To All Who Visit Here...

Merry Christmas!!!

It's Called CHRISTMAS!

For Example...

In a recent post I reviewed Newt Gingrich's book about the "energy crisis" and what can be done to free us from dependence on foreign energy sources and do so now. Part of the book dealt with obstructions to our use of our own natural resources. In general, it speaks of the environmental extremists, AKA "wackos", who are making an appearance now in Copenhagen. That's really kinda funny considering they are protesting other wackos.

But wackos aren't the only obstructionists. Of course, there are those who would profit by the status quo. This article suggests who some of these scumbags might be. Some, like Dan, would have us believe that the energy producers of this country are the evil doers who should be of great concern to us. He would not want only industry people deciding how to oversee and guide big oil/coal to do the right thing. I think they're doing OK as it is. Who would watch over them honestly? Those highlighted in the article? How can we properly check out and qualify those who would watch the industry people?

That oil/coal/natural gas/nuclear people are looking to make profits by providing energy is no secret. It's not even wrong. Assuming they can't be trusted to do that in an ethical manner is. The article points out those that aren't quite acting out of concern for America, the environment or anything else like that. Money is driving many of those on the "green" side of these issues. Al Gore is making mounds of money preaching his global warming crap. Scientists and researchers depend on grants given only to those who further the "consensus" opinion. And we know that third world, despot-lead countries are foaming at the mouth at the thought of US dollars spent to "level the playing field" that is the "fight against climate change". All the while, we go broke, and our enemies get richer with funds we could be spending at home. (More "brilliance", I suppose.)

Of course, it is only fair to say that there are truly sincere people amongst the greenies who really believe that the world would be a better place without technology, that we should back off on "consumerism" (as if that is all that drives progress) and go back to the land. I'm sure they'll feel just as strongly as their loved ones die because they couldn't peddle the bicycle fast enough to get them to a hospital. These people are simply deluded. Progress will bring negative aspects along with the positives, which in my opinion, far outweigh the bad and which we can mitigate as we go.

I am far more concerned with the motives of those who interfere with American industry tapping our resources. They assume evil intent on the part of those who bring about so much good, but ignore the alternatives that we all experienced before progress came about. What's worse, among them are the real evil ones who truly have only profits in mind as they work to prohibit that which can free us from dependence on foreign oil.

Is This What Brilliance Looks Like?

Take a look at this AmericanThinker blog posting. It's brief, but it speaks volumes as to the arrogance of Obama and other Copenhagen "leaders". As far as I know, only Halle Berry can control the weather. These fools, with our very own President Barry Obama among them, think they can actually "cap" the rate of temperature change on earth. Well, OK. I can do that in my home, though even when I set my thermostat, the temp has to drop a bit in order for the furnace to kick on, then, it actually ebbs a bit higher than the set temperature before it shuts down. What brilliance will be in play for the messiah to actually tell the sun to shine just a bit less?

How can anyone not look upon these idiots in Copenhagen as a collection of total buffoons and lunatics? I'm all for cleaner manufacturing, cars and trucks, less harmful emissions from our cattle, less pollution overall. Who isn't? But I in no way wish to ever be associated with anyone who actually thinks they can control the weather, who thinks man is capable of causing temperatures to rise to a level that would melt the polar ice caps, who thinks we have only 5, 10 or 15 years to act or we are all doomed. As the blog piece highlighted, Barry campaigned on such foolishness. Would not a brilliant man avoid such hyperbole? Would not a brilliant man see the stupidity of daring to make deals for controlling the rise of temperature? What if they fail? What then? How do they determine who's at fault and what is the price that must be paid? I'm sure that's an easy one. It'll be America's fault because for our president, so much of the world's ills are because of us. Whether that would be the case or not, I'm sure failure to cap temperature fluctuations will mean more of OUR tax dollars will be "redistributed".

How did this idiot become our president? How did so many of my fellow Americans become so stupid as to believe he should be?

The Devil's in the Details

Randall Hoven once again dives into and explains just what hell is being foisted upon us with the Senate's passing of the BS Health Reform Bill. If anyone thought that there would be any problem getting holdouts like Nelson to get on board, they'll believe anything. (Of course, this isn't news as they are likely the same people who believed Obama was the better choice for president.)

Well, Nelson got a chunk o' change, like Landrieu did, as well as some concession or other on abortion funding, as if that's written in stone. I'm bettin' he voted for Obama, too.

What's worse is how the Constitution is totally ignored in all this. If these liars, frauds and posers can back this 2000 page abomination and pretend they have any right or mandate to do so, there's really nothing they won't try to do in the future. And, as if that isn't enough, they don't really care if this monstrous pile of waste will even do any of the things they say it will do as far as cost cutting, providing quality care or any of it. They are only concerned with being able to say that they "reformed" health care. The question is into what will it be formed? 2000 pages? Geez. I'll let people like Hoven figure it out.

Something else is being ignored. That would be the will of, as Dan likes to say, WE THE PEOPLE!!! I'm not one for polls, but when every poll imaginable (aside from those only polling Democrats in Congress) show the American people in stark opposition to this type of "reform", it's absolutely unconscionable that any politician would insist on supporting this travesty. All I can figure is that with all the bribery that is going on (it's easy to offer bribes when it's the people's money being offered), spurts of stimulus may result enough for the corrupt Dems to point to and claim success. Doubtless they'll ignore the downsides and/or cast blame elsewhere.

But there's some slim hope I suppose. If everyone keeps calling their reps and senators, perhaps enough of them will listen to reason or be too scared to be voted out next November. Chances are that when they resolve this crap with the crap the House excreted that some watered down form will be signed by the Butthead in Chief that will satisfy the aforementioned desire to say they've accomplished something. But the further it's pushed down the line, the more likely it will fail, and now is not the time to throw in the towel. Our future depends on it.

Drill Now!

I’ve recently finished reading Newt Gingrich’s book, “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis”. I’ve had it lying about for awhile. I think it came with a magazine subscription. In any case, I finally gave it a read and I must say that this man has a far better grasp of the situation than any lefty tree hugger or Gore-ite I’ve ever seen. He succinctly shows the errors in the arguments of the opposition as he supports the arguments he lays out.

I especially like how he shows what “WE THE PEOPLE” think. Gingrich is a founder of American Solutions for Winning the Future. Their purpose is obvious and they often run surveys to help them in this task. But their results are given in this way: Amongst Republicans (or conservatives), X% feel this way, and Y% feel that way. Amongst Democrats (or liberals), X% feel this way, and Y% feel that way. He does as much for the independents, too. This kind of breakdown gives a more accurate sense of what EVERYBODY feels about a given issue and helps to show that the issue being covered, or the solution for it, has true bipartisan appeal.

Gingrich shows how we got to this point and what needs to change in order to truly free ourselves from our reliance on foreign powers for our energy. But he doesn’t just talk about oil and coal, but alternatives as well. His position is that we need to study and utilize everything we can. Of course, oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear are proven and better than that, all sorts of improvements have been made in the acquisition, refinement and delivery of these fuels. But wind, solar, hydrogen and anything anyone can show to be of value should be researched and developed as well. The idea is being energy independent.

According to Newt’s research, we have enough oil and natural gas within our own territory that we really don’t need foreign oil. And the mere movement toward extracting that oil and gas will in and of itself have a positive impact on prices. This was shown to be true when George W. Bush lifted the presidential moratorium on off shore drilling. The announcement alone caused the price to drop as it lead speculators to figure Congress might lift there’s as well. Immediately, it affected supply just by Bush making the announcement.

And that’s pretty much an example of how easy we can pay less than we are now, and actual development of new refineries, real exploration with the purpose of extracting what’s found will only cause the price to drop further. And Newt shows how that’s already past the preparation stage and merely awaiting the environmental wackos to get the hell out of the way. What’s holding us back is bad government policy, regulation and litigation.

Newt believes that if we attacked this issue the same way we handled things during WWII, we can be well on our way to energy independence in far less than the ten years the lefty idiots think it’ll take. When we needed ships and planes and ammo to win the fight against Nazi fascism, we all pitched in and got the job done. We did it all and we did it all at once. The same attitude can solve the energy situation. All of our energy dollars will eventually be going back into our own country rather than into the pockets of those foreign powers that really don’t much care for us. We don’t need to use less oil. By the time we run out, we could have its replacement ready to go. Those two reasons alone are worth getting started. Call your reps now.

Here's something else you should know: Newt's ideas for stimulating the jobs situation is equally eluminating. Barry and Co don't have clue one about how business works. Less than ten percent of his administration has private sector experience. He still thinks more stimulus packages will do it. What a complete idiot. Go to AmericanSolutions.com and see what real solutions look like and for all you lefty Dem supporters, stop pretending the right-wing has no alternatives. Compared to what the right has, the left has only destruction in mind. Talk about taking us in the wrong direction! But the best part of AmericanSolutions is that they really welcome input from their readers and members.

Summit, Schmummit!

This post can be found here. Read it. It's very good.

Didn't Wanna Hafta

I'm sorry to say that I've applied word verification to my comments section. Didn't wanna hafta do that, but I've been getting spammed. Mostly viagra stuff and for some reason, almost all on the thread entitled, "A Forum For Dan Only". Can't imagine why that would be.

According to the instructions, I, as humble host, don't have to do it and word verification won't show up when I comment. Thus, I won't know for sure if I actually enabled it unless one of you tells me it's there. Let me know please. I'd disable it if anyone can tell me how to shut off comments on a specific thread, such as the one that is getting most of the spam. If the spam shows up on a different thread, then word verify it is. Any thoughts on this possibility?

Also, I know this post will cause some to drop off into "older posts". I consider the discussion on "Questions for Barry Supporters" to be ongoing still. So feel free to continue the discussion there.

Even More For My Warsaw Friend

My newest post at American Descent speaks more on the direction Barry Obother is taking us. When do we get to see some of this brilliance we keep hearing about?

Yin and Yang

I was very impressed by this comparison by Jack Cashill between Sarah Palin and Barry Obama. I guess "impressed" isn't really the best choice of words because what he says isn't a newflash. But what's impressive is how starkly different these two people are when examined closely and objectively. It really stands out when the two are put side to side.

Of course, for those who actually look and listen to what candidates say and how that matches up with what they do, to so compare candidates is natural. Palin stands easily head and shoulders above Obama. Strip away the marketing and Obama fails to elicit the fawning and adoration of honest lefties over claims of brilliance and heightened intellect. Indeed, without a teleprompter he's a stuttering and stammering buffoon. This, I believe, is the result of trying to convince others of brilliance not truly possessed, of not having a legitimate idea, of a failure of conviction in principles he claims to champion.

Palin, however, is not a product of marketing other than a "what you see is what you get" no frills, no bullshit alternative. She has distinct principles by which she has actually lived her life and thus can speak extemporaneously without stumbling. She is what she claims to be and that is hard to deny. Charges leveled against her intelligence show a decided lack of same by the accuser since anyone who could rise through state politics, even fighting against her own party, can hardly be called a moron by objective, rational people of either side of the aisle. Such charges are simply stupid.

So when you put the two side by side, there is little doubt who the truly smarter person is. Barry has done nothing that shows he's deserving of the adulation given his intellect. There is simply nothing special about it. We could say he was smart enough to not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq, or do trash all the surveillance strategies established under Bush, or to drag his feet on closing Gitmo, but all that stuff doesn't require a doctorate to figure out. But things he has done, such as apologizing all over the world, the bailouts and stimulus packages, his health care reform support (he hasn't offered anything of his own), his removing defense weapons from Eastern Europe, his snubs of Israel in favor of the blood thirsty Pallestinians, etc, etc, etc, all demonstrate an incredible stupidity that should not have been a surprise to anyone who actually looked at who this buffoon was before November 2008.

Is Sarah Palin presidential material? Well hey, after Obama the bar is now really low. But even had he failed to convince anyone he was worthy of the time of day, Palin has at least walked her talk. Is she smart enough? Again, check that bar level. It's way down there now. But even had Barry not sent chills up Chris Matthew's leg (can you say, "dipshit"?), Palin showed enough smarts in her Alaskan efforts that I have no doubt she would have surrounded herself with topnotch advisors.

Would I vote for Sarah Palin? I can't think of a Dem who would be better for the United States of America, and there are other McCains out there that would also be a worse choice than her. I don't know who she might run against in the primaries, should she decide to run in '12. But if she got the party nomination, she gets my vote for sure. Because if she's Barry Obumble's opponent then, we have the bottom line comparison in her favor. She would take the country in the direction first begun by our founders, the direction that made us a great nation. And thus we'd be on track to becoming that great nation once again.

More For Muh Man To Ponder

I posted an article at American Descent that I found to be a good analysis of the downward direction of Obamanomics. Check it out.

For My Pal

This piece from Wintery Knight is a sample of the direction Barry is taking this country. It is intended for the edification of a close friend lost in the hell known today as liberalism and those like him. Read carefully and be enlightened. It is typical of the man some strangely call brilliant.

Health Care Question

So I keep hearing this particular point being raised about Health Care Reform regarding pre-existing conditions. Some people don't think you should be turned downed by insurance companies because of a pre-existing condition. I don't understand this. Sure, it would be nice to be able to have the cost of every ailment taken care of. But in the arena of insurance, this concept of pre-existing conditions makes no sense.

It is my understanding that the purpose of insurance is to be financially protected, or covered, in the case of a catastrophic illness or injury. The idea being that such can be financially challenging and, perhaps, able to bankrupt. The insurance companies make their money when such things don't happen. They collect premiums paid in regular intervals with the hope that they'll never have to pay a claim. At the same time, though most people hope to never have to endure a catastrophic illness or injury, they pay the premiums so as not to have to save up millions of dollars just to protect themselves. It's a nice arrangement and we should be grateful that there exist entities that will risk their money to pay for our medical problems.

Auto and homeowner insurance works the same way. You are actually paying for repairs or replacements that may or may not ever be necessary. Repairs or replacements that would be financially difficult to make without massive savings available.

But no insurance company will insure a home that's on fire or a car that is totalled from having crashed. So whence comes the expectation that an insurance company must cover a new client with a pre-existing condition?

Don't get me wrong. I feel for anyone who finds himself in such a position: a victim of a serious or chronic disease, loses his job and with it, his insurance, seeks coverage elsewhere and no one will take him, or they'll cover everything but that which is related to the illness from which he suffers. But is that really the insurance company's problem?

Put yourself in they're position. Consider the car scenario if it helps to understand: someone comes to you for coverage on his car. You go outside and see that it's on fire. Are you a jerk for telling the guy to push off? I think the customer's a jerk for expecting a total stranger to come across with bucks just because he came knocking and asking for it. It's really unconscionable.

Does no one prepare for the unexpected? Is no one responsible anymore for their own troubles? Must we impose upon each other when we should be thinking in terms of never being a burden on others? I would hope that everyone who still has a job is thinking in those terms right now. It's too late for those who have already lost their job. We're taught not to store up treasures for ourselves, yet, should we act as if we are impervious to nasty turns of events?

Of course, from the insurance industry standpoint, losing the job does not have to mean losing the insurance. The ex-employee should merely take over the share paid by the employer, thus maintaining the coverage he had when he got sick. There's really no need to bump him off the group plan. If he never lost the job, the insurance provider would be paying anyway. The insured would simply maintain the policy as long as necessary. The insurer, it seems to me, is still liable for the coverage since that was the point of the insured buying the policy in the first place.

New Blog Added

Take a peak at a new blog I've added that focusses on how gun laws don't work. It's called, appropriately enough, "Gun Laws Don't Work". Actually, I've been meaning to put this up and it kinda fell by the wayside. But there it was in my favorites all along (I've got way too much stuff in my favorites---it's really long). So now it takes it's rightful place under "Right Ones", and that, too, is suitable as the sentiment is absolutely right. Such laws are stupid and dangerous to law abiding people everywhere, particularly in the inner cities, college campuses, and strangely enough, miltary bases.

I posted a comment under one the recent posts there which I'll rehash here. It seems that Barry O, while still pretending to be a state senator in Illinois, had supported a bill that would prohibit a self-defense plea for defendants who use a firearm to stop a ne'er do well if the action takes place in a town that had outlawed firearms. He's a great American, ain't he? What a putz. Yet, he had voted against another bill that would have called for captial punishment in cases where the defendant was found guilty of murdering someone for the benefit of his street gang. Just a couple more reasons in a very long list of reasons why people were complete idiots for voting for this guy. Barry O is the poster child for voter responsibility. He's what you get when you don't take the time to research your favorite candidate.

But I digress.

This new blog addition is an important addition for it's focus on the 2nd Amendment and our right to carry weapons to defend outselves. If we don't have the right to defend ourselves, our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is worthless. It can be taken away by any jerk with a bad attitude. It happens all the time, especially where the idiot party (that would be the Democrat Party) is in charge and bans either handguns or the right to carry them. Innocent people die because the fools play their games, pretending to be hard on crime by taking away the weapons of law-abiding people, leaving only the law-breakers and vultures with guns. It gives them the green light to do as they please, because no one will stop an thug with a gun. Yet all states with conceiled carry have lower crime rates. Gee. I wonder why?

Question for Barry Supporters

I got this in an email and thought I'd put it here for Barry O supporters to respond:

!If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position 32 or more Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent more than all the Presidents combined since George Washington, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have 3 years and 2 months to come up with an answer.

Two Posts

The following are two posts of mine at American Descent:

Direction
A Historic Event?

Two New Blog Additions

I have added two new blogs under "Right Ones". The first is Wintery Knight, a blog I've found through Neil's site. One of the things I like about Wintery Knight's blog is the great links he provides in his posts. He has some great links to articles and audio dealing with apologetics. Great insights and writing where he mixes faith and the public square.

The second is Winging It. I'm not sure how I came across this one even though it happened only within the last month or so, but it is a site that has two contributors, Stan and Jonathan, though I've only read Stan's stuff so far. Just the same, his thoughts on Christianity are interesting and written in an easy conversational style, yet he makes his great points obvious.

Of course, with both these sites being under "Right Ones", I find them both filled with wisdom and logic. Check them out.

Whoops! Sorry Barry!

Yeah, I apologize. Last I heard the unemployment rate was 9.8%. The day after I resign my position it's 10.2%. I didn't mean it. I'm just one guy. And hey, I've already filled out a couple apps online.

I heard someone say that the number of unemployed is going down every month. It was 190K for Sept or Oct but I haven't really been watching that. But to say it is slowing doesn't necessarily mean things are getting better. For the companies that aren't ready to go completely belly up, they've likely cut staff about as much as they can and still function. I mean, just how many jobs are there to lose? If we lose them all, then the rate will have stopped. "Number of new unemployment clams for April? Zero! Hurrah! The economy is improving!"

I know that Barry and his defenders will remind all that the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. What's lagging is his ability to stimulate the economy such that jobs will be created that aren't in gov't. I will take a second year of this buffoon if he makes like Slick Willy and supports conservative proposals that work. Because I need to work (so I'm told---I don't feel like I need to, but I do need more sheckels). And the country needs to work. So he'd better get to work instead of fartin' around with economy damaging health care reform bills.

Tested...And Found Wanting

Just can't do it. Tried to suck it up and deal with the away time, but I just can't do it. I just called in and tendered my resignation. Probably a very bad idea, but I just can't freakin' do it. It ain't in me. I never wanted to go on the road (except on a whirlwind concert tour entertaining screaming fans) in the first place, but attempted to force myself for the sake of the check. Mark suggested a low paying alternative would resign me to home, but I've been doing that for the last 10+ months anyway. The risk I'm taking is great. Despite a report that another twenty weeks will be added to unemployment compensation, there's no guarantee that they'll re-open my claim. Yeah, jobs are scarce, but they're not non-existent. I'll find something and there are other people keeping a look out on my behalf as well, as I have been on behalf of others. JEEZ! what a pain!

Now the hard part is the change of stress the fetching Mrs. Marshall Art will now undergo. Where the long absence of her beloved (that would be me) burdened her loving heart, the continued absence of income will play on her fears (she's the worrier). This causes me no small amount of regret, to say the least, as well as a great deal of second guessing. Perri tells me he must leave home for a year in order to make some righteous bucks. If I had a sense that my situation was so determined, fixed to a specific period of time, perhaps I could weather the period knowing there was a goal line. But I have no such certainty. I don't even have certainty that I'll be home on a specific day regularly so planning anything resembling a normal life on my two days off is a crapshoot that can be further complicated by inclement weather. I'm 1.5 hrs from my operating center if I drive the limit. Imagine a screw-up getting me back from my trip late and then having my travel time doubled (and easily so) due to heavy snowfall. That drive-time home is MY time and counts against my reset time. If I already have an assignment, then my off time is further curtailed.

No. I just can't do it. I'll find something. And if we continue to get more conservative victories as elections come up, economic recovery will accelerate and more jobs will be available for those of us impacted so ruthlessly.

Bulls 83 Bucks 81

For the eighth straight time, the Bucks come up short in the United Center against da Bulls. Picked up the action at the start of the fourth with the Bulls down a few. They tightened up the D and kept the Bucks to one and done, eventually taking the lead about the half way mark of the quarter. It was no looking back then.

Is it me, or did Luol put on some beef? He had a stellar game with 24 pts. and 20 boards, his career high for rebounds.

Too soon to know who this team is, but it seems obvious they've still got Milwaukee's number.

In other news, some guy named Christy is the new New Jersey governor. Repubs are looking good in all the major races out east, with the notable exception of that congressional race, where the asshole Republican who has bowed out has thrown her support to the Dem candidate rather than the conservative independent. With 77% of the vote in at this writing, Hoffman is behind like 49%-46% or thereabouts, but at least that fool Republican has no shot.

One more important contest is in Maine, where a vote to repeal the current law and allow homosexual phony marriages is, by a Yahoo article, too close to call with an even split. Apparently, if I have the info straight, Maine's legislature approved homosex phony marriage and this would be the first time a state has voted against such a situation. May God grant a victory for those in Maine who aren't fooled by the lies of the homosex agenda thereby allowing traditional marriage to prevail.

That's it for sports.

A Test Of Resolve

I got home Sunday morning at about 00:00 hrs., the end of my second week over the road with a trainer. I gotta say, I don't know how long I can handle being away from home. The job itself doesn't seem such a bear, though there are numerous details I'm sure I will fail to remember in the beginning. This is true of most jobs, so I'm not too concerned about that. It's just the week to two weeks away. That's tough. If I was young and single it might not matter as much. But I'm not either.

My last day out was particularly crappy and a bit of a portent of things possible on the job. It began with my trainer being late. (I hope this doesn't get back to his boss.) I'm not really raggin' on the guy here. Our last stop of the night was near his home and he took advantage of the situation to be with his family. Good for him. I'm glad for him sincerely. We agreed that he'd not only be back a 09:00, but that I would complete most, if not all, of the "homework" he had assigned me.

This homework included completing all paperwork that was my responsibility to have finished. No problem, as there wasn't much left to finish. Also, there was trip planning the rest of the day until the point where I'd be dropped off at my car. Until this point, I had not had any trouble sleeping in that upper berth in the tractor. But this night it was quite windy. It seemed that every time I dropped off, the wind would pick up and shake the truck, as if some one was jostling your bed to awaken you. So of course, when that annoying alarm went off, it was way too early. And of course, forgetting that it was to be a Saturday morning, I had called my wife to give me a wake up call, just in case. So she really didn't need to get up for that as I was quite awake climbing down from that berth to figure out how to turn off that alarm on the truck radio. And it was a chilly morning.

So I'm up, and being parked in a Wal-mart parking lot, a not uncommon rest stop from what I've gathered, I was able to dress and then go into Wal-mart to handle a few morning rituals, if you know what I mean. Unfortunately, their Subway shop wasn't yet open. Unfortunately, when it was, I found out their breakfast sandwich isn't as delightful as their sub-sandwiches are. But I digress.

Back in the cab I get to work and with only a few alterations my trainer would later make, I completed my task and then went on to wait for the guy for an hour later than planned. During that time I went ahead and performed the standard pre-trip inspection and brake tests and felt that at least when he arrives we could then depart quickly. But no. It took another hour and a half before we could split. Keep in mind that I'm thinking of this as my last day of the trip and hoping to be heading home ASAP, a departure that very well could have occurred the previous night but not for the over-kill training style of this particular trainer.

Finally we leave, and our first stop is Gary, IN. We were departing from Manesha, WI. We have to drop a trailer and pick up an empty. We get to Gary, which is the operating center from which I'll be based, and he gives me the quick tour, which I needed I guess but could have done without. So we go drop the trailer and pick out an empty. As we try to exit the gate, the voice from the speaker says that the trailer is tagged for repair, even though the computer assigned it to us, which means it should be fine. We have to back up and take it to the shop for a looking over. We have to wait for two other trucks waiting ahead of us and of course, by the time we get in, the mechanic finds no problem worthy of the trailer being put out of service. Wasted time because some jerk saw something minor he didn't want to handle himself possibly, and some guy back at HQ didn't read the computer properly and released a trailer he shouldn't have.

Now we're off to Woodstock, IL. which is within an hour of my own home, but of course, my car is elswhere. We get to Woodstock and drop the empty trailer and find the one we're to transport to Wisconsin (dropping me off before it gets there), and this trailer has an issue with one of it's brakes. So there's time screwing around with that. These two holdups would have been bad enough on their own, but my trainer had insisted on me, not only doing most of the work, which was fine, but also having me practice backing up when such extra practice was really superfluous at this point.

Finally, we're at the Wisconsin yard where my car is parked, and this dude has about another half hour of crap to write out and point out and in short, making me want to bang my head on the side of the truck. I just wanted to go home. But he's only doing his job as he sees it and it's just the situation that's pissing me off. He finishes and I make with the small talk as we part company and finally I'm off. Again, he was really a nice guy, very informative about the job and driving and all that good stuff.

But the day really crystallized what I'm up against here. As I said, I don't want to be an over the road driver for anyone. Any delivery job, semi or straight truck, any dump truck job or the like, anything that gets me home every night like a normal job is what I'm after. Frankly, it really doesn't need to be a trucking job at all. I'd even consider going back to my previous line of work, even to the guy that laid me off (after an agreement is decided upon) because it's really just a regular paycheck I'm after. I don't need a career at my age, just a job to get me from here to retirement at a wage that's decent. OTR, however, is giving so much of my life to the job for frankly poor return on that very major investment. One is basically working 24/7 for the duration of one's time out. Then, only two days home to enjoy time with the family and really, nothing, and I mean NOTHING else. Yeah, maybe we could squeeze in a movie, and today we had the family over to celebrate a birthday (not mine), but tomorrow is Monday. The wife is at work, the kid at school and I'm trying to handle whatever chores I can. On top of that, problems as described above can alter whatever plan one foolishly believes one has the right to make. Even if I get approval for a day off for, say, a wedding, there's no guarantee I'll actually get home on time for it. That's living?

Tuesday I report to Gary around 14:30 for a final test which will determine if I get my own truck, additional training, or sent packing. So I'm wondering if I should spend some time tomorrow studying (some of the test is written and some driving). I feel like the last three weeks has been non-stop testing. I wouldn't care if I fail this last one. Yet, I have to pass. My thought at present is to pass and then tell them "no thanks". Either way, I'm still looking for a job. This bites.

What the...?

I just couldn't leave town without drawing attention to this. From an email newsletter I get from the National Organization for Marriage comes this little tid-bit:

"On the other hand, there are people like Sarah Schulman, an English professor at New York's City University, with a very different view. She has written a new book, Ties that Bind, that pushes a new next step in the gay-marriage agenda: "Homophobia should be identified as a sickness, with families court-ordered into treatment programs." How did I hear about such a wacky idea? In an Oct. 14 column published by the perfectly respectable publication Inside Higher Ed. The author, Scott McLemee (whose summary of Sarah's thought I am quoting), believes in the "new civil rights movement." He doesn't go so far as Sarah and say that government should be used to force dissenters into therapy, though. His solution to persistent disagreement with gay marriage? "Traumatize 'em right back!"

Wow. Are these now the choices in so-called respectable so-called civil rights circles? Either forced therapeutic re-education by government or else cultural traumatization and marginalization of people who disagree? Nice movement you have there, guys.

I know that many, many gay-marriage advocates don't think this way. But this is a top-down movement driven by leaders who have seldom been very honest with the American people about what their ultimate aims are: to use the law to reshape the culture so that decent, loving, honorable, peaceful people who believe that marriage means a husband and wife get traumatized as bigots."

Can you believe it? These are people who get the vapors at the thought of hearing someone use the abbreviation "homo" or "mo" and WE need treatment? The only area where I need help is in dealing with the fact that our society has gotten this goofy, that normal is considered abnormal and this clearly psychologically twisted condition is considered just fine. I'm goofy for thinking it odd that a man would want to be penetrated. I'm goofy for refusing to just accept that because such people exist that I have to, well, accept them.

Well, I'm not for having them gathered together for mass execution by any means. But I refuse to feel ashamed for recognizing the obvious, nor will I stand for anyone trying to force that feeling upon me. There is no sickness in me for my position on the issue, nor is there any need for correction. Further, I will no longer waste keystrokes just to spare them or their enablers any distress over reading "homosex", "homo" or "mo" instead of "homosexual". Nor will I encourage them by agreeing to THEIR definitions in the using of words like "gay". It would be like worrying over the feelings of rapists or child molesters, or even thieves and liars.

The other day I had just caught the end of an HBO documentary that was obviously in support of the homosex agenda. In it, one guy said how much better it would be for all homosexuals if those still in the closet would come out. I guess he assumed that all homosexuals are indeed happy to be so, that none of them are ashamed of their unnatural urges and would prefer not to have them. "Hey! Be proud of your perversion and join us so that we can get what we want!"

I always considered the whole thing to be selfishness, this drive to be considered the new civil rights struggle. They don't care about the long term affects of such a social change. They don't care about the concerns of their opposition. All they care about is to be the sick bastards they are and to force us to be cool with it. That'll be the day.

Now, About Rush...

This nonsense regarding Rush Limbaugh's inability to take part in NFL ownership is just about the lamest crap I've heard in awhile. The crap this guy takes is just incredible, and mostly from those who don't listen to the guy with any meaningful regularity. All his opponents think they know him and what he's all about and what he really thinks. Yet, when you hear their complaints, they're based on this liberal charicature rather than on reality.

Rush is often accused of being a racist, or making racially sensitive remarks. (About par for the course for most conservatives.) Funny that no one is able to come up with a decent example of such. Sure, they like to point to the Donovan McNab incident during Rush's short-lived term on Monday Night Football. As you may recall, Rush felt that McNab was over-rated as a quarterback, that the League and network wanted to see a black quarterback as a star out or their own PC sensibilities. Some might consider this opinion racially sensitive. That might be true if it was a shot at McNab.

But it wasn't, it was a shot at the league and the networks. You'll notice that Rush said the guy was over-rated. He didn't say he sucked. He didn't say he wasn't an above average quarterback. Truly, the same could be said of any quarterback or athlete. Many think Peyton Manning is the greatest, or Tom Brady. As great as they are, does the hype match the reality? Rather subjective I think.

But Rush's statement was merely an observation on the state of race relations within the NFL and networks. Not a shot at McNab. The fact is that in all the years in which I've listened to Rush, I've never heard ANYTHING a reasonable person would call racist or racially insensitive.

I know I might get some argument on this. But bring evidence or don't waste my time. Feodor will likely drool on about what we don't understand from the black point of view. Maybe even DJ Black Adam will finally jump on board with some insight. But I find all these arguments to be weak. I don't need to be black to understand being left out, being given no respect, being abused and oppressed. I just don't understand street slang.

Rush is not a racist. Rush is a conservative. Those who accuse him don't listen to him. Those who accuse him don't have a clue and couldn't defend their accusations if a gun was put to their heads. Rush is looking into legal action. I hope he goes for it and forces his accusers to prove their allegations. What happens then will be interesting. Mainly, once they've been exposed as rhetorical bullies and the liars they are, how will that affect political correctness and the unsupportable perception of conservatives held by liberals. I'm guessing not one iota.

UPDATE: I just heard on Special Report with Bret Baier that some dude from CNN who attached racist quotes to Rush has recanted saying words to the effect that he knows Rush, likes Rush but Rush's rhetoric is extremely divisive, but that he didn't do his due diligence and apologized. Rick Sanchez is the guy's name (the show's still on and they just spoke of him again). Speaking the truth, or even what is perceived to be the truth, isn't divisive. What's divisive is liberal reaction to comments by conservatives like Rush.

Finally Home

Just arrived an hour ago. So nice to be home and done with that orientation business. Don't get me wrong. The trainers and other personnel were all very nice and professional. It's just that I didn't much care to go through it, and worse, to do so away from home and family. It's tough having to do what one has to do sometimes, but that's life.

Lot's to learn about trucking and how this company wants their people to do it. Rules and procedures galore and much testing to ensure knowledge thereof. Passed everything and am now officially an employee, though for the next two weeks or so (less if I do well enough, and I plan to do as well as possible), I'll have to work with a trainer over-the-road and impress upon him that I can do the job. Then I'll get my own truck and assignment and I'll be on my own. As I understand it, this phase is basically a guy doing a standard run with a trainee in the cab doing most of the work, with the trainer evaluating all. Finally, there is one more test at the very end of it before I get my own truck.

Once I'm on the road, with only myself to guide me (help is a phone call away), THEN I'll get to understand if I just made a huge career mistake.

Of course, I'm looking to get just enough experience to satisfy a company offering a local opportunity. Being home every night is the goal. Aside from merely being home with the family, which is where my heart is, I also have my own hobbies and interests, some of which I just can't any longer enjoy as an OTR trucker. I'm sure I'll enjoy aspects of the job, but I'll never enjoy not bowling, for instance. And I'll damn well never enjoy missing dinner with my wife and daughter.

So I'll be counting the assignments until three, then six months pass and every couple of weeks after, as I seek out that opportunity that matches my needs and desires best. Best case scenario would have the opportunity arising from within this same company, as I really don't care to switch employers at my age.

What sucks most is the fact that clowns run Washington right now. Some say we're beginning to emerge from the recession and the econmy is beginning to rebound. Of course the Obama people are taking credit. No surprise there. But the fact is that they were in the way. Still are. They need to back off and let the market take care of itself. The economy would rebound no matter what because that's how it works. Washington can only get in the way and slow or disrupt. The idea that we were on the brink was ludicrous. Yeah, it might have been rough, but rougher than now? How would the average guy notice the difference? The only action Washington should have taken and should be taking is to back off on those things it did to get in the way. Like lowering the corporate tax.

So if there's actual opportunity in the next three to six months, I'll try as I can to find a local run. Then life will truly be good, relative to my current situation. In the meantime, I'll be blogging as time allows via laptop, once I get one. Knowing I'll still get to mix it up some and also continue to show Feodor why all his education hasn't made him wise will make the road smoother.

Special Thanks to both Tugboat Captain and Geoffrey for comments and insights regarding life on the road. I appreciate it greatly.

Don't Make A Mess While I'm Gone.

I may not have another opportunity, so I will take this moment to say that I'll be out of town for at least a week, as I go up north to engage in the various orientation necessities of what might be my new job. I don't know how much me-time I'll have and to what extent I'll be able to check the blogs and emails. This process will be a week, and should I not totally screw up, I'll then go on the road with an instructor. Whether or not I get to come home first, I don't yet know, though I'm told going right out isn't the norm, which means I'll probably have to go right out. Then, being on the road with the instructor is normally about two weeks, though if I impress it'll be less, if I don't, it could be a bit longer. Assuming I'm acceptable, I would then go home and then report to a terminal in Gary, IN to get a truck and an assignment. At that point I'm officially a road warrior, putting in enough time to be considered experienced enough for a local gig, which is what I wanted in the first place. The company I'll be with handles enough different types of shipping that I could very well find a local gig with them, with less experience than others would demand. That is my hope.

So, while I'm gone, be sure to clean up after yourselves, and I'll try to check via cell phone, if it's not too much of a pain in the ass to do so. Fight nice.

World Opinion

I've always had a problem with the concept that George W. Bush damaged our standing in the world with his foreign policies. First, that what the world thinks of us should be of such great importance I find rather shallow and childish. Our primary concern should only be that we do what we feel is right, just as that concern should be the prime directive of each individual. "The World" isn't always the best moral guide in the first place.

But as this piece lays out, there are a number of issues that add up to our standing in the world.

It also points out something that I've always suspected to be true, that negative opinion is often a matter of personal politics, philosophy and/or ideology. Lefties like Obama see us as arrogant and imperialistic. He thinks we need to go about apologizing and doing so especially to our enemies, as if they are our enemies solely because of actions we've taken in the past, as opposed to their own self-interested view of how the world should be. Lefties the world over agree, but not all in the world are lefties. Not all in the world are irrational, non-thinking boobs. So while foreign soul-mates of our own US liberals pee themselves over who and what the United States of America is in their fevered minds, their opinions of us have no value and are not worthy of consideration in the crafting of our foreign policy.

I'd rather we stand alone friendless doing what is right, rather than sell our souls to satisfy those who's real interest is in what benefits themselves. I've got no problem with those countries who act in their own self interest. They owe that to their citizens. There's a lot wrong with those who think we shouldn't do the same because of how it might appear to other nations.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Just saw on Yahoo this evening that the president called Kanye West a jackass for his antics at the MTV Awards. Kudos to Barry for that astute assessment of West. Here's hoping Barry doesn't apologize.

I almost forgot. Easy to do with this little story since I don't watch MTV. But I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the graciousness of Beyonce Knowles who shared her time in the limelight with Taylor Swift, the victim of West's jackassery. West could learn a ton about class from Ms. Knowles.

Who'da thunk it?

This piece seems to contradict accepted liberal thinking regarding illegal immigration. The old line about illegals only doing the jobs Americans won't do seems to have been exposed as the steaming pile conservatives said it was. A couple of notable points:

1) As legal immigrants and native-born Americans have moved in to fill positions made available after ICE raids, wages for those positions have risen. Obviously, employers can pay crap when employees are too afraid of deportation to complain.

2) Attention is being paid to conditions that resulted in higher on the job death rates for illegals. Obviously, employers can ignore/overlook dangerous conditions when employees are too afraid of deportation to complain.

A possible downside is union organizing. These days, one can't overlook the possibility of unions working to improve conditions and pay morphing into the usual back-breaking wage hikes that has burdened the auto industry and others. Such pressures can also result in creative ways to eliminate the problem, which, said another way, is to eliminate the need for workers, such as through automation. This will put workers out of work again, but would keep product prices down. But for the immediate future, the bottom line is that the argument against open borders and "comprehensive immigration reform" can now be tossed. Americans ARE willing to do those jobs, especially in this economy.

For DJ Only

This is another dedicated thread for the benefit of one DJ Black Adam who is frequent visitor at Neil's blog. Just as with the thread for Dan only, which he seems to have abandoned, I would ask that no one comment here except for DJ and myself. At this writing, I don't know if he'll take me up on my invitation, and if he doesn't I would find that regrettable.

The point of this venture is a bit different in that we don't disagree on a basic point, which is, that racism is deplorable and we'd all be far better off if it didn't exist. But in this case, it seems that somehow I am lacking in my opposition or understanding of the nature, depth or total degree of it's existence. Naturally, I disagree and partly do because I don't see that it has permeated our modern era (in the USA)quite the way DJ believes it has and still does. Hopefully he will explain this thoroughly so that one of us, if not both of us, winds up more enlightened, at least to each other's POV.

I want to say lastly that I do not dislike DJ. While at first I thought he might be another looney-tune lefty, I've found he is more than that and generally expresses himself quite well. Unfortunately, we've neither of us explained ourselves to the other very well on this point and I truly hope he avails himself of this opportunity. We'll see.

& Now For Something Completely Different...

hat tip: Kyle-Anne Shiver

Lion of the Senate Dies

Staying up way too late as I too often do, I checked the tube, as I often do before I finally retire for the night, and learned that Senator Edward Kennedy has passed away. I can't remember the last time I agreed with the man, if ever I did, and I've often thought that his time was passed and he should have retired. But for good or otherwise, one cannot pretend he didn't have some kind of impact on the political climate in this country. He has served for a long time and as a rich dude, he didn't have to. So I give him at least that much, that he did serve his country in a manner he felt he should. For that I say, may he rest in peace.

Hide The Kids!!!!

She's back. After a sweet, but altogether brief period, Cindy Sheehan has returned. If anyone wanted to make the case that free speech is a bad idea, they need look no farther than this woman for the perfect example. Though there are several people on the left that make my skin crawl, this woman actually makes it separate from the rest of me.

We can start with her sanctimonious posturing. Sheehan is one of those goofy people who oppose the war because, "all killing is wrong". The stupidity and naivete of this statement is self-evident and no one puts it out there with all the idiocy inherent within it as does Sheehan. To her, the suffering of the natives in Middle Eastern war zones is laid at the feet of the dread "US MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!!!" without ever acknowledging the suffering of the people before we got there. (Hmmm. I guess that was the equally nefarious "US IMPERIALISM!!!") And of course, the mere statement "all killing is wrong" never includes abortion and apparently means that one's own death is preferable to the death of the guy trying to murder the one, when such a self-defense killing is the only way to prevent it. She must be one of those lunatics that believes everything can be solved diplomatically, no matter how despotic and wickedly ambitious a radical dictator can be. Such people are the greatest threat to their own security.

Then, of course, is her stance on the wars now being fought. There has been a lot of debate over whether or not we should have gone into Iraq. I believe it was the right move, and something like it should have been done earlier, probably during the first Gulf War of Bush 41 or during Clinton's years. The list of reasons for doing so was far greater than simply "oil" (and no, I will not list all the reasons yet again) and Hussein was inflicting all sorts of suffering upon his own people for which the Sheehans of the world have little pity and concern. And few had a problem with going into Afghanistan, figuring it to be the real source of our troubles on and around 9/11. Even Barry considered it the true target of our focus (and he's an idiot).

Sheehan, based on the quotes in the linked piece, seems to be concerned about her own popularity. This is evidenced by her insistance that she is unconcerned if people like her or not. This I doubt highly due to the mere mention of it. If she was truly unconcerned, why bring it up? She digs the attention. So much that she'll go get it from Hugo Chavez, of all people. Her support of this guy tells you all you need to know about her intelligence and love of country. Why she didn't stay with her dancing partner, I'll never know.

Finally, because I've already wasted too many keystrokes on the lunatic, is her voice. My goodness! what an assault on the eardrums! It doesn't just make me want to cover my ears, it makes me want to rip them off and plunge sharp objects into the bloody holes that would be left. When I hear her talk, especially when she is speaking to a crowd and thus raising her voice, I convulse. I flop around uncontrollably slamming my person onto the pavement. It's like the sound of the Nazgul in Lord of the Rings.

Anyway, what does it say about a person from whom her own family distances themselves? Her return is our suffering. I hope she doesn't draw much coverage. Please.

Stifling Opposing Viewpoints

This article (I hope it opens for ya) showed up in my email yesterday. It seems like it's getting even harder to find "fair and balanced" in everyday life. Where does it say that libraries should be the purveyors of morality?

The linked article demonstrates how the infiltration of homosexual enablers has taken hold in what should be a bastion of free thought and diverse points of view. They have embraced the notion of homosexuality as just a downright matter of happiness and rainbows.

Leaving aside for a moment one's personal opinion of this abhorent, unnatural and perverse behavior, either pro or con, can we not agree that in a setting such as a library there should be no push to one opinion or the other? That in a library we can find viewpoints of either position in order to learn and understand and thereby formulate our own opinions?

Obviously, as we can so easily see in every other aspect of the pro-homosexual movement, truth isn't the end game. Facts are of little value. All that matters is winning, damn the consequences. That this attitude has now infected even our public AND school libraries illustrates not only the depth of American Descent, but of human descent as well.

Cat Fight

Ah yes. Little has the appeal for the average man as a good cat fight. I came across this little piece via AOL and really didn't think this fight was still ongoing. That McCain chick is feisty.

But she isn't the only one who feels as she does. Michael Medved also believes that "moderate" Republicans are important in order for the party to regain power.

Well, I won't say that we need to reduce the "Big Tent" to pup size, but I think that to dilute the message to something less than conservative serves us poorly. We've always made the best gains by standing for conservative principles, not by rejecting them. Indeed, we saw that over the last couple of elections, beginning with the 2006 midterms, where Dems took power in Congress after Republicans showed themselves to be less than fiscally conservative. Even more so, Dems typically move to the center in order to get elected before exposing their truly leftist selves.

For myself, I believe that we do need as many people on the bus as possible. But that doesn't meant that just anyone should be driving. We need to lead with our strengths, and that's done by defending and articulating conservative principles. That's best done by those who have actually worked as if they truly understand and believe in those principles and have enacted or supported them when they had the chance.

For all of us, that means paying attention and rendering our support, whether by donating time or cash, to those who have proven themselves to be the type of conservative this country needs. Since those midterms in '06, America has taken major steps backwards. As righteous fear of Democratic policy proposals swell amongst even their own, now is when we should be involved. Now is when we should be in touch with the party demanding they act like Republicans.

We can welcome those who do not agree with every little point or plank. But if we end up looking like another version of our opponents, why should anyone bother with us? Illinois is now considering people for the senate seat Burris will be vacating. The party is backing Mark Kirk. I say, vote Democrat rather than let this boob pretend he's a conservative any longer. Get on the horn and get yourselves heard.

New Addition

I've finally gotten around to adding Craig's blog, "John Shuck Made Me Do This". I've been meaning to for some time and never did. There you will find the ongoing debate between Dan and Bubba. You will also find a few more recent postings that look interesting, though I've only given them a cursory look thus far. Check him out.

Road Warrior

Semi-big day for yours truly. Today I passed my Illinois Secretary of State exam and now have my CDL-A (Commercial Driver's License--Class A). I am only shy three endorsements which I will have by next week's end or thereabouts. For the uninitiated, endorsements are simply certifying that you can drive particular scenarios such as double/triple trailers, tankers, hazardous materials (which are the three I lack) and one could even get approved for busses. But if a job arises that doesn't require these endorsements I lack, I can drive their big rigs.

So nice to get that little monkey off my back. I wasn't as nervous as I thought I would be, though I prayed a lot, for both myself and the other candidates (though two out of four failed---perhaps my prayers were only half as good as I thought or I needed to pray twice as much as I did). I got a good natured examiner and light traffic with all the lights in my favor. Only one spot on the road course presented a challenge. I was idling in sixth gear approaching an intersection where I could see the left turn arrow had been on for a while. Four or five vehicles in my lane began to move, but the last care didn't move at all (the dude wasn't paying attention). At this point in the course, I would normally have downshifted only to sixth and if necessary, just stopped at the intersection. With a vehicle in front of you, you have to be able to see the pavement between you and not go closer (gives you the chance to go around if the guy stalls and is also a safety issue). I was at a point where I probably should have just stopped and then started over from second gear, but the dude began to move. I was already flipping the selector button down for the low gears and the stick just slipped out of gear. As I was still rolling a bit, I revved and tried to put it into fifth and got a bit of grind, so I revved again and it slipped nicely into fourth and I was able to proceed as if nothing special had happened (showing I was in control, when actually for a second there, I wasn't---there was no real danger, though, it just doesn't look good on such a test). Had I had trouble shifting to fourth, I probably would have failed the test. The rest of the test was uneventful except for the congratulations from the examiner when it was over.

For the rest of the day I didn't want to do anything. I was more anxious having passed than I was waiting for my turn to test. So nice to have it behind me. Now, of course, I have to think about if I even want to do this work. The liklihood of having to go over-the-road is very high and though I part of me wants to do that, it's also the part of me that wants to be a cowboy. Not really practical for who I am now at this age. I may have no choice, but I gotta see what I can find close to home that'll get me home every night. My life is what I do AFTER work. I don't want to live to work, I want to work to live (that is if I MUST work). All the things I like to do, all the things that mean I have a life happens after I punch out. At my age, I don't want to do less of it, I want to do more. And the worst of it, being away for extended periods from my wife and child----not good.

But I am happy that I passed the test and did so on the first try. No re-takes necessary for ole Marshall Art. Now I can focus on another test in three weeks, that being my first rank in ju jutsu. This should have happened over a year ago had I not developed a need for another ACL in my knee. Then the lay-off and less money. So now I can get anxious all over again.

On Cronkite

With the passing of Walter Cronkite, it didn't really phase me that even conservative pundits would cover his life and times and do so wistfully speaking of their personal relationships and observations of this man considered America's first anchorman. There's no denying the guy's impact on television news reporting and many claim that they had no idea what his political leanings were until after he retired, though some say his leanings began to show a few years before he was somewhat talked out of his job in favor of the chuckleheaded Dan Rather. He is, in some ways, the end of an era that has really long since passed, that being the era of objective reporting of the news without the injection of the reporter's personal agenda.

But tonight on Bill O'Reilly's show, Billy O said something that pushed me to provide this link when I had not planned on doing so. O'Reilly said that he was telling the truth about Viet Nam, or sentiments to that effect. The link presents what I've heard from a variety of sources for years. Cronkite was a major factor in turning sentiment in America towards the radical anti-war drivel that helped seal our fate in that war.

As the link relates, the Tet Offensive was a resounding victory for American/S.VietNam forces with the commies suffering casualties ten times what we did. That's a victory in anyone's book, but Uncle Walter chose to focus only on OUR losses. You'd think that for a veteran war reporter, he would understand that allied losses occur in every war. That a war is decided by which side suffers more losses. We were winning. We should have and could have won. This turning of American sentiment (and if anyone thinks Uncle Walter didn't have that kind of impact on viewers, they likely weren't born until after he left the airwaves) was noticed with wonder by leaders of North Viet Nam and helped them strengthen their resolve. As our people began to protest after this great victory, they figured our hearts weren't into it and their tactics changed and their spirits rose. They knew they just had to keep on keeping on and the whining from our leftists in the streets was their indicator that they were winning and not us.

Thanks a lot, Walter. May God forgive you.

Women Should Stifle?

Archie Bunker always used to tell his wife Edith to "Stifle!" when he no longer wanted to hear her speak. In the ongoing debate regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the idea of women being silent in church is often brought up to prove something about my true adherence to Scripture. (It should be noted that I do not claim to be the perfect representation of Christian living, but only that I don't try to twist Scripture to justify my failures.)

The argument is that since Paul speaks of women being silent in churches, that it shows that change has come to the Body of Christ and thus, such change can and/or has also come regarding the Church's position on homosexual behavior. Well, I had never spent much time looking at those verses that claim that women stifle themselves in church, but considering the choir in mine, that wouldn't be a good thing. In addition, I had always felt that there was much more to the story but that there were far more important concerns.

Since the argument has come up again, and by a particular visitor who relies on it greatly, I have begun to research the issue and among the many sites I've visited in this quest, this one explains the issue in a manner that matches what I had basically felt from my own Biblical study. I doubt it will suffice for the visitor in question, but it is a sensible and logical explanation nonetheless.

The site from which it comes, "The Refiner's Fire" is an interesting site I intend to examine further, but whether or not one agrees with what they say, I don't think they are off base at all regarding the issue at hand. As I've said, I've visited several other sites and have found pretty much the same thing. I just like the way it's laid out at this site.

A Forum For Dan Only

This is a post specifically for Dan. It is something I've been wanting to do for a while and I have been trying to find something that is as comprehensive in its covering of the issue of homsexuality from a Christian perspective as this piece is.

It is put together by a guy named Ross A. Taylor. I don't know if he designs helicopters. I don't know exactly what he does for a living, whether religion is a hobby or a career or what. For all I know, he cleans stalls at the racetrack. It really doesn't matter, except to one particular visitor to this blog.

What's important is what he presents in his piece. And it is only that to which I hope Dan will respond. This piece covers every pro-homosex argument I've ever heard or seen or read as far as the faith is concerned. Dan's friend, Michael with the three names has hit on much of it. (Though I hadn't the education at that point, I found those arguments suspect and it earned me banishment from that blog.)

Of the many people used as sources for Taylor, both pro and con, are bits from the same Olliff and Hodges, the Hodges one visitor criticizes because of his main field, as if he is then disqualified from commenting on the issue. (Perhaps as a result of Hodges main profession, this particular visitor can't imagine someone being expert on another topic at the same time. Kinda points to his own insecurities regarding his own abilities.)

Another is Robert Gagnon, who has been dismissed for reasons unknown (except for one really silly reason I heard from a homosexual blogger who never visits here). All I know is that the homosexual enablers pooh-pooh Gagnon's expertise without explanation.

It is my hope that should Dan take me up on this challenge, that he will resist trashing the people making the claims and address only the claims themselves. If those claims are wrong or mistaken, there must be some explanation as to why which can easily be reviewed by others so as to make their own opinions. For example, regarding another piece from Olliff and Hodges that I cut and pasted to my first ever post, Dan, who says he actually read it, said simply that he just doesn't buy it, without ever explaining why or what he found wrong with their perspective.

This challenge to Dan is in response to his insistence that his current beliefs regarding homosexual marriage is based on prayerful meditations, his God-given reasoning and serious study of the Bible. Well, we can't really speak to his meditations or his reasoning. But his reasoning, I would expect, must in some way be based on his Biblical study. As this Taylor piece suggests very strongly, there doesn't exist anything Biblical that could influence anyone's reasoning toward the belief that God would bless homosexual marriages, relationships or loving and committed monogomous homosexual relationships.

I really hope Dan takes this challenge and reads the link. He can take all the time he needs. He can refer to any of the links found within (though at least a couple are broken) and try to show why any of the points made are mistaken or false. I don't think he can. As I said, the piece is pretty comprehensive. It even allows, a time or two, where a pro-homosex argument is possibly sound, even if not strongly so.

In the meantime, I want to ask everyone else to refrain from any commentary at all. If Dan is especially busy, it could take a couple of days just to get through it (it did me with the usual interruptions of family life) and if he wants to check out the links within, that'll make it take longer. Then, let him take the time to address whatever points to which he may feel he has a good counterpoint.

Should he agree to go ahead, I hope he doesn't just dismiss the whole thing without any comment. I hope he feels comfortable rejecting his current philosophy if the argument compels him so. If he's as open to being persuaded as I am, he will find support here. If he is not persuaded, he will find support only if he can explain his resolve against the evidence presented.

After a couple of weeks, whether Dan comments or not, then anyone can comment. But Dan has first rights of commentary and I'll delete any comment that publishes before him. The only caveat to this whole thing is if he and Bubba decide to take up Craig's offer, at which time they can both link to this article as it serves their debate there. Then, this post will be open to anyone who cares to address the points made in the piece.

It's a tough challenge, Dan. How strong are your convictions? How good is your ability to defend what you believe against the overwhelming evidence that you will encounter here? I believe you are misled. Show me why I'm wrong.

Sad Realities

I came across this sordid tale and hesitated to present it. It's disturbing without question. It riles me as little else can. There has been calls for the death penalty for people like the scum in the story. I can't say that I don't agree with that sentiment.

That such monsters exist in our world is not the issue. It is not the issue either that this particular monster is a homosexual. What is the issue is the fact that the media didn't see fit to cover this story as they did an earlier rape case referred to in the link, and likely familiar to everyone not living in a shack in the woods.

How can this be? How can such a horror not compel every news agency to report this? Is the mainstream media so in the bag for the homosexual movement that even stories as horrifying as this one won't be worthy of headlines?

Obviously this is so. I recall Rush Limbaugh once reporting on a homosexual rape by a member of the Navy that was never covered. And are we to assume that all those pedophile priests that are used to besmirch the Catholic Church are simply heteros who couldn't find little girls to abuse? Sure. If you believe that, I've got some magic beans I'm willing to sell ya.

Who cares what "orientation" a perpetrator is where the victims are kids? But why hide it? Unlike some, including some who visit here, I'm not willing to assume only the best about anyone, any more than I'm willing to assume the worst. Isn't the former every bit as judgemental as the latter? This is certainly the manner in which the media should be doing its investigations and reporting.

Does it mean anything that this scumbag is a homosexual? Who knows? It seems to matter when a lawbreaker is right wing or Evangelical. Perhaps, however, if the media wouldn't pretend it doesn't matter (as if they have the brains to know one way or the other), we might find out. Or we may find out about something we'd wish we'd have known a long time ago, for good or ill. But the point is that just like the media refuses to report when the latest shooter is a Muslim, they also refuse to report when a perpetrator is a homoseuxal. One can only surmise that the sad reality is that their support for the homosexual movement, and I think it's a fair suspicion that most of the media supports them, compels them to hide this little detail. Shameful.

Happy Independence Day!!!

Yes, that's why the 4th of July is honored. It's the day we recognized as the day we formally claimed our independence from Britain. It's currently my favorite period in American history (as my interests in such things change for a variety of reasons). As such, average movies, such as Mel Gibson's "The Patriot", are more enjoyable for me. But several recent books I've read (or on deck to read) cover that period, so I'm getting better insights into the mindsets of our forefathers and the times in which they lived.

In this day and age, there is little that relates to that time in the life of our country. We hear references to those times mostly in lamentations. Our "leaders" nowadays bear no resemblance to those who risked so much to form a new nation. Without a doubt, our current president is about as far from our first presidents as one can possibly imagine, without being a total Ayatollah or Fuhrer. We've been sliding to this abyss for quite some time, and now, Barry is trying to push us over the edge.

That we as a nation are dangling over this precipice is without question. It is only a matter of what we do about it. Now is the time to look back to our nation's beginnings and study all that led to our revolution, what was sacrificed and put at risk, and most importantly, what words like "freedom" and "liberty" really mean. We cannot continue on the path to which our nation strayed several presidencies ago, and to which Obama gleefully and boldly now travels at such a dangerous speed.

Pay attention. Get involved. Call your representatives and hound them until they understand just how they are to represent us. With the situation in Minnesota resulting in the election of Stuart Smalley, it is more important than ever to do so. When 2010 arrives, it might be too late to correct the harm done by Smalley's victory, but corrections can and must be made.

Too many have lost sight of what our America is supposed to be and mean. Some are beginning to realized their mistake last November. Hopefully more will awaken before we begin that long fall over that precipice, and the painful and fatal splat that signals its end. Complacency and apathy can no longer be tolerated of ourselves. Action is mandatory.

In the meantime, don't blow off any fingers. Don't stand too close to the grill. Sedate your dogs. Enjoy the show.

I Love Who Truly?

This link is to a video from the Mississippi United Methodist Annual Conference. I got it from OneNewsNow.com, and it shows a lesbian couple giving their testimonial. To me it's quite sad. They appear to be decent people who love the church. But like most trapped in the lie of homosexuality, they believe that God blesses their union. As indicated two posts down from this one, there are many ways in which homosexuals and their enablers seek to support this notion. But their arguments never hold up under scrutiny, though some of those arguing won't own up to that fact, or are too stupid to realize their failure.

One woman made a statement I found most troubling, and even some heterosexuals buy into this one, as do many atheists in their own way. She said, (paraphrasing here) "I know that to be true to God means being true to myself." This is the exact opposite of the truth. Our true selves are rarely the stuff of glory, to say the least. To be true to God means that our old selves die and we are born again, to live a life that conforms with His Will. Even as we try to co-exist with the rest of society, we often have to deny our true selves to conform to the will of our communities in the sense that we must obey laws of those communities. But God's Law and Will takes a back seat to our "true selves"? How does that make any sense?

Conforming to the will of society, as we try to live our lives within the law, can be difficult by itself. We have to abide all sorts of limits, control our behaviors, obey the law. If we were true to our own selves, how many of us would truly drive like we own the road, over indulge in alcohol, take what appeals to us whether it belongs to someone else or not? It might manifest in more subtle ways by only ignoring the laws of common decency and propriety and decorum.

And we would pay the price for such selfishness. We'd be locked up, fined, shunned by the rest of society, or just be considered total jerks.

Yet somehow, we're to believe that God will be just fine with being true to ourselves rather than being true to His Will. Isn't that self-worship? Making ourselves a god who's pleasure is our greatest concern? I think there's a major commandment against that.

Seems to me that the issue isn't only about homosexuality and imagined rights for those so afflicted. The issue is how badly we want to please God. I'd bet that if each of us take a moment, we'd each find within ourselves (and for some of us it might not take much thought or searching) that to which we cling in order to deny ourselves the struggle it would take to deny the fault. We'll say, "That's the way I am. I've always been that way." as if taking that position absolves us of the effort to improve. Indeed, in this way, homosexuals are just like the rest of us. The rest of us just don't organize.

True to ourselves, or true to Him? One way must take priority at the expense of the other.

Judicial Empathy?

Headline in today's Chicago Sun-Times

BEAT COP WALKS

It's the story of the sentencing of an off-duty cop convicted of beating up a lady bartender. This jerk weighs about 250, and the bartender, 115. Apparently, he got all liquored up and surly as well. Anthony Abbate played tough-guy with two others in the bar before turning on Karolina Obryka, who was trying to get him to leave the pub. His actions were caught on tape via the pub's security camera and the sight of this ogre beating down this girl is disturbing to say the least.

But as bad as this jerk's actions are, it doesn't compare to the judge at his sentencing. Judge John J. Fleming sentenced this goon to two years probation, 130 hours community service at a homeless shelter and a stint in anger management classes. He said, "If I believed sentencing Anthony Abbate to prison would stop people from getting drunk and hitting people, I'd give him the maximum sentence."

Never mind that Abbate didn't just "hit" Obryka, he beat her and did so after smacking other people. I don't believe that deterring other drunken jerks has anything to do with administering punishment for law-breaking. More to the point, NOT properly punishing Abbate could lead some drunks to believe that they, too, might get away with beating people up while under the influence. But that ain't all...

Fleming also pointed to the fact that Abbate has no prior criminal history and didn't cause serious harm to Obryka, who only suffered bruises. How nice. Prior history is irrelevant considering the difference in size between the two, at least as far as I'm concerned. If the video is on YouTube at this point, one can judge that for one's self. But it seems that Fleming cut Abbate some slack for failing to beat Obryka more severely than he did. Maybe he was too drunk to succeed, but he looked like he was trying awfully hard in the video.

Now this doesn't compare to the Bill O'Reilly piece of the two year sentence given to a man who raped a little girl, but it is the same type of judical stupidity, only on a lesser level. Obryka is damaged emotionally still, but will likely get over it. The child maybe not. How can judges be so wrong in cases that most anyone can better judge at first glance? How does a behemoth NOT get some jail time for beating up a woman less than half his size? It doesn't make sense, but stories like this should make people record the stories and the names of these judges and then look for their names at the next election.

As a sidebar, it seems the pathetic, annoying and totally useless Perez Hilton has gotten into another little dustup. He reportedly was punched a bit by the manager of the Black Eyed Peas for arguing with a band member over a review Hilton gave of a recent tune or album. What's more, before getting popped, Hilton, a homosexual who's public presence does the agenda no good, called Will I. Am a fag. Imagine. Anyway, he's now suing the manager for, I believe, $25K. I wonder how the judge will rule in that one.

(Oh yeah. Hilton went right to the internet and posted another annoying vid of himself sobbing over this incident. Man. I wanna punch the guy just for seeing him. I feel sorry for him being somebody who's face just begs to be punched.)

Got Milk?

This is an interesting article I found through a link at Neil's blog. The link was to another blog that reprinted the end of the article. I found the entire thing quite enlightening.

This article presents info typical of both Hollywood and the homosexual movement.

First, as if it's any surprise, it shows how Hollywood airbrushed the warts and blemishes that is the real life of Harvey Milk. Not having seen the Sean Penn depiction myself, nor having any desire whatsoever to do so, I really didn't need anyone to tell me that the film presented Milk as some sort of saintly creature. I didn't need anyone to tell me that his true self would be left out. Hollywood, in some self-destructive, death wish-like mental defect, likes to push liberal crap that draws no one and makes them very little money. This movie obviously stuck to the game plan and so well that the Hollywood loons were properly smitten. But it only showed "their truth", not truth.

Secondly, the article points to the common tactic of the homosexual activist to lie to further their agenda. Milk knew this, apparently, and as is S.O.P., lied as needed. What a shocker.

Thirdly, like the Matthew Shepard case, the murder of the Milk was NOT because of his homosexuality. Yet the movie, and the memory of this low-life, is based on that lie. I had never heard that White supported the right of a homosexual teacher to teach. No. We're to believe he murdered Milk because Harvey was a homosexual.

Such lies, distortions and omissions are typical of the movement. How could anyone support a movement that so easily lies?

Kudos To Sullivan

Recognizing that anyone can be a stand-up guy even if I normally oppose him, I offer this interesting piece about Andrew Sullivan. I always focussed on the stupidity of the law proposal itself and its very likely ramifications for our nation. Didn't think of the motivations in quite this manner. I applaud Sullivan for being so straightforward about it. But it shouldn't surprise anyone the lengths to which the activists will go, what with deceit being a common weapon of theirs.

Those Traitorous Bastards!!!

This article claims that the APA has backed off on the idea of the existence of a "gay gene". While I still can see a biological influence for homosexual attractions, my position has been that such influence doesn't demand acceptance by either society or the individual so influenced.

But I wonder now what supporters of homosexual marriage and other "rights" will now do with this aspect removed from the arsenal of reasons for support. That is, if they really AREN'T born that way, then what does that do to the agenda and those that support it? Everything is predicated on the notion that there is no choice in the matter, that they are born homosexual, that God made them that way and there is no changing it. The APA disputes that now. Does that make the APA just another homophobic enemy? Look what they did to blacks after Prop 8.

I invite those who have supported homosexuality in previous posts to return and render their thoughts on this news. Does it change your perspective at all? Does it lessen your support for, not the people themselves, but what they insist society owes them? And of course, why or why not?

I wonder if I should hold my breath or not while I wait.

Still More Regarding The Torture Issue

I can't help myself. When I see still another thoughtful piece on this issue of "torture", I feel compelled to share it with the likely vein hope of turning on a light in the dark and totally empty halls of the psuedo-sanctimonious liberal minds of some who visit here. This Bruce Walker piece puts the issue in perspective, as surely as previous links have, but sometimes a different voice alerts the dead spirits of the falsely pious where other voices failed. Some may wonder why I even try. I believe that the nausea one feels and the contempt felt by another is really a moral detoxification beginning. (When one introduces nothing but healthy foods and supplementation into a fouled system, the patient may endure several days of gastrointestinal torment as the body, egged on by the good stuff, purges itself of the toxins that made that body home.) Should these deluded souls see the light, the nasty reactions will cease and they will be transformed into more sensible judges of morality. This is my fervent hope because I care.

A Two-fer

I'm presenting two articles that drew my attention. The first is from Kyle-Anne Shiver. I really like this lady's articles and this one in particular echoes a sentiment that I've had since November. The feeling has only grown like snowball rolling down a hill getting larger as it goes.

The second is an article by Bruce Walker and speaks of the misconception the left has about the right. I agree with the ten points he lists, so I guess that means I'm of the far right, rather than just simply a right-winger.

The connection between these two articles is the poor understanding of the left regarding who they put in charge for the next four years and who they rejected. It's pretty clear they aren't thinking.

My Feelinz Is Hoit

For your entertainment and amusement I offer this from Geoffrey's blog. It is also educational as it should display the liberal notion of tolerance and the free exchange of ideas. Note that he links to several of my posts, and without discussing why he finds any of it troubling, he merely lashes out against your humble host. Now I know that for all of his education and reading that he likely doesn't possess the ability to wage a civil discussion regarding the merits of my position, but I did invite him to do so nonetheless. I believe that's the way it's supposed to be done, even if staying home and gossiping like a little girl provides more satisfaction for some.

This is why I appreciate those who disagree and still show up to try to persuade or present their side. People like Marty, ER, Les, Vinny (when ER, Les and Vinny have a mind to), particularly Dan Trabue, who, God bless him anyway, holds firmly to such poor interpretations of Scripture, and even that prize winning troll Feodor. That's what blogging is all about: presenting ideas and opinions, seeking to persuade or be persuaded, to argue, get pissed occasionally, to take a few cheap shots for personal enjoyment and laughs, but not, as Geoffrey thinks he doesn't, to take ourselves too seriously.

From My Inbox

An email I received this morning:

It was once said that a black man would be president "when pigs fly"! Indeed. 100 days into Obama's presidency...Swine Flu!

Abso-freakin'-lutely!

Here's a little gem that reinforces my claim of hypocrisy leveled against folks like Dan who are oh-so concerned about the moral dilemma of harsh interrogation techniques applied against uncooperative terrorist detainees believed to have actionable intel regarding plots to murder our own people or allies. I believe this concern to be totally fraudulent particularly when considering what actually occurs during the termination of a pregnancy. The same people who wring their hands over the discomfort of a sadistic terrorist have no problem defending the "choice" that results in the dismemberment of an infant. To support such a heinous procedure gives weight to the opinion that concern for a detainee's comfort is little more than a ruse to disguise the desire to further attack the Bush administration for the crime of having legally won the 2000 election. Just as they didn't care about winning the war, or more accurately, losing it if it would reflect badly on Bush, they now have no care for the consequences that war crimes investigations would have on our security, the ability to gather intelligence or the ability to protect our people. Their regard for the moral highground is a lie.

Can't Let Go

This torture debate still holds my attention. The comments in opposition to my opinion on the subject reflect what I consider to be misguided by some, and completely dishonest by others. Those are the two possibilities I'll recognize because "stupid" is only alternative. So for this post, I'm going to offer a number of opinion pieces that keep the issue in its proper perspective.

Kyle-Anne Shiver
Rob Miller
Lee Cary
Thomas Sowell
Lorie Byrd
Debra J. Saunders

These are just a few examples of serious and open-eyed opinion on the subject. Of the many angles covered in these pieces, the most salient I believe is dispelling the notion that we are somehow immoral in our use of enhanced techniques, whether they are labelled as "torture" or not. None of the articles insist that we are perfect or mistake free, but that we are striving to do our best to protect our people and for that we need not apologize nor beg the approval of either the world, or self-serving Bush-haters here at home, disguised as people who care about the high road.