Sunday, October 18, 2009

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.

Friday, October 16, 2009

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.

Thursday, October 08, 2009

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.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

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.