Monday, August 31, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
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.
Friday, August 21, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, August 10, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)