silent...

2005-08-09T21:18:00.000-05:00

Unless you happen to be a nominee for the Supreme Court. If that's the case then you have no rights whatsoever....or so certain publications and people would have you think. This nomination of Judge Roberts has garnered some rather surprising treatment. Rather, I should say some hypocritical treatment. There are certain media publications that are trying to get certain records pertaining to Judge Roberts personal life and these actions are being applauded by many on the left.

The ironic thing is that these people who think that Judge Roberts has no privacy rights are the same people who maintain that the Constitution has a guaranteed right to privacy. This is the logic they use to defend the SCOTUS ruling on Roe vs Wade. So basically we have a group of people who feel that privacy is guaranteed by the US Constitution but it doesn't apply when they want to know details of someone's personal life. What kind of approach is this? You choose when and where to apply your 'guaranteed' rights. There's a word for that kind of philosophy: HYPOCRISY!!

If you are can only apply your principles when you feel like it then they aren't principles. They're not standards. They're not even decent ideas. They're simply wastes of all our time. To be honest, I don't care if you agree with me or not on various points but at least be consistent within your own worldview. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Rights vs Privileges

2005-08-02T09:37:00.000-05:00

Stephen at Fearless philosophy for Free Minds has run a series of posts recently on the rights of children as he sees them. I'm not going to address his individual points as his comments section has already seen to that. What I'm going to talk about is the apparent confusion these days about the difference, if any, between rights and privileges.

Usually the easiest way to tell if words are fundamentally different is to just look up the definitions. A privilege is defined as "a special advantage, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a certain class, caste, or individual." The definition for a right is listed as "something due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature." Even though I may quibble about the wording of the definitions these still appear, to me, to be very straightforward in their differences. To make it clearer though, I'm going to see if which definition we can apply to one of the more contentious of issues when it comes to this argument: healthcare.

In order for healthcare to be a right, it would have to be due to a person thru law, tradition or nature. Well, the first is easy. There is no law that grants a person the right to healthcare. Medicaid and Medicare just pay for it they don't grant any rights. There is no tradition in our civilization that says healthcare is a right for any of us so that's out. How about nature? Well, an argument could be made that healthcare and modern medicine are actually against nature. If you get sick, it's a natural process and by taking antibiotic to get well you are not working with your natural immune system so there is no way healthcare can be labeled a right due to nature. Breaking the definition down, healthcare fails to be a right on all counts.

But is it a privilege as some people, including sometimes myself, have labeled it? It's definitely an advantage or benefit but is it only available to a certain class, caste, or individual? With the various government programs out there it's availability is not restricted to any particular class or individual
within this country. Because the quality of healthcare available to Americans is not a pattern for the rest of the world then a case can be made for it being a privilege.

I've gotten to the point where I feel there needs to be an addendum to it being listed as simply a privilege though. It goes a step beyond getting rock-star parking when you make partner at the firm. Healthcare involves the delivering of a service in return for compensation. With that extra bit thrown in it becomes a commercial privilege. If you have the means with which to compensate the provider for their services then you can utilize this privilege. This is a privilege that requires the recipient to enter into an agreement with someone in order to receive the benefits the privilege entails.

This argument over healthcare being a right or a privilege comes back to that idea of personal responsibility. With the erosion over the past few decades of the idea that a person is accountable for themselves and their actions it's a logical progression to the idea that healthcare would been seen as a right. If there is no personal responsibility then there is no need for a patient to pay for the services they've received and healthcare becomes something due to the citizen instead of something they just have access to.

This started off as a contrast between the ideas of rights and privileges but ended up more of a rant on many people's notions on healthcare and whether or not it's something due to people. As you can see above healthcare is a commercial privilege so that the only time that you are due healthcare is when you have compensated the provider for it. So even with the mild tangent this still works as a solid example of the difference between rights and privileges. Hopefully we can get rid of some of the confusion surrounding these two concepts because as long as people see privileges as rights we will continue on the slow downward spiral that we've been in for the past few decades.

Hypocrisy in action

2005-07-29T10:40:00.000-05:00

Due to a recent SCOTUS nomination, there's been quite a bit of noise made on both sides of the political spectrum about where Robert's stands on abortion. The simple fact that they are worrying about a single issue is a different post. What bothers me is the logic, or lack of logic I should say that these people are using to justify being so worried about abortion.

The majority of of the squeaky wheels in this case have been on the left. They maintain that they have to know if Roberts would uphold the Roe decision or if he'd overturn it cuz the Constitution guarantees this particular right. This is the first mistake they make. The Constitution makes no mention of abortion at all. The founders knew that they couldn't foresee everything that would possibly come into play over the years so they worded the document in such a way so that it left the majority of the power to the states and, by extension, to the people. The Constitution states that if something is not addressed within itself then the choice for such a matter devolves to the states and populace. Hence, Roe should have been a choice left up to the states and people, not to SCOTUS.

The reason this ends up being hypocritical on the part of the left is almost amusing. There have been multiple tries over the past few years by the left to do away with the electoral college. They keep repeating "One person, one vote" like it's some form of protective mantra. So they want the people to have the final say in who is the President, but when it comes to one of their pet issues, they don't trust the people with that choice. They'd rather SCOTUS made the decision as opposed to trusting the unwashed masses to vote the way the left wants them to.

To sum up: the left is guilty of blatant hypocrisy, yet they refuse to see it. They trust everyone to vote for President but when it comes to a 'real' issue they feel that you and I and every other citizen aren't qualified to have anything to do with the final decision. They feel that choice should lay with the 9 person focus group known as The Supreme Court of the United States. Considering the SCOTUS track record and considering the left's constant 'for your own good' assault, I'm not reassured.

Battle of the Letters

2005-07-28T11:03:00.000-05:00

Recently, a local Imam and myself have gotten into a bit of an argument by means of the 'Letter to the Editor' page in our local paper. Here's his letter:

The Islamic Center of Topeka joins Muslims worldwide in condemning the recent barbaric bombings in London. Our prayers have been offered along with Jews, Christians and other fair-minded people for world peace and condolences to the families of the victims.

This was a calculated, premeditated, cold-blooded atrocity and the wrong-doers will be brought to justice, if not in this world, surely the next. The Qu'ran says, "If anyone kills the innocent people it is as if he killed all of humanity," chapter 5, verse 35. The Qu'ran also condemns the act of taking one's own life (suicide) chapter 4, verse 29. Prophet Muhammad said, "The one who takes his life with a piece of steel will wake up in Hell repeating the same act."

The Islamic Center of Topeka asks the media to stop using misleading terms like Islamic terrorist, Muslim terrorist and Islamic extremist. The words Islam and terrorist together create an oxymoron. They simply do not go together.

A criminal is a criminal, period. To identify a suspect by the religion that he or she proclaims is biased, unfair and negative stereotyping.

Members of the Irish Republican Army aren't referred to as Catholic terrorists, but many of them are Catholic. It is reported that Hitler was a devout Christian, but he was never referred to as a Christian terrorist after exterminating more than 6 million Jews.

After 400 years of slavery in this country, history has never referred to white America as Christian slave masters. However, many of them were indeed Christians. The BTK killer is not referred to as a Christian serial killer and he was an active member of his church.

The bottom line is this, we can't commit crimes and blame it on religion. Prosecute the criminal to the full extent of the law, but please leave a person's sacred religion out of it.

IMAM OMAR HAZIM

Here's my response to him:

Recently, Imam Omar Hazim called for us to separate the religion of a criminal from the criminal act. He wrote, "We can't commit crimes and blame it on religion." He referenced the IRA as an example of a terrorist organization that was distanced from its religious beliefs. In that, he is incorrect as the IRA was often noted to be a Catholic organization.

He goes on to say that the media is using misleading terms such as "Islamic terrorist, Muslim terrorist and Islamic extremist" that are oxymorons. Firstly, these criminals are terrorists, so that word is applicable. Secondly, these criminals are followers of Islam, so Islamic or Muslim would apply. Lastly, in regards to the word extremist, I would hope that these criminals wouldn't be representative of Islam as a whole so extremist is also correct.

In fairness, the Imam is trying to distance the Islamic faith from the brutal acts being committed by a tiny minority. It's an understandable reaction, yet it's a counter-productive one.

The terrorists aren't trying to free imprisoned comrades or extort money from governments. They are using their religious beliefs as justification for the very acts that the Imam claims are against the Islamic faith.

As long as they are using Islam as their primary motivation, it is impossible to separate their acts from their religion. If the majority of the Muslim population truly wanted to separate themselves from the barbaric actions of a very few, then they need to denounce the acts and the perpetrators themselves, not the media for using correct verbiage. Any attempt to distance Islam from these crimes is disingenuous until the leaders of the Islamic global community are willing to stand forth and denounce the crimes and the criminals instead of the victims.

In my opinion, the Imam is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, he condemns the acts as barbaric but then turns around and wants the media to not label them in such terms. I maintain that, no matter what those in Western civilizations do, until those of the Muslim population who disagree with the terrorist activity actually stand up and let it be known, in both word and deed, that they will not tolerate those kinds of actions we will not be rid of this brand of barbarism. We can kill every terrorist that crops up and it won't stop, not until the culture that is spawning such creatures makes it clear that it will not allow them to continue down such a path. If the Muslim global community truly believes that terrorism is wrong and evil then this kind of fanaticism can be stopped. If, however, they are only paying lip service to such a view then nothing will change.

IRA no more?

2005-07-28T10:57:00.000-05:00

This is encouraging. If the IRA actually follows through on this(Good Friday accord anyone?) then this is a great chance for Ireland to become one country again, and a peaceful one at that. As one of Irish lineage, I do have a selfish interest in seeing a true peace in Ireland, as opposed to an uneasy cease-fire.

The primary reason this is so encouraging is that it reinforces what a lot of people have been saying about the Muslim communities response to terrorism. Over the years, the Irish support for the IRA has turned into the opposite. The public pressure to move away from violence finally became too much of a stigma for the IRA to operate under. This same series of events can happen in regards to the Islamic terrorists as well. When the global Islamic population begins actively opposing the violence being perpetrated in their religions name, the terrorists will run out of options and will eventually disappear. For more of my thinking on this, see the most recent post.

In the meantime, go mbeannaí Dia thú Éire.

Montage

2005-07-25T13:39:00.000-05:00

Warning in advance, this will probably be a long post and it will jump around. So much has been going on lately and I want to hit a bunch of it. For the record, I am going to be negative towards certain people in this post, which seems like a contradiction of an earlier post of mine, but really isn't. I'm not personally calling names or attacking people. I'm attacking their actions as tasteless, rude, and in all three cases, just wrong. Except Phelps. I am attacking him.

First of all, to whatever lowlife scumbags felt the need to start a fire under the car of the recently widowed wife of a soldier, you'd better pray to whatever gods you believe in that your identities never get discovered. For those who read that as a threat, it's not. It doesn't have to be. What'll happen if these perps are ever found out is pretty straightforward. They'll be arrested. They'll be thrown in jail. They'll come before a judge and they'll be thrown back in jail for a much longer timeframe. Considering the cowardly nature of the act(stealing flags and lighting them under a car at 5:30 AM when everyone's asleep and can't see you) I kinda doubt these losers have the necessary backbone to be anything other than Bubba's bitch in jail. No 10 AM checkout here fellas. You're here for the duration.

Second loser of the day is actually a politician. Lt. Gov Catherine Knoll of PA crashed, wasn't invited to but crashed, the funeral of an American soldier. It's one thing to show up to pay your respects, and I could've lived with that. The problem comes in when you're a politician and you start handing out cards and saying that, "Your government is against this war." When did the FUNERAL of soldiers become a stumping ground? When did it become advertising? "This funeral paid for by Citizens for Kathleen Knoll. I'm Kathleen Knoll and I approve this funeral."

Since we're on a funeral roll, we'll go with a local loser for this one. Fred Phelps gained national infamy with the picketing of Matthew Shepard's funeral. Well, thanks to people paying attention to him, he's reusing that tactic. Fred and his crew are picketing the funeral of every single American soldier that they can get to. Are they against the war in Iraq? Are they against the military? Nope. They feel that the deaths are God's punishment on America cuz someone tried to bomb their church six years ago. That's right, the war in Iraq, 9/11, the tsunami were all God's revenge on us because someone went after Fred. Basically, Fred thinks God is his personal bodyguard. It's funny, cuz if I had God as a bodyguard, you'd think I'd have a bigger following than he does. Even in his hometown of Topeka people can't stand him. The only reason he hasn't been shot yet is because most people understand that martyrdom is really all he has left to look forward to.

Okay, on to more political stuff as opposed to simple losers. There's been a lot of turmoil on the left about what to do about the Roberts nominations. Some want to just push him through and get back to Rove. Some want to make sure that Robert's only gets in if he approves abortion. Some don't want to see any Bush nominee make it. All three of these positions are inane.

Don't get me wrong, the Plame leak(if there was one) is important and does need to be sorted out. But it's not as important as a Supreme Court LIFETIME appointment. The people who want to get back to Rove ASAP are the worst kind of people. They don't care about the country. They just care about anything that hurts the administration. That's not a political platform. That's spite.

For those wanting Robert's approved only if he backs abortion I have one question. When did the Supreme Court of the United States become The Abortion Court of the United States? There are more issues to deal with than just abortion. Wanting to turn down a nominee because of his views on one issues is asinine. Using Roe vs Wade as THE benchmark for a nominee is about as ridiculous as saying all Muslims are terrorists. Neither is a good way to handle things.

The group that just wants to block any Bush nominee are almost as bad as the first group. Again, they're not worried about the country or what's actually good for it. They just want to hurt the administration and if that means they have to block some potentially good judges, then so be it. They just don't care. These are the people who rejoice to see the bombings and body counts increase cuz they think it makes Bush look bad. What they don't understand is that by taking a perverse joy in the pain, suffering, and death of others they are simply making themselves look like trolls.

So what should be the approach to a SCOTUS nomination? What should people want to know about a judge? Actually, it's very simply. Does the judge support the Constituion as written or do they view it as a 'living' document that needs reinterpreted through the years? That's it. All other issues with the legality of something stem from that question. If they are an originialist or a revisionist. We'll discuss the two in a different post as the bell is about to ring. That's it for today class. See you tomorrow.

Tell me what to do?

2005-07-20T09:39:00.000-05:00

Personal responsibility has pretty much joined common sense as a non-viable option to use in politics anymore. The number of people who need to be told what to do in almost every aspect of their daily lives are swiftly becoming a majority. These are the people who feel that RealID and the Patriot Act are acceptable. They are willing to trade self-determination for security(not safety).

The problem with this is that when you give up the right/ability to make the choices for yourself, and I mean that ones that matter not which fast food joint to get dinner at, you have given up any legitimate reason to take offense at the choices made by those you have given power over you. For some people this is fine as they never wanted responsibility for themselves anyway. It was too frightening a concept for them. It's a relief for them to relinquish the burden of responsibility to someone else. Keep in mind, this is rarely a conscious decision by the individual. This surrender of choice is almost always going to be an unconscious choice. A decent indicator for this mentality would be the people who dither about making a choice till it's too late to do so. They'd rather lose the chance to make the choice than to actually have to face the choice itself.

There are those of us however, that don't accept this pseudo-life. For us, the ideas of self-reliance and liberty are sacred and as such we will not go quietly into the night if they are threatened. We believe in the principles this country was founded on and which have been diluted through years of political Benedict Arnold selling out their fellow citizens rights for the "common good" or "society." We are not volcanic where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." We are Americans who see personal choice, and it's follower consequence, not as a burden but as a right granted us that we will not relinquish.

To the Hillary Clintons and Pat Robertson's of the country who would choose to legislate "for our own good" I would suggest you take care of yourself and let the rest of us live our lives as we see fit. I don't want to live as you do. I choose to live as I do making the choices I make. I choose to accept the consequences of the choices that I do make as any rational person does. As long as my choices do not infringe upon the rights, not feelings but rights, of others then I have done no wrong. If you are incapable of understanding this ideal then I pity you. You will never be able to experience a full life as long as you allow yourself to be guided from one day to the next by others.

I am officially angry.

2005-07-18T17:27:00.000-05:00

Anarchangel's life has been threatened. What did he do that was incentive enough for someone to intimate that they would kill him? Assault? Rape? Child molestation? No, no, and no. He defaced property THAT HE OWNED!!! He did nothing that affected anyone but himself. However, since the property in question was a Koran a fatwah has been issued and has been taken seriously enough that FBI showed up at his house to make sure he knew about the danger he was in. For those saying, "Well, you should've known they'd react that way" or "You were just trying to piss them off and now you've got what you deserved" you really should think before you speak. Just a suggestion mind you.

Here's the situation as I see it. Anarchangel exercised his rights as an American to do as he would with his property. End of story. Or should have been. If these people are so intent on protecting a BOOK from desecration I'm curious as to why the rioters in Afghanistan aren't being killed. After all, they burned down a library with copies of the Koran in it. How is that okay but this isn't?

Here is where the fundamental principle behind the terrorist mentality raises it's ugly head. They are incapable of accepting anything that would possible prick their pride. It has nothing to do with religion or faith. It has everything to do with the fact that they feel PERSONALLY insulted and cannot abide that kind of affront. This is a problem for the terrorist apologist cuz they don't want to attribute such base motives to the 'noble freedom fighters' and 'insurgents' that are fighting the Evil Empire that is America.

Until those who would blame terrorism on the victims realize that this is a fight that cannot be won by compromise we are in trouble. The people we are fighting would only become more encouraged and more proud if we appear to give into them. I am not a person who is big on appearances. Substance over style nearly every time. In a situation like this though, perception is everything. If we are perceived as weak and willing to give in to their demands under minor pressure then they have won and will continue to press us. Anarchangel chose to draw a line and no longer allow his rights to be dictated by the tyranny of terrorism. Whether or not we agree with his actions has nothing to do with it. We can no longer afford to make our choices based on our concern with what a truly evil minority think.

It's time to realize that rights are meaningless if we allow ourselves to not exercise them for fear of offending. At that point we have sacrificed our nations history and principles on the altar of sensitivity and expediency and neither one of those are worthy of that kind of sacrifice.

2005-07-18T13:31:00.000-05:00

It's amazing to me the hypocrisy people exhibit in their daily lives when dealing with those who have opposing viewpoints. Given the fact that we live in a country founded on the principles of self-determination it's quite sad actually. Currently this country is acting like spoiled children in a shouting match on a playground fighting over who gets the swingset.

The number of rational people is swiftly dwindling into oblivion. There are a few left and they have no problem with people disagreeing with them as long as it's in a thoughtful manner designed to elicit a discussion as opposed to simple name-calling. As amusing as it can be to occasionally read references to 'wingnuts' or 'moonbats' it should be in the realm of humor that those labels are used. If you are incapable of forming a logical counterpoint to someone's argument then why resort to name-calling? All you do then is make it into a contest over who can yell louder. A "Tastes Great!! Less Filling!!" competition doesn't benefit anyone. When people realize that this country and it's people are not well-served by diatribes and personal attacks there will be a lot of politicians and pundits out of jobs.

There are those recently who advocate moving away from rational argument and moving to the internet version of verbal assault. One in particular comes to mind. He "blogs with a hammer" as others have said. Here's his post wherein he basically goes, "I'm not gonna bother being civil or rational cuz you won't" and then says it's okay because he doesn't expect to convince people. Well, if you abuse people and point fingers then you don't have to worry about convincing anyone of anything other than you're a rude, abrasive person. Don't worry about bringing anyone around to your point of view. We'll find our own that probably won't agree with yours.

The really funny thing about his premise is that it is completely opposite of what most on the left, and probably him as well, would espouse as a viable face to put to society. We constantly hear arguments about how we need to get rid of the death penalty because that makes us no different than the criminals yet Mr. Leiter is happy to throw civility out the window and has no concerns with being no better than his opponents. We are told to be tolerant and understanding, usually from people on the left, of everything that should be abhorrent to us as Americans but will the left apply their own standards to themselves? Of course not. That would be too much like right. If you disagree with them, you are branded as any number of things up to and including a traitor.

For those on the right thinking I'm on your side I hate to break it to you, but I'm not. The right is now in control of the entire government(save judicial and even that may not last) and they've resorted to the exact same kinds of tactics that had the left so vilified for so many years. The right is launching personal attacks and smear campaigns against their opponents and show no signs of stopping. For the 'moral' party this is disappointing. For an elected official with a JOB to do it's unforgivable. Unfortunately, with so many people agreeing with Mr. Leiter's views that this kind of activity is okay it appears that nothing will change anytime soon. Until we can get past the idea that yelling and browbeating are acceptable in our daily lives we can expect no real changes in the way our government is run and even less change in the solidarity of the USA's citizenry.

I challenge all of you out there to not fall into the trap the people such as Mr. Leiter have. Maintain your standards of civility and dignity. Do not succumb to the desire to tell the person screaming at you where they can go or what they can do. The moment you do that you've only validated their actions for them. Demand better from our elected officials in their dealings with each other. This isn't some pointless squabble over a sandbox. This is not about personal power or oneupmanship. This is about the governing of the greatest and most powerful nation in the world. We CANNOT allow it to descend into petty infighting. Take the country back from the screamers and the whiners and the mudslingers. Let's make America stand for something again.

Before it's too late.

NEA: Nashunal Edjewkashun Asoseeashun

2005-07-14T15:49:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the modern United States of America ladies and gentlemen. To your right you'll see religious activism. To your left you'll find people who don't care about teaching "the children" to learn to spell activism. There's been a lot of noise lately here in Kansas about school funding and making sure "the children" get an education. It's too late and doesn't matter how much money you throw at it cuz the NEA has decided it has more important things to do than educate "the children" of the US.

Here's the agenda that the NEA approved at their recent annual meeting. Of the first 20 items on the list 5 are about social security. How many are about education? Well, if you go all the way to 30 you'll get two whole points about education. When did the NEA cease to mean National Education Association and change to No Educated Americans? Some of the items that were higher on the list than their actual job were making sure that the words "other" and "multi-ethnic" get added as categories on all forms. My personal favorite though is the NEA president ordering an article on the dangers of "exposure to fragrance chemicals." NEA now stands for No Estee Allowed.

Further down the list they mention "political training" for politicians. We can teach politicians how to do their job but we can't be bothered to teach kids. That is so last century. Here's an example of the kind of political training they want though. "Opposing the Deceptive Michigan Civil Rights Initiative." Wanna know what that evil initiative does? IT SAYS NO MORE DIFFERENT TREATMENT BASED ON RACE, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN!!!! What the hell is there to fight with about that? The whole point of the proposal is to get rid of any kind of racism. Hate to break it to ya folks, but affirmative action is racist. If you are using someone's skin color as a factor in a decision, that is racist. Whether positive or negative it's still racism.

Social Security was a big beef with the NEA. There was more about SSI and pension plans on this agenda then there was about educating American youth. They did mention schooling Iraqi children though, and let's face it, the NEA has done such a bang-up job here at home that we should export them to other countries. No more worries about losing to other countries in math or science scores cuz they'll all be just a dumb as we are. NEA: Nincompoop Earth Association. They are also changing their slogan to "Wurld Peas thru meedeeah....meediahc...thru stupidity" To quote a beloved cartoon hero, "Th-th-th-that's all folks."

Public Education at Work

2005-07-13T15:27:00.000-05:00

This is a little close to home considering I have family in Seattle and if this is an example of the governance they're receiving, they need to move.

Probably the funniest is the project manager for the building thinking that the reason the electric costs are so much higher is that the lights are further away from the floors. Bet she just aced her science classes in high school.

For those who may not be familiar with the area Seattle is a green town. I don't mean Irish either. It's an urban environmental activist dream. The highways are small and hard to navigate in order to discourage those nasty people who own cars. Recycling is mandatory(I know it's a good idea, but mandatory?? come on). My personal favorite though, and this is more Washington as opposed to just Seattle, but if you are in a boat in the sound and a whale comes up near or under you then you get fined.

There was actually a cruise ship that came into port and at some point on it's route it had hit a whale. There were people calling for the captain to be jailed, fined, tarred and feathered. I'm guessing the people who went for this never took a biology or wildlife course. Here's a crash course. Whales are aquatic creatures(that means they live in the water for you public school grads). You've seen them in such movies as Free Willy or Star Trek IV. As aquatic creatures, they eat, sleep, dive, mate, sing, HEAR underwater. Cruise ships make a lot of noise. Whales would easily be able to hear this noise. For a whale to get caught on the bow of a ship requires one of three things: a mortally wounded whale, an already dead whale, or a suicidal whale. No way to OD in the big blue. No bridges to jump off of. If only we could understand whale song we might have been able to talk him down from the ledge....so to speak.

Bottom line, when the people making the decisions on policies that involve science wouldn't even understand the basic Bill Nye episode on Saturday morning TV we have a problem. Maybe it was Rove's fault.

And now for something completely different...

2005-07-13T11:42:00.000-05:00

When will people understand that this War on Terror is not going to be over even if we pull every single American troop back to the US? The individuals who support the 'insurgency' in Iraq are in denial of the worst sort. Iraq was "safe and peaceful until the Americans came" and "the occupation...is the cause of all these tragedies" are just two examples of the depth to which some people have stuck their heads in the sand.

This is not a war over land, or money, or oil(as much as some people would like to believe). This is an ideological war. There are people who feel that Western cultures, America in particular, are evil and need to be destroyed. It's no coincidence that America is specifically listed in interviews such as this while no mention of England, or France, or Germany is made. If the occupation is where the problem lies than all allies should be listed, not just America.

My personal favorite part of the above linked transcript is at the end where Al-Siba'i goes from saying it's bad to not recognize civilians and 3 seconds later says that there is no such thing as a civilian according to Islamic law. This would be the same Islamic law that he earlier chose to denigrate by saying the religious scholars are wrong and Al-Zarqawi is right. Is it any wonder that non-muslims can't keep it straight when the muslims themselves argue left and right over whether or not it's okay to kill?

Another obstacle to reconciliation between western and islamic countries is readily evident when you look at the familial differences between them. In western cultures women are considered equal to men. They are not made to cover themselves in burkhas. They are not property. They are allowed to own property, vote, and hold jobs. Most islamic countries either don't allow or actively discourage any of this. Then there's so-called 'honor killings.' For those who aren't familiar with this despicable practice, an honor killing is where a woman is killed by a male member of her family for bringing 'dishonor' upon the family. In one recent case the 'dishonor' was caused by a young girl holding a job and dating someone who wasn't muslim so her brothers killed her. They are not in jail and feel they did nothing wrong. The only person in the US who can understand that is the BTK criminal.

These Islamic faith is not a "Religion of Peace" as many would have it called. It not only promotes violence against non-muslims but enables violence against it's own believers with it's cavalier attitude towards women and fanatical reliance on 'honor' as a justification for actions.

Can those of the Muslim faith embrace peace? Just as Christianity, one of the bloodiest religions of all time, can turn to peaceful co-existence, so too can Islam. The question is not whether or not it's possible. The question is when the muslim world will get fed up with such a miniscule percentage of their population as the Islamic representatives for the world. When the muslim world no longer tolerates terrorist acts and joins the world in fighting extremism of that sort will we be able to see the end of terrorism.

Who's afraid of Karl Rove?

2005-07-13T11:30:00.000-05:00

To start with we're going to look at, you guessed it, the Karl Rove issue. Is he evil? Did he out Plame to revenge the administration on Wilson or was Rove just upset cuz he's nicknamed Turd Blossom? Maybe both.

My problem with this whole mess is that nobody has answered any of the questions that mean anything. The moment Rove's name got mentioned one half of the population went into convulsions demanding Rove's apology and head on a platter...and not necessarily in that order. Why? If you want someone fired shouldn't you make sure that what you're so upset about is actually true though? There's enough questions surrounding who actually revealed the information on Plame that, to borrow from the left here, hasty action won't accomplish as much as sitting back and making sure we get it right. Kerfluffles raises an interesing point on this.

There are some others out there, but as they tend to be on Powerline or NRO, too many people refuse to even read them since those sites are just "right-wing propaganda machines." Funny, I still read the NYT with an open mind but I guess the same in return is too much to ask from some people. Another intersting double standard that I don't see anybody pointing out is that the press constantly refers to the people having a right to know. Well, as this is involves a very highly placed governmnet official, I have a right to know who Miller's source is so how come the press isn't calling for her to reveal the source since we obviously have a right to know? To paraphrase a cartoon legend, "Hypocritical, ain't it?"

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

2005-07-12T09:48:00.000-05:00

Here's a good article that just illustrates to me how so many people are willing to take comments and articles out of context to prove their point. The author brings up 8 issues that have been given the most attention in regards to issues with the Iraq war. The problem is that the 8 issues were, and are still bogus. They're based on either accidental or intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data and statements. Accidental I have no real problem with. That's what's called a mistake. Intentional I do have issues with. That's called lying. As in "Bush Lied" which is a popular sentement nowadays. Guess what? He didn't. Get over it.

Vacation

2005-07-11T11:36:00.000-05:00

Recovering from typical post-vacation doldrums. This is how out of touch I was on vacation. I didn't find out about London till Sunday. I also found out that there's no end of people willing to take this tragedy and turn it for political ends.

Lefties are saying its a conspiracy by Blair/Bush to elicit support for the war and are also accusing the right wing of trying to capitalize on the attack. Right-wingers are saying this is more proof that we need to work harder to fight terrorism before it gets to US shores while pointing fingers right back at the left for taking advantage of the situation.

I see this as progress actually. Both sides are in agreement that the bombing is being used for political gain. We have found common ground. Not very useful common ground but as polarized as this country has become, I'll take what I can get.

Here's what I get from the bombing and subsequent reactions: Nothing has changed. Politicians still twist facts to fit their platforms. Citizens still discard facts that don't agree with their views. Logic and common sense are no longer applicable in this day and age.

Dozens of people killed and hundreds injured and all we can do is spit invective back and forth like children squabbling over a favorite toy. Grow up people. Realize that the world is not how you see it. Realize that there are other views out there that may have validity. Realize that in order to get through this mess we are going to have to WORK TOGETHER!!! Enough with the fighting and backstabbing and bitching. Let's get back to making this country work instead of work against itself.

This is how we support our troops?

2005-06-30T09:56:00.000-05:00

I can't wait to see how this gets explained as the truest form of support for our troops. Guess officers don't count.

Makes sense

2005-06-30T09:32:00.000-05:00

I guess since so many tech support and call center jobs have gone to India it only makes sense that this should happen. We have to protect those call centers. Not that we can understand what they say, but they're working for American companies after all.

Well said.

2005-06-29T11:21:00.000-05:00

Yet another former soldier with issues with one of our elected officials. Personally, I think Durbin's apology was about as believable as Jimmy Swaggart's but we'll see what his constituents have to say. Hopefully a lot.

Carnival of Liberty

2005-06-29T10:01:00.000-05:00

For the two or three people who actually see my blog, you probably already know about this but one more person mentioning it can't hurt anything.

You don't say?

2005-06-29T09:31:00.000-05:00

This is intersting. From a gulag to a country club in two weeks. Is this Extreme Makeover: Detention Facility Edition?

Justice may be blind...

2005-06-29T09:30:00.000-05:00

But she's got a wicked sense of humor.

What is liberty?

2005-06-28T09:52:00.000-05:00

There’s a lot of talk going around these days about freedom and liberty and everyone assumes that they know what the writer is talking about. Do they though? What exactly are freedom and liberty? Are they the same thing? Is one required for the other or are they independent? Let’s take a look.

Do the definitions help us out at all? Freedom is defined as the capacity to exercise choice; free will. Liberty has it's meaning as the right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. Looks to be pretty much the same thing, right? Wrong. Freedom is just the capability to make a choice. Every person in the world has that. Since we all know there are billions of people out there considered to be oppressed or not free how is this possible?

Let’s use North Korea as an example. The people in DPRK have the ability to make choices(we’ll discuss consequences later so put your hands down) every day. What they don’t have is liberty. Liberty is a right and rights are something due a person thru law or tradition. DPRK doesn’t have laws or traditions granting it’s citizens the right to make choices so it’s population has freedom, but lacks liberty. DPRK goes a step…okay a whole lot more than one step further and has tried to suppress it’s citizens exercising their freedom by use of draconian punishments for anything deemed anti-social or basically against that short funny looking guy who runs the place. The consequences don’t take away their ability to choose so their freedom is intact. So, oppression isn’t the taking of freedom. It’s the denial of liberty.

Since liberty is a right and not simply an ability it can be taken away. The most obvious example is criminality. Liberty is a right afforded under law. If you violate those laws, your liberty can be forfeit. This is not oppression or cruel. Some believe it hypocritical to claim to be a land of liberty but then to take away liberty by means of incarceration. What they fail to understand is that anything granted by law can only be valid as long as that law is followed. If someone breaks the law they have put themselves contrary to that which granted them liberty in the first place.

So what about unjust laws and laws the restrict liberty for no good reason other than political gain? There are really only two recourses in a situation like that. Work within the system to correct the mistake, or open revolt. One requires patience and a belief in the system. In order to revolt you usually have to have lost all faith in the system and not care about the consequences if you fail. For many reasons working within the system is the better option. However, there are instances where revolt is the only option left. Our own nations founding was the result of one such instance.

Okay, how about responsibilities and consequences? Any choice you make will have consequences either good or bad. As this is the case, freedom and liberty are meaningless if there is no personal responsibility to accept the costs of those choices. Regardless of what circumstances lead someone to make a choice, in they end, they did choose and need to acknowledge the obligation put on them by making that choice be it positive or negative. And contrary to what many would say, even not making a choice is simply a decision by default.

Feel free to comment to your hearts delight. I chose to post this and I have no problems dealing with whatever consequences are the result.

Enough already

2005-06-27T12:05:00.000-05:00

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Take a good look. Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Then explain to me why we're once again having to deal with a case of someone being offended and thinking that this clause gives them the right to sue to have the offensive historical object removed. As the Ten Commandments are a part of this nations heritage there is no 'establishment' by their display. Congress has not passed a resolution forcing everyone to convert to Pentecostal or Baptist.

So why did the Supreme Court have to review not one but two seperate cases about displaying the Ten Commandments on government property? Because there are some people out there who just cannot stand to have anything that disagrees with their narrow view of the world on public display. It offends them to see the Ten Commandments so the Ten Commandments must go. It's this mentality that is causing so many issues in this country anymore.

Where does it say in the US Constitution that you are promised a life free of ever being offended? Where does it say that you will be able to impose your views on others to avoid being offended? Make no mistake, the people who are so 'sensitive' that they can't handle the mere sight of something like the Ten Commandments are doing just that. They want to be able to go through the day happy and carefree and not have to confront anything like this. If they have to trample on some other people and their rights along the way they have no problem with that as long as they get what they want in the end.

Gangsters used to work with casinos, drugs, and alcohol. Now the extortion and racketeering is done in the courtrooms. Wanna get made? Go to law school.

Bats

2005-06-27T10:03:00.000-05:00

I got to see Batman Begins this weekend. Was it the best Batman ever? Depends on what you're looking for. There's something to be said for the campy original Batman movies where everything was Bat-labeled. I also thought the first Tim Burton Batman was a great movie and made the Dark Knight truly Dark. That being said, I think this new Batman is far and away the best. Christian Bale has always been on my list of top actors and he didn't disappoint in this role either. Morgan Freeman and Rutger Hauer did great jobs with the limited roles they had. Michael Caine has never failed to deliver a great performance and Gary Oldman played a young Gordon very well. Katie Holmes was lacking, but she didn't get cast for your acting ability. Probably the best of the bunch, though, was Cillian Murphy. He did a great job with, IMHO, what is one of the best villians Batman ever had to face: Scarecrow. Bottom line, go see this movie. And I mean in the theatre. stop downloading the DVD screener and actually go see it. I mean it. Put the mouse down and slowly step away.

I try to be nice...

2005-06-24T14:21:00.000-05:00

But some people just make it so difficult. This guy wants all positive support for the war in Iraq terminated unless you've actually enlisted. His supposed point is that if you're not willing to put your life on the line then you don't really believe in your convictions and so should just be quiet. It's amazing to me the lengths that people will go to in order to silence those with contrary viewpoints. If people actually listened then in one fell swoop he would have silenced all those who oppose him and the only thing we would hear about Iraq is how bad it is....wait, isn't that pretty much the situation now? I've got news for the people like Sirota. The essence of free speech is not 'all speech that agrees with me is okay.' The essence of free speech is that all people have the same right to air their opinions/feelings. I disagree with you, and quite frankly think your conclusions are asinine. Notice though, that I'm not telling you to shut up. It's like you think the louder you get, the more sense you'll make. Volume does not denote quality. You can play Garth Brooks turned up to 11(if you got it, good. if not, you need help) but that doesn't make it music. So how about coming down off the soapbox, putting down the megaphone, and allowing other people to have a say? I realize that I'm asking you to recognize that people other than yourself might have good points and ideas, but I don't think I'm asking too much here.

So why are you paying that mortgage?

2005-06-24T12:03:00.000-05:00

Especially if some local yahoo with a cousin in business wants the land its on? Thanks to the Supreme Court pretty much ruling that private property no longer exists then there's no point in paying for a home or land anymore. Just tell the bank that you are taking it for the public good and refer them to the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court. What on earth were they thinking??? When did the right to own property become an outdated idea? How is it okay for local government to remove you from your home, not for roads, schools, or public works, but for somebody to build a strip mall??? Where do these judges live again, cuz I'm thinkin that I want to take their land and build a strip club, a McDonalds, and a gun store. That will increase tax revunue on all three businesses. It'll increase health insurance premiums from all the people getting fat at McD's so the corporations make more money. And finally the gun store will decrease crime(an armed populace is a polite populace) so it's all for the Public good.

Double Standards Anyone?

2005-06-24T10:30:00.000-05:00

Lets see if I understand this. Howard Dean specifically calls out Republicans and proceeds to go on about how they're the evil party. For many Dem's this was okay while the Repub's wanted an apology. Karl Rove mentions liberals, he doesn't use party names, and the Dem's get up in arms about wanting an apology and now the Repub's are saying his comments were okay. So it's okay for Dean to label Republicans specifically as bad but it's not okay for Rove to say liberals? And last I checked, given the demonization of the word liberal by the right, most Dem's had tried to distance themselves from this word so why the anger at Rove's comments? Unless of course they hit a little too close to home.

Would you believe...

2005-06-14T10:16:00.000-05:00

That a fedearl appeals court is debating whether or not to overturn an Arizona law that denies welfare and other benefits to illegal aliens? Is this for real? I just love the response though about how it's a plan to deport illegals. Explain to me how it has anything to do with deportation. Verifying citizenship before dispensing state and federal fund in the form of welfare or medical insurance has NOTHING to do with taking someone's border-jumping, law-breaking, welfare-living butt and sending them back to whatever country they wanted out of in the first place. Why do we reward people for breaking our laws? And how on earth would a federal court even begin to have the authority to strike down a law approved by a majority of voters? Of course, since the MALDEF attorney says that "The state has no authority to enact it" I guess we get a good idea of what his opinion of democracy is.

Color me surprised

2005-06-09T13:18:00.000-05:00

Well, the LA Times has a little bit of information that really isn't surprising. At all. I guess we all misread Amnesty International's report. It was really the inmates running the asylum and causing all the problems. Silly us.

Am I the only one....

2005-06-09T10:22:00.000-05:00

That picked up on the fact that Howard Dean said the only minorities at a Repub convention would be the hotel staff? Wow, talk about your positive attitudes toward minorities. Yup, the hotel staff have to be minorities cuz Howard Dean said so. Granted, a lot of his idiotic statements lately have been overblown but how can this be ignored? This man is the chairman for the 'party of inclusiveness' and here he is talking about minorities being hotel staff. Let's ignore that though and move onto the actual meaning of his comments. How many of the US Senators are minority? FYI: I'm not including women as a minority. They're half the species after all. If you look at racial minorities there are three Democrats and one Republican. The funny thing about two of those Democrats though is that they're from Hawaii. In that state, they are the majority, not the minority. So in all actuality the two parties are dead even when it comes to having minorities in the US Sentate. Man, I'm glad to know the Dem's are the inclusive party. Are they planning on showing it anytime soon?

UPDATE: Guess not.

Say what???

2005-05-25T16:34:00.000-05:00

It's official. Freedom of speech does not exist if you say something that might possibly offend someone, somewhere, someday. There is an indictment in Italy for an author after she wrote some critical comments of the Islamic faith. The judge based the indictment on the idea that the comments inspired hatred and intolerance. Okay, let me get this straight, a young lady is murdered by her brothers in the EU as an "honor killing" and there is absolutely no hue and cry about it for to condemn the MURDER of this girl would be intolerant. However, it's just fine to take an author to court for saying that a violent religion is just that: VIOLENT. Are there now heresy laws in the EU for anyone who speaks ill of Islam? So I'm going to write a book about Christianity being a violent religion and we'll see what kind of outcry happens. Will I be sued for making defamatory remarks? Probably but the ACLU would jump on my bandwagon. suckers bet on them helping this author out.

Waiting for Stupidity

2005-05-17T09:31:00.000-05:00

Well, on the eve of the eve of the nationwide release of Ep III(if you don't know what I'm talking about go play in traffic. it's fun) I'm forced to wonder which demographic will claim Lucas is a racist this time. He's been labled a KKK sympathizer after the original movie and he was labled a Latino basher after Attack of the Clones(pay no mind that the character that caused the uproar was Maori) due to a small group of people projecting their own idiocies on a FANTASY movie. So who do we get to see upset this time? I have an idea. I think that all the senior citizens are going to complain. The bad guy in this movie is Emperor Palpatine and when he goes full bore Sith he looks like the scary old man in every neighborhood who yells at kids to get off his lawn. He becomes a stereotypical bad guy that all can be scared of due to childhood experiences. Is George Lucas trying to say that all seniors are evil, cackling demons who shoot lightning from the hands and would cut you down with their lightsaber as soon as they get their Depends on? No, he's not but I'm pretty sure we'll see the AARP up in arms. And some PETA people will probably protest too cuz of all the cute Wookies who get hurt in the battle scenes. One day I'll understand how people became so self-absorbed that they feel the need to take fantasy and project themselves onto the movie. Some would call the delusional and would then prescribe various medications. I on the other hand just say get over it. If a movie offends you, then don't watch it. Novel solution I'm sure. Welcome to the human race people. This is not a game, it is not a nursery. You can't have everything your way so get over yourselves and get back to living instead of complaining. Life is so much more fun when you're appreciating what you've got as opposed to inventing problems for yourself and those around you.

Social Insecurity

2005-05-10T11:09:00.000-05:00

Explanations are warranted from all those who oppose the idea of fixing SSI. Only an idiot would deny the fact that Social Security is in trouble and will be even moreso in a few years due to the large group of people getting ready to start drawing on their SSI benefits. So why is it that people are so vehemently against the idea of working on fixing it? I don't agree with some of the parts of Bush's plan to fix it but at least he's offering ideas. What has anyone else brought to the table? Variations on a theme: It ain't broke yet so why fix it now?

My generation is increasingly of the opinion that Social Security will NOT exist by the time I can draw on it. That doesn't bother me that much because as far as I'm concerned it is not the governments job to take care of me. Give me back my paycheck and I'll take care of myself thank you very much. I don't like the idea of paying into a system that I'll never get anything out of anyway. People are protecting Social Security like it's a sacred object handed down from on high. Newsflash: Social Security is failing and will continue to do so until overhauled. God is not pleased. There was wailing and gnashing of teeth. Can we please get past the idea that Our Father who art in Washington needs to care for us?

Here's my basic beef: the politicians who are crying out the loudest are not offering any viable options to the contrary. They just feel that they'll lose votes if they don't oppose changing SSI. Note to politicians: your job is to take care of the country, not your job. If you lose votes for doing the right thing, that's a comment on your constituents, not you. Vote honestly and correctly and in the end you'll get a better standing for it. How many Gen X/Gen Y people don't vote now because we feel completely disenfranchised? How hard would it be to get us to vote? Not very. Just show us that you're looking to the future of the country and making sure when we are in your position that we don't inherit a Gordian knot of mythic proportions.

Forsake our Troops?!? WTF??

2005-05-09T16:20:00.000-05:00

Well, there's a new level of worthless ladies and gentlemen. There is an individual out there who not only calls for a reduction in pay and benefits for soldiers, he is actively cheering each soldier who dies. He appears to only be focusing on Iraq and not paying attention to Afghanistan or worrying about soldiers who die in training accidents. He goes so far as to have a counter on his site that gives the total number of KIA's and then says that they "got what they deserved." I am a firm believer in free speech. I may disagree with what you have to say but I will do my best to make sure you get the chance to say it. I may have to make an exception here though. I understand that there are many people who have a problem with us being in Iraq. To an extent I understand some of their reservations. But to openly rejoice when someone dies is out of line. He has a Shoot Back section where you can send a comment. On this page he mockes soldiers who have written. One woman writes in about her fiancee who is currently in Iraq. This waste of oxygen says that he hopes he dies in Iraq so that the soldier and his fiancee both get what they deserve. Can someone please explain the logic behind this to me? If you have a problem with financing the military that's a political thing. Talk to your congress and senate members but when you start enjoying someone's death cuz that's less of a tax burden on you I think you've forfieted the right to enjoy those freedoms that are available to you in this country. I'm sure many people will disagree that I'm being too harsh on this guy but if you feel that strongly about paying for the military then get the hell out of the country and go somewhere without a military so that you don't have to pay for it anymore. Move to Puert Rico. They don't get taxed so you don't have to pay for the military. What's that you say? You wouldn't be able to watch HDTV or play video games there? You wouldn't be able to go to movies or out to dinner? Well, the only reason you can do those things now is cuz some people with guns throughout the history of this country laid their personal wishes aside and put themselves in harm's way for something bigger than themselves. You can only see yourself and that amount of time you get to spend stroking your ego. Do us all a favor, put the headgear back on and then go play on your nearest freeway. When you see the big 18 wheelers comin at you, just run out in front of them. It's fun, I promise.

People

2005-05-06T12:39:00.000-05:00

What is it about people these days that makes them think everyone has to cater to their wants? Little background here. I work a tech support line for a corporation. The tech support line is one of many options on the menu. Various companies call into the generic number and the moment they hear tech support they choose that option regardless of whether or not their issue is technical. I've had people ask me to tell them how to fill out a paper form and then get pissed off when I had to transfer them. Newsflash to the idiots: They're called Q-Tips. Invest. Clean your ears out and you might be able to listen to the message that tells you were to go. Do not abuse me cuz you're too damned lazy to sit there and listen. This is just one example of a very disturbing trend. Stop expecting the world to bow to your wishes and hand everything to you on a silver platter. Stand up and take care of yourself.

Anyway, you guys should check out Dadahead's blog. He's posted a letter written by the individual who rudely interrupted a speech by Ann Coulter. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of Ann Coulter......okay, I'm not any kind of fan, but the way this guy treated the meeting was completely unacceptable. If someone had done this at an Al Franken speech I guarantee you he'd be getting tarred and feathered now.(note to Dadahead: that's a metaphor no need for gruseome photos) What's so sad is that this person is proud of what he did. He's proud of being rude and offensive. It's one thing to be that way with friends who are used to you and your sense of humor, but how is it okay to treat a public speech like that when people, other than you obviously, may have been interested in what the speaker had to say? What's happened to common courtesy? When did basic politeness leave the country so that it's fine to treat people this way. In the end, the university police where the speech took place overreacted, roughed the kid up and cuffed him. An inappropriate response to an inappropriate action. nice to see that at least humans are consistent.

Here we go again

2005-05-05T09:02:00.000-05:00

Step right up ladies and gentlemen. The media circus is about to start. What we have for you today is a contest between science and religion. The Kansas Board of Education is once again reviewing the teachings of evolution in the science classroom. Here's where we get to the fun part. As opposed to allowing the BOE to actually look at the evidence and make a choice, the media is already trying to sway public opinion their way. Read the article on MSN.com. First of all, anyone who is being honest with themselves knows that evolution is a flawed theory. Hell, you can't even pick a theory to start with. Do we go with the original gradual evolution? Do we go with spontaneous appearance? How about rapid evolution brought on by environmental factors? For the creationists in the group, you can stop getting excited. Creationism should not be taught in a science classroom. It requires the presence of a supernatural being, who by very definition is outside the realm of science. So for those who will read this post and say I must be a Bible-thumping, God is science loudmouth you can sit down and shut up. The problem with evolutionary theory is that there are too many to choose from to call it fact. None of them have been proven. If they had been proven, there wouldn't be so many theories. When scientists get back to the reality of pure science then we'll have some honesty and accountability in evolutionary study. As long as it's treated as gospel within the scientific community despite the obvious issues with the multiple theories, then we are not only shortchanging ourselves, but we are also doing a disservice to all the children learing in the classrooms across the country. We are teaching them to accept theory as fact regardless of evidence. In short, we are teaching them to accept evolution on faith. We are not teaching them to analyze data. We are not teaching them to question in order to learn the truth. We are teaching them to regurgitate spoon-fed nonsense on command. Welcome to education in America.

Busy Days

2005-05-03T11:22:00.000-05:00

Well, myself and my roommates are preparing to move. Living at the same house for 2 years and you kinda forget how much work goes into finding a place and getting everything ready. On the plus side, the applications have all gone through without a hitch it's just a matter of hashing out the deposit and signing the lease on the new place. Really lookin forward to the new place.

Anyway, is it just me or has the entire country gone insane? We have a prominent rep at the Federal level(no names but his initials are TD) who was dirty as dirty gets and is trying to defend himself like he did nothing wrong and people are saying he's right! I will be honest, I tend to side with republicans on more issues than democrats but this is pretty much cut and dry in my book. He was dirty. He tried to change the rules so he wouldn't be punished. Can you say, "Abuse of power?" I knew you could. One more very compelling argument for term limits and campaign finance reform. Vote the bums out before they become criminal bums.

On a completely different note, I was just introduced to an anime series called Fushugi Yugi. I'm typically not a huge fan of anime series. I tend to like the movies better but this series is quite good actually. I'd strongly suggest it for anyone who enjoyed Full Metal Alchemist. If you're a dark anime fan(Ghost in the Shell, Ninja Scroll) this may not be your thing, but still very good.

Recent releases I order you to see: Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Not as good as the book or original series, but you start the movie with a song and dance number for dolphins. Nuff said. Also Kung Fu Hustle. If you are any kind of kung fu movie fan you will love this movie and laugh till it hurts. Go see it. Now. Why are you still reading? Go get a ticket.

Strange Days

2005-05-02T13:40:00.000-05:00

Okay, I'm getting more and more incapable of dealing with humanity as it is currently. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but is it too much to ask for some common courtesy and common sense? When did we lose the ability to think for and take care of ourselves? Not a day goes by that I don't hear about some poor soul crying out that they have been wronged and how injustice and inequality are rampant and they are but the latest victims of this cruel, cruel world......but they're willing to forget all that for the right fee.

Maybe it's just me. I'm honest enough with myself to realize that I see the world a bit differently than most but I don't see these ideals as optional. Perhaps I am being insensitive to the needs of others but last I checked, these others that I'm being insensitive too are usually not working(there are jobs available), are usually under-educated(public schools still exist), are usually from dysfunctional families(who isn't), and are wanting everyone else to take care of them.

Perhaps I am being too judgemental and overly harsh. I do have a tendency to expect a lot from a person but is that being too harsh? One person says, "You can't take care of yourself. You have to have help" while the other states, "You can do this. It will take work and dedication but you are capable of achieving." Which is the judge, and which is the mentor? Which of those two is reinforcing the idea that they are incapable of self-determination and which is trying to instill the idea of responsibility and freedom?

More and more I find myself at odds with people who think that we have a moral and civic duty to care for those in bad situations. I don't remember the article in the constitution that gave the government the job of mom and dad. I don't remember the Declartion of Independence stating "We the providers, in order to take care of all." Life is difficult at times and wonderful at times. You can either learn from it or not. Take your pick. Think on this though: for every mistake you learn from you grow wiser. How do you learn if someone is always bailing you out?