Merry Christmas!!!

I'll just leave it there!

Happy Thanksgiving!

To all who visit, whether you comment or simply read, the Happiest of Thanksgivings. Let your stomachs be satisfied, your hearts be touched with love from the gathering of family and friends and your souls Blessed with God's Grace. Thanks be to God.

Just Because

Show Me The Money!!!

I've been wanting to post something regarding the midterm election results but haven't yet settled on an angle. But as I scanned a few blogs and sites to see what other people are saying, I came upon a few comments at one of the lib sites on my blogroll that seems to be a big concern there. These comments revolve around money in politics and corporate influence and who's really running the show.

Now, my opinion is that if we are indeed being controlled by "big money" or some cabal of super wealthy industrialists/capitalists who pull the strings behind the scenes, making decisions as to who will sit in the White House and such, we are still responsible for this situation. We ultimately control everything by being engaged in the process or delegating that responsibility by our abdication of that control we possess. And I don't care how much money a few rich dudes have, they simply cannot control 300 million Americans in revolt. If they want to stay wealthy and in power, they can't piss us off.

That's the macro. The micro is that what these mythical figures want or don't want is not likely going to affect the destiny of the average American with the ambition to accumulate wealth of his own. There are far too many success stories for the contrary to be true. But they do provide convenient fall guys for those looking for someone to blame for their failure to succeed in this endeavor.

So, as one nutty commenter at this particular liberal blog whined about the stupidity of the electorate, very much as I had after the 2008 elections but without the substantive supporting evidence, the subject of money's influence seemed to be a part of their explanation for the sea change of this midterm. I decided to look for some stats regarding the source and destination of money in politics. In doing so, I came upon OpenSecrets.org, a veritable cornucopia of such stats, info and articles on the subject.

Some of the info I found to be what I would expect. For example, most union money goes to Dems. This is no surprise. What I did find surprising is how often one finds sectors of industry giving equally to both parties.

But what I am most interested in learning, and rarely find without massive media focus when some situation is exposed for all to see, is just when and how the money is influencing anything. I may find that at OpenSecrets as I continue to peruse, but I don't think it's so easy to assume money's influence. That is, which came first, the money or the proposal? Did the money really bribe a politician, or did the politician's positions attract the money?

For example, in 2008, the site shows that the biggest recipient of donations from the American Federation of State, City and Municipal Employees was Barry and Hillary. Are they trying to persuade these two to work in favor of this federation, or does the federation donate because Barry and Hillary already work in a manner favorable to organizations like theirs? This isn't always clear but I suspect it is the latter. And thus, I don't have a problem with it. MY political donations ALWAYS go to those politicians that already mirror my own positions and interests. Why should it be a problem for groups of people to do the same? Indeed, without really trying, many large organizations, be they interest groups or corporations, are reflective of someone's position on one or more issues, even though that someone isn't a part of that org. or corp.

Most puzzling are those contributors that are shown to "on the fence" and give equal or near equal amounts to both parties. I would guess that they are trying to either influence everyone to their personal point of view or are just looking to support the political process.

But for those who worry about money in politics, I think there is no issue here unless it can be determined that a politician is plainly guilty of accepting money to enrich himself by supporting legislation he would otherwise not support on principle alone. Is it really money influencing politics if there are politicians who already favor the opinion of the contributor? The influence of money argument suggests that it is more common that politicians only get in the game for money for themselves and that they don't care about anything but money and power and that it is always the other party where this occurs. That just doesn't sound reasonable to me. Even if that were true, one would have to side with the prevailing attitudes to attract the votes to get to the money and power. I'm neither that cynical or conspiratorial.

Then, of course, are those who complain that they cannot compete with the big money, that it isn't fair for a single donor to contribute so much when we common folk haven't the funds to match. But this is a weak argument. If the position on a given issue is strong and properly articulated, if enough people support that position, how can money make a difference? A billion dollars of contributions doesn't vote. People vote. It still comes down to people being responsible for paying attention throughout the time between elections. It's not numbers of dollars that matters, it's numbers of informed voters. That will trump the influence of money every time.

Blogroll Update

Clicking on DemocracyLover accidentally, I discovered that site no longer exists. In fact, it seems as if DL no longer blogs or no longer blogs under that name. Seems I'll have to review my list and delete or update any other changes.

I wonder what became of him? I know other lib visitors still blog, even if they no longer wish to blog here. One guy, Les, my favorite lib, has gone so far as to "defriend" me on Facebook, though I wonder if he still lurks. But his blog wasn't on the roll anyway.

It's really too bad that I've lost so many visitors from the left. I'm told it's because I'm too stubborn to listen to reason, or some such whine. Apparently, if one does not concede to a lefty, one is stubborn or lacking in sense or intelligence. OR, they will go with the tiresome "we'll have to agree to disagree", which I can do at the end of the day, but makes no sense in a debate. If one wishes to present an opinion, it only makes sense that one be prepared to defend it against those who might find that opinion to be crap.

But I remain open to challenges to MY opinions and am willing to see it to whatever conclusion results. I just didn't figure on the most common conclusion being the lefty running away like a crybaby saying I'm a meanie.

Here's an example of how this has worked out from the other direction. There is one issue that comes to mind over which I have not been able to defend or explain. That would be the supposed restrictions Paul speaks of regarding women speaking in church. It also covers the notion of whether or not women are meant to be or should be ministers. I haven't gotten to a personal conclusion on the topic but feel that it is generally not a woman's role in the church. When the subject comes up, I choose to shelve the issue as I am not settled on the issue. Were I forced to wage such a battle, I would have to concede my position for the time being until such time as I could jump in again with new arguments. (This is not an invitation to open such a discussion at this time.)

But on other arguments, such as abortion or sexual morality, all true facts and arguments support MY positions to a point of frustration for my opponents and rather than show grace under fire, as one particular opponent constantly demands of me, they flee showing their own stubbornness in refusing to concede anything no matter how weak their arguments are shown to be.

So I wonder if this is what compelled DL to bail on the blogging thing. I hope it wasn't something actually serious, such as illness or death. For even the most insufferable trolls I wish for no such end, but only mature and civil discussion. All are welcome here, at least so far.

What's Really Important

In my last post, where I dealt with an apology from IL Senate candidate Steve Raushenberger for referring to homosexual marriage as "abnormal", little Parklife pooh-poohed my comments as a 2.4 on the "unfortunate-postings-richter" scale due to current coverage of the Tyler Clementi suicide. Oh, yeah. And the post was "homophobic" too, of course. Idiocy. I can just imagine his outrage had I posted the Ellen Degeneres call for a stop to bullying, which I was hoping to do. AOL or Yahoo had the vid and now neither does and I don't feel like searching for it. It's not necessary.

I was not surprised that Degeneres would weep over the death of this kid, or the other two or three she mentioned who also took their lives after being harrassed in one way or another. It is indeed sad, unfortunate, horrible, tragic and any number of other somber and negative adjectives one could think to apply to such an event. Of the few things in this life that can really get me going emotionally, the death of a kid is tops.

But, though I won't go so far as to say that Degeneres' concerns are motivated solely to promote the agenda homosexuals pretend doesn't exist, I have to object to the implication that there is something more devastating, more tragic, that a bullied homosexual kid would take his own life than any other bullied kid. I mean, why focus only on homosexual kids and not all kids who are bullied? But she calls this sad event a wake-up call to a phenomena that is epidemic. I don't believe it is.

This isn't the first time I've touched on this topic. It's come up in discussions of the infiltration into schools by homosexual activist groups posing as folks concerned about bullying, but only dealing with bullied homosexuals, while they really seek to further the agenda that homosexuals pretend doesn't exist.

Bullying by kids against other kids is as old as human existence. I'll bet it's older than the oldest profession. Kids are mean bastards. They really are. They are guided to be something better if they have half-way decent parents, but left to their own, well, I wouldn't want to leave them to their own devices. Lord of The Flies, anyone?

Kids who are bullies will bully for any reason that presents itself, and in lieu of such a presentation, will create one to serve the purpose. Kids who are bullies think bullying is fun. They get a kick out of it, and like adult bullies, they are charged up by the feeling of power they get from running roughshod over a helpless victim. The reason to bully is irrelevant to them. The victim might be fat, short, a different race, might have a big nose or wear thick glasses, might be the teacher's pet or be a goody-two-shoes or yes, might be as queer as a three dollar bill in one way or another. But what is common among these unfortunates is that they are all weaker in some way, or appear to be or are when they find themselves within the circle of the bully and his lackies.

So the bullies go for it. They do what they do and if the kid is a homo, that's just an excuse for the bully to express his personal brand of malevolence. But is the homo more likely to get bullied? I don't know if we can make that judgement. According to FBI hate crimes stats for 2008, 7780 single bias incidents revealed that 51.3% were motivated by race. Of that number, only 1200 were anti-homo events, which is a bit less than 15.5%. Ellen says it's a growing issue, but we're told that kids these days don't have as much a problem with homosexuality. I'm confused. 15% of the total hate crimes doesn't sound like an epidemic. 77% of school kids claim to have been bullied. If 15% of those are homosexuals, what of the other 85?

I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of child homosexuals killing themselves. But even to claim that they are killing themselves in greater numbers would require some evidence (as if the reason for kids killing themselves matters in the first place). I've found that half of the kids who consider themselves Goths have considered suicide seriously. (Or perhaps it was half the Goths have done so. I don't recall for sure and it's besides the point.) Depression among teens is commonplace and a major factor in all teen suicides, be they homos or not. The real issue here is that kids consider suicide at all. The reason for it is irrelevant.

So, notice the two major irrelvancies. The reason to bully and the reason to kill one's self. The reasons for either are of no concern to any rational and truly caring person. I don't care why a bully bullies. I just want him to stop. And I don't care why any kid wants to off himself. I just want him to go on living.

If you're going to say that you are concerned about bullying, then deal with the agressive tendencies of the bullies. Come down hard on every incident and make that one of those "zero tolerance" thingies that are all the rage in schools these days. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for bullying. Bullies need help. Some need incarceration. Left unchecked, they're more likely to go on to do worse things.

If you're going to say that you are concerned about the victims of bullying, then show concern for them all equally without favoring the homosexuals as being in greater need of protection. That's absolute crap and an assault on the dignity and value of all those other kids who are suffering just as badly at being bullied and harrassed for a different reason.

And if you say you are concerned about teen suicides, don't pretend that homosexuals are checking out in greater numbers. From what I've read, it's up across the board and the reason is the least important aspect. The choice of suicide as a viable option for anyone is reason to be concerned, and those who preside over kids should take pains to learn about the warning signs.

Finally, if the Ellens of the world want to insist that homosexual kids are somehow more likely to commit suicide over bullying or harrassment, doesn't that say something about the nature of homosexuals? Amongst those who aren't impacted by the pressures of the activists pushing the agenda that homosexuals pretend doesn't exist, there is still the question of which comes first: are emotional problems the result of being homosexual, or can emotional problems result in some turning to homosexuality? Of all the aspects surrounding the issue of homosexuality never to have been settled definitively, this is but one. A minor one perhaps, but when the issue concerns kids, I don't much care what the activists think or feel. It's something that needs to be settled.

Just Some Stuff

Why Apologize?

Steve Raushenberger came in second in the Illinois GOP primary vote for US Senator to Jack Ryan, whose opponent wound up being one Barack Hussein Obama. When Ryan dropped out of the campaign after his "sealed" divorce documents were to be opened for all the world to see (what's the point in sealing them?), the Illinois GOP, in a staggering display of stupidity, tapped Alan Keyes to take Ryan's place. Though I like Keyes, I thought the smart move was to go with the runner up in the primary, Raushenberger, and throw all support behind him. The result of the GOP decision was disastrous and now look where we are.

Now, Raushenberger is vying for state senator and recently, following a debate or interview, apologized for having called "gay marriage" abnormal. My question is why would anyone apologize for speaking the truth? I think Raushy is a bright guy, but I think he should have stood firmly behind what I'm sure he knows is true. The issue of normalcy is separate from what the homo lobby sees as civil rights. Though the latter is debatable (barely), the former is a self-evident fact.


Hostage Crisis

The current blather from the White House and Dem leadership is that the Republicans are holding the middle class tax cuts hostage in order to benefit the wealthy. This level of gall should not be surprising to anyone. It has constantly been said by the same people that the Bush tax cuts were unfunded, as if funding is necessary to slash taxes. The fact is that spending should have been cut at the same time, and current spending should never have been implemented. The lefty point of view is what is known as "bass-ackwards". There should have been no spending that was not within the current levels of incoming revenues. No doubt spending was done with the aim of having as much of the Bush cuts lapse as could be gotten away with.

But to suggest that it is the Republicans who are holding the cuts hostage is nonsense. The tax rates are what they are to the extent Bush was able to get them reduced, which means also to the limits of time he was able to secure. People with actual brain matter understand that letting the cuts expire is a tax hike. The right wants everyone to continue benefitting from the current rate, particularly now during bad economic times, and that would include those with the greatest impact on job creation. The left prefers the lie that those people should be footing the bill for whatever wacky federal expenditure the Dems can dream up. But they don't care enough about the middle class, or those lower who no longer had to pay since the Bush cuts went into effect, to allow the greatest producers to keep what they've earned. So it is Obama & Co. who is REALLY holding the middle class cuts hostage. The bastards.


Where's The Outrage?

I just heard a story in the past couple of days that Obama is looking for ways to scrutinize our internet conversations in an attempt to head off terrorist activity. It seems that the baddies have taken to using the world wide web to communicate and do so by extreme routing methods that make getting a warrant useless. Hmmmm. Didn't we hear all sorts of wailing over similar actions by Bush and his security people when they sought to tap certain phone calls? Why aren't those same people whining about Obama hacking into emails and tweets and such?

It was never about civil rights and the right to privacy and other such things during the Bush years. It was about Bush-bashing, plainly and simply. With the Dems we've had the great misfortune to suffer over the past twenty years or so, let no one believe that any of them give a flying rat's patoot about anything other than gaining and maintaining power.


Bear Down

Allow me to take this opportunity to puff out the chest in celebration of the dominance of the Chicago Bears. OK, OK, back off. They look like crap much of the time with just enough stuff to stay in the game to allow a big play to win the day. Detroit doesn't know how to win, Dallas ain't America's team and Green Bay just beat the crap out of themselves on the Monday Night stage.

But we're 3-0 and that's all that matters right now. What's more, with the way the New York looks, together with some starters being injured, 4-0 seems more than likely. At that point, the Bears will be believing they can win for real and hopefully have their downsides pushed upwards enough to do so. I'm not totally on the bandwagon yet (though I am always in their corner), but I'm definitely driving right behind them.

Hey Mark! How 'bout dem Chiefs?

Idiot-In-Chief At It Again

Yahoo ran this AP report by Darlene Superville of President Barely O'Braindead getting tough on the job situation.

I know. That's funny just saying it. As if he has any idea. It begins like this:

"A combative President Barack Obama rolled out a long-term jobs program Monday that would exceed $50 billion to rebuild roads, railways and runways, and coupled it with a blunt campaign-season assault on Republicans for causing Americans' hard economic times."

This means we'll see more money spent on those signs that inform us of how the slowdown on the freeways are brought to us by Barry & Co. It also means little else as the "stimulus" only ever lasts as long as our money is given back to us to "create" these jobs. First of all, I think, but am not sure, that the railways are owned by the railway companies. So why are we again subsidizing private industries? Why not lower corporate tax rates and let them fix their own tracks. They could surely work out details with all other entities that use the tracks or hope to ship via the rails.

Roads are a local matter, not a federal one. States and counties should be taking care of their own roads and if they continue to chase away business in their areas with Obama-like policies, then that's their own tough luck. Why should Delaware help pay for roads in New Mexico?

Only the runways might fall into some federal jurisdiction, but around here, you might have to talk to Richie Daley about that.

But then the end of that opener is par for Obama's course. Blame it all on the Republicans, as if Dems were pure as the driven snow. Doesn't matter what their part was in our current economic situation, and they had plenty to do with it, just blame the opposition. The question now is just how many of those who voted for the boob buys into that crap anymore.

Here's anothe gem from the article:

"Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, cautioned, "If we are going to get anything done, Republican cooperation, which has been all but non-existent recently, will be necessary.""

The fact that any Republican cooperation with this administration exists at all is reprehensible. Why would any self-respecting Republican care to jump on this train to hell only to claim his share of the righteous anger and frustration that is growing amongst the electorate? There are some Dems that are getting the message as well, at least as regards the plan for letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and one can only hope that they find the spine to stand firm.

We once again take the time to point out that while it is better to have an alternative at the ready (and the GOP does), one is not necessary to justify a loud "NO!" to the stupidity that is meant to pass for intelligent policy proposals by Obama, the brilliant one who has yet to provide any brilliance.

"He said Republicans have opposed virtually everything he has done to help the economy..." because his ideas are stupid and have failed. He proposes nothing new, but only his version of ideas that haven't worked for other countries that have tried them.

"...and have proposed solutions that have only made the problem worse." How can this be? They have no majority to implement anything. How can something that can't be implemented make anything worse? Has he, through his cohorts in Congress, allowed or tried anything like, say, what Mitch Daniels has done in Indiana? I don't think so. What a liar. But then the next line in the article is this:

""That philosophy didn't work out so well for middle-class families all across America," Obama told a cheering crowd at a labor gathering. "It didn't work out so well for our country. All it did was rack up record deficits and result in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.""

To what philosophy does he refer? The one that opposes his goofy ideas? THAT didn't work out so well? THAT is how we racked up record deficits? We didn't start racking up anything record-breaking until he and his Dem cohorts took control of Congress in '06! And anything they did was dwarfed after his sorry ass took a seat in the Oval Office! Hey Geoffrey! This is what a liar in the White House looks like!

Check this out:

""If I said fish live in the sea, they'd say no," Obama said."

The smart money says to question anything that comes our of this guy's mouth. If he told me my name, I'd check my ID.

Once again, we see that he appeared "Casual in brown slacks and open-collar white shirt with rolled-up sleeves," I have a tip for him: He could appear in overalls and a hard hat and I still wouldn't believe he is working hard. He should stop the posing and actually do something, preferably something that works, like cutting corporate tax rates to attract business.

Of course, here's the punchline:

"Obama said the proposal would be fully paid for. In an earlier briefing for reporters, administration officials said Obama would pay for the program by asking lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations."

So once again, he intends to hurt the sources of jobs by taxing them harder to pay for his little project that he thinks is going to stimulate job creation. But we can't be too hard on the man. It must be really hard to think with his head so far up his backside. In the meantime, the unemployment rate steps up a little higher.

Heinous Selfishness

Words cannot express the level of contempt that fills my heart upon hearing of such audacious selfishness described in this article.

Who Would Hire? Who Could?

The question of whether Obama and the boys are stupid or deliberately destructive came up in Eric's post below. This article from Investor's Business Daily lists ten reasons for the poor job situation in this country: (Hat tip--Wintery Knight)

-Executive orders and regulations promoting compulsory unionism.
-Obama's forced restructuring of GM.
-Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (ObamaCare).
-Extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks — almost two years!
-American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.
-Minimum wage laws.
-Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.
-Moratorium on offshore oil drilling.
-Expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
-Obama's runaway spending.

Any number of the above list would make moving a company overseas a good idea. Why would anyone want to start a business or expand a business with all the above hanging over their heads? In the best economy, with everything laid out to the advantage of business, start-ups or expansion is risky. But now, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars and are too nervous to make a move, with some considering China, of all places, as the place to set up shop. Does anyone seriously think that's preferred?

The thing is, the detrimental effect each and every point has had on employment and/or the economy had been foreseen. Only a lefty could be so blind as to believe any of these moves would have a positive effect. If Barry's the brilliant one we're so often told he is, then this has to be a deliberate attempt to screw things up. Rank stupidity is the only rational explanation.

But hey, the nation was warned. He had no record of wisdom upon which to gamble a vote back in November of '08. True, McCain is no Einstein. But would we have it THIS bad? Doubtful. Keep in mind also that this is only the arena of economics. Barry's shown nothing resembling brilliance in any other area of leadership either.

From My Inbox

Of all the "trash" emails I get, some are real treasures. This is one of them:


"The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama on it. The Postal Service noticed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.


After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings:

1. The stamp is in perfect order.

2. There is nothing wrong with the glue.

3. People are spitting on the wrong side."

View From The ICE

This littl snippet gives us some insights from the perspective of ICE officers toward ICE brass. I especially love the part where illegals who are criminals will voluntarily turn themselves in order to get a free ride home knowing they can easily return. They don't get put through any trial for their crimes committed here because ICE isn't equipped to do much more but deport. The article also indicates some things aren't always so bad for those awaiting deportation. Apparently, Obama admin people just refuse to see the dangers of an unprotected border and lax immigration policies.

In a side note, a lib columnist appearing in my local paper has tried to convince readers that Obama is doing more than Bush in deporting illegals. But based on the the report of ICE agents, how many of those being deported had been deported before, and how many times, is now in question. If numbers are heavily comprised of previously deported illegals, then there's really nothing about which anyone on the left should brag. It's all been a big farce. Of course, that pretty much describes this presidency.

Yeah, Just Swing Wide The Doors!!

We don't need to secure the borders. Hell, no. Those poor immigrants coming here to make a better life for themselves is all that's important and by golly we can't, if we're to remain good and Godly people, do one single thing to inhibit their ability to enter at will. Why criminalize the foreigner with whimsical laws for crossing imaginary lines? Aside from the fact that only an idiot would think an unregulated influx of just anyone, even the "hard working people trying to save their families from imminent starvation", is a good idea, here's why.

Oh hell, I'm sure it's just right-wing fear mongering. Nothing to it at all. No, no, it's just racism under the guise of "national security". Yeah, like any sovereign nation needs to worry about something like THAT! Those wing nuts! They're so goofy!!

The Hapless Cubs

I'm one of those rare individuals who supports both the North Side Chicago Cubs, as well as the South Side Chicago White Sox. Pretty much always have. I tried to be strictly a fan of one or the other, but it never made sense. Back in the day, before inter league play, and contests between the two were only exhibitions, my position was that Chicago was lucky to have representation in both leagues and as they did not play each other for real, it made sense to support both teams. Still does. To me, to do otherwise would be like an American supporting the efforts of the Army, but not the Marines. They are both our teams and they battle against teams from other nations. Da Sox and da Cub are both our teams and they battle teams from other cities. What do I do when they DO meet in inter league play? Well then, in such a case I pull for which ever team needs the wins most, either to gain ground in their respective divisions, or to maintain the ground they've already gained, which ever need is greater. (At this point, backing da Cub in such circumstances is futile with less than 60 games to go. They're toast.) If I live to see them both in the World Series, I'd simply sit back and beam, with a slight lean toward da Cub, since it would likely be their first chance since dinosaurs walked the earth.

*sigh*

And that's the problem. Da Cub can only seem to be good enough to disappoint. Every once in awhile they make the playoffs and then they're gone. And now the worst has happened two games in a row. Nothing hacks me off more than to see a record broken or a rare achievement happen against a team I support. A running back posting a career best against da Bearss. A shooting guard hitting a record number of treys for a quarter against da Bullss. I hate that. And now, two games against the Colorado Rockies (what the hell is a "Rockie", anyway?---"Hey! I'm a mountain range, dude! Watch out now!") has produced two fantastic achievements against da woeful Cub. On Friday they broke the record for most consecutive hits in an inning, amassing 11 with two outs (as I understand it). The final score was something like 17-2. Then, on Saturday, as if we were not sufficiently embarrassed, Carlos Gonzalez hits for the cycle. (For the uninitiated, that's hitting a single, a double, a triple and a homer all in one game.) And here's the kicker from the AP story: "Gonzalez became the sixth Rockies player to hit for the cycle and the first since Troy Tulowitzki did it last Aug. 10, also against the Chicago Cubs." (boldface mine--sad face mine,too). I'm glad I hadn't the sorry misfortune of seeing either game.

Now for those who are strictly Cub fans, this really sucks despite how freakishly typical. For me, I at least can take solace in the tenuous half-game lead of da first place White Sox in the American League Central over the surging Minnesota Twinkies. But I am a die-hard either way, and hurt more deeply if both teams are suckin'. Fortunately, that isn't the case.

But da Cub? Some say they're cursed. I ain't much for curses, but they seem to play the part well. I can definitely wait to see what's next.

The Condition of the Gulf

Like many people these days, I have a Facebook presence. I never understood the point, but one of the lefties who never comment here anymore, one of my faves by the name of "Les" emailed me asking if I had one. Eventually I got one and I found one good reason (possibly the only one worth the effort) of having anything to do with FB and that was to try and contact old friends. It worked. I've been able to contact quite a few, including one I haven't seen in about thirty years.

Another I haven't seen in awhile is a regular poster and presented the final few minutes of one of the worst Steven Segal movies ever, called "On Deadly Ground". Absolutely horrible, except for the cool fight scenes.

Anyway, my friend posts the end of the movie which is an overwrought environmentalist pleading, not much different than your basic AlGore drivel. It shows those weepy shots of oil-covered animals and like most such calls for action, assume we can just drop oil consumption and switch to wind, solar, electric cars and fairy dust, and do it *SNAP!* just like that! Needless to say, I posted as somewhat snarky comment, mostly regarding the quality of the movie, but some directed at this part of it.

WELL! My buddy was none too pleased and launched into a raving chastisement which included knocking me out if we were close enough for him to do so (it's possible---we used to be martial arts students together). I asked him, "Why the hate, dude?" and he replied that I don't know a damned thing and that the Gulf is now just so F'd that I have no idea! There was talk about greedy oil people and such, I defended against such childish claims, he called me other names and suggested I don't know what I'm talking about.

This led to him sending me, upon my request, a sizable list of videos to watch (in order educate myself on things beyond my ability to fathom), some of which I've been able to watch and the rest still on tap. I haven't viewed enough for a report on the lot of them, but of the few I've seen some good ideas and also some conspiracy stories (hapless inventors oppressed by the man).

But I digress.

Getting back to the Gulf, I've read in this morning's paper a story from the Washington Post regarding a missing 4 million barrels of oil that spewed from the BP well. Here's some of what "experts" are saying:

"On Wednesday, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco said the oil is now much less visible on the surface and present only in microscopic, dilute droplets further down. She said that was a sign that the Gulf ecosystem is resilient and processing the hydrocarbons.

But she said that 'doesn't mean the situation is benign because it is not.'

'There's so much noise out there now saying the Gulf is dead or the Gulf will come back easily,' Lubchenco said. 'The truth is in the middle.'"

That sounds reasonable. In fact, it's kinda what I was saying myself, or at least I was speaking in that tone as regards the hyperbolic nature of the Segal movie and my buddy's rants. Here's more:

"The best-case scenario is that much of this amount has been eaten by the Gulf's natural stock of oil-munching microbes."

It goes on to say that some scientists think these microbes, which I believe I've mentioned to my friend, might cause problems of their own, depleting oxygen that sea creatures need, but that no oxygen-free dead zones have been detected thus far. Ed Overton, a professor at LSU, believes the microbes, helped by the summer heat (Hurray for global warming!) was helping. In fact, he believes we're "well, well over the hump" and that the environment is in the recovery stage.

Already? I thought we had a "fragile earth"!

All seriousness aside, it's still not a joking matter. The condition, as Lubchenco said, is still a matter of great concern. The effects could last for quite some time and will likely be monitored for years to come.

But what this article points out is that nature can indeed handle quite a bit. It always has and likely always will. It's bigger than mankind and I personally doubt that we could destroy it without an intense and concerted effort on everyone's part, worldwide. That's not to say that we shouldn't play cleanly as we continue moving forward with technological developments. Of course we should. But the political games have to stop. This event is being played for the benefit of economically damaging political policy proposals, like cap and trade. We can't allow that to continue because the fact is that the condition of the earth isn't going to matter to people without jobs. And the fact is that we need oil still, (as well as coal and nuclear) because there hasn't been any really practical alternatives ready to step in and take over without breaking the bank. What's more, if we finally can drive decent cars that don't look like crap as well as don't need gas and oil, we'd still have over four thousand other products for which we need oil to produce.

UPDATE: I just read and article by Jonah Goldberg, someone that makes lib heads explode with his smarts, that actually could have been used for its own post, but contains more info regarding the actual measure of the Gulf disaster. And as he points out, despite the over-hyped nature of the environmental laments, it is still a disaster. It's just not as bad as everyone of the environmentalists and Obama people shamefully hoped it would be. Apparently it isn't enough that eleven men lost their lives. It must really suck for them when more suffering does not occur. It seems two points I can plainly see are true has thus far been validated: 1) The earth is not the fragile planet some hope is the case, and 2) Technology has advanced to the point that even with government intervention, more commonly known as "government interference", the worst scenarios of any given disaster can be mitigated effectively. The left just hates that.

Stupidity Directs Judge's Actions

This AP report demonstrates why it is so important to know as much as possible about a presidential candidate, lest he appoint an idiot to federal courts. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put a hold on several aspects of the new AZ law which goes into effect Thursday. There are several questionable aspects of her ruling:

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,"

Apparently, she believes that the federal requirement that lawful aliens maintain legal identification on their persons at all times is a restriction on their liberty. Can you say "ass-backwards"? Having proper ID is what maintains the liberty of a lawfully-present alien. This is true for actual citizens as well. If I am pulled over for a traffic violation, my liberty will be in jeopardy if I don't have any ID, since I'm supposed to have my driver's license with my while driving. If I am merely walking the street and suspected of a crime, perhaps due to a physical resemblance to a wanted individual, my liberty will be suspended if I have no ID to prove who I am, or rather, that I am NOT the person they seek. (The horrors! I would have been profiled for my resemblance to the wanted dude!)

Further stupidity in the above quote is the implied notion that for AZ officials to wonder as to the legal status of anyone arrested and without ID is somehow foreign. Worse, is the implication that there is any less burden on the arrested "legally-present" alien if their arrest came about though federal action. In fact, would it be more or less a burden on their liberty if the crime for which they were arrested was a federal crime? In some cases, I would suspect that local cops make the arrest, but hold the suspect until the feds arrive. Since the feds don't work out of local police stations, there'd be a wait involved.

The judge put a hold on parts of the law that "...made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places."

Is this legal at all anywhere in this country? Why is it a problem here, where so many citizens, some legal aliens, are trying to find work?

"She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues."

This would have been nice had they done as much for other states, like Missouri and California, that already have similar laws in place, and for the federal law itself, already in effect and unenforced.

"Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling..." dishonest fear mongering of the worst kind. Playing the race card in order to enable law-breaking is reprehensible despite how typical it is. "...conflict with federal immigration law..." it can't conflict if it was patterned upon that very federal law. It aligns with federal law. "...and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes." as does stopping motorists for broken taillights. What a BS argument. The concern for "serious" crime is a sham and only mentioned to support an already weak argument for the open borders crowd. It is used in arguments for legalizing recreational drugs. It is used for arguing against laws that restrict whatever the advocate wants to support.

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

First of all, "substantial likelihood"? Says who? There is always a likelihood that cops will arrest an innocent person. So what? That's what lawyers and one's day in court is for. That's what the court system is for, to determine whether an arrest is just or not. It's more abject fear-mongering, once again playing on the racial aspects of the situation.

Secondly, no "'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden" is imposed on ANY legal alien who has legitimate ID as they are lawfully required to have at all times. And really, what difference does it make WHO imposes this so-called "'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden", as long as it is lawfully imposed?

"Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries."

There's no patchwork if all states enact laws that are patterned on the federal law as AZ has done. This argument is incredibly stupid coming from "authorities". And if maintaining and enforcing existing federal law "complicates the foreign relations of the United States", then I would suggest that those engaged in said relations need to be replaced as they apparently are willing to trade our sovereignty and duty to our own citizens in order to bribe other nations to be friendly. Screw that. I'll take John Bolton over such weasels any day of the week.

But here's the one silver lining and it's a lesson for the nation, but mostly for the fools who are opposing the AZ law:

"It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries."

And that's the point. DUH! Hello! Idiot lefty fools? Are you listening?

Imagine every state adopting the AZ example! This is evidence of what the anti-comprehensive immigration reform/amnesty people have been saying all along. You enforce the law and illegal trespassers leave. We won't have to "round up all 12+ million illegals", like some boneheads like to argue. Enforcing the laws already on the books is enough to make their decision to invade and stay unprofitable and uncomfortable. Rather than busting our collective asses to accommodate them, enforcing the laws makes them bust their asses to accommodate the country into which they mean to trespass. If you are illegally here, go back whence you came and get in the back of the line formed along the already established pathway to citizenship. While it is still there. I'd prefer it be closed for the next decade.

Report On Illegals And Crime

I found this report to be very interesting. It reminded me of a CDC report showing that 60% of new syphillis cases are from the 2% of the population that are homosexuals. Here, we see 9% of the AZ population are illegals from Mexico, and they constitute 22% of the violent crimes committed (at least in Maricopa County). There is a graph that lists various crimes to illustrate what percentage is committed by illegals. There is only one that is below that 9% mark that denotes the percentage of illegals, but almost every other crime shows higher percentages of illegals being arrested (by that I'm referring to higher percentage than the 9% who are illegal). If it was Congress instead of crime, they'd be over-represented, as they are so in nearly every crime category.

The costs are very high. The report is dealing with just one state or county, but of course, there are illegals all over the country. I wonder how the stats compare nationally. Some people speak of the financial benefits of illegals (actually they usually just say "immigrants" and group them all together) and I also wonder how those alleged economic bennies match up to all these costs of criminal activity, adding also NON-violent crimes, as well as other costs to our society like welfare-type assistance for illegals.

Of Course Obama's A Socialist

The title of this post is take from this American Thinker article. It would have been nice to have had it available while the discussion two posts below was still in gear, but it'll do nicely enough here. That some, even some on the right, steer clear of the word in relation to the Socialist-in-Chief, one cannot dismiss his upbringing, his own recorded words (in print, on tape and video) and of course his actions, some of which the article discusses. The reality is that Obama backers, leftists and even those disturbing souls on the right can only deny. They cannot defend against the truth. This Obumble is a socialist (as well as an idiot).

There is only one aspect where I might diverge from the author, and that has to do with just how far he'll go, or how far he'll set up the next socialist (should the nation not get the message soon) toward actual socialism of the type that even the lefties CAN'T deny. He might settle for the level of control he now has for awhile. But why would he stop there?

Racist, Or Just A Jerk?

I saw this and just had to post it. For someone who's a lefty, Whoopie Goldberg has always impressed me as someone who sometimes has a decent perspective, depending on the issue. On this issue of the recent Mel Gibson tirade, I am in total agreement with her, that the use of racial epithets does not indicate even latent racism within the, uh, "spewer". She makes a remark about being cut off in the car and how her emotions make her lash out. Few could honestly deny doing something similar. When emotions are high, intelligence is low. This is a fact and during emotional times, everyone is stupid and many say stupid things that don't really imply anything more than being emotional and then saying something stupid. I mean, how could Gibson be considered racist for saying such words to his girlfriend? It doesn't make sense. He's not a racist. He's pissed off. There's a difference. If he was a racist, he'd never have been with the woman to begin with.

At the same time, I see his name all over the internet. It's on the yahoo home page regarding hot topics. And it's in the news on TV. What I should be seeing more of is REAL racism that is being perpetrated by that Black Panther dude insisting that a good black man should be killing "crackers" (I love that eptithet! I'm happy to be referred to in such a happy way! Of all the things I could be called, that one just brings a smile to my face. "I hate that cracker! He kept smiling while I beat his ass!")

But that's REAL racism. Calling names is just calling names. Being pissed isn't racism, and being pissed while drunk isn't racism. Should Mel lose business because of his personal life? Too many in his line haven't over things I think are worse, or at least no better. He also carries the stigma of daring to believe in God, even though he too often displays his own imperfection (he NEEDS Jesus, doesn't he? Don't we all!) I'll still see his movies. I find the guy entertaining. I hope he finds a way to deal with whatever demons possess him. He used to be a source of pride with a previously long-standing marriage, lots of kids and even his own chapel on his property. But he's obviously got issues with booze and rage. May he find peace and may the rest of us get over this race-baiting when no racism really exists.

Happy 4th!

With the growth of the Tea Party movement, and the seemingly overall swelling of interest in the political, today might more, or at least, different significance than July 4th's of recent years. 9/11 brought about a patriotism based on a rejection of foreign tyranny and the feeling protecting the nation from it. Now, there is a sense of patriotism based on a rejection of domestic tyranny, manifested in bad legislation, appointments, judicial nominations and proposals still going through the process of forced feeding of an unwilling populace. More people, hopefully, are looking to our founders to remember what they had in mind for our country and our Constitution, and those who do are shocked at how far away from those ideals our leaders have tried to direct this nation.

We must resolve on this day to become even more involved, more vocal and more willing to take action as we get even closer to November. Stay on top of our representatives no matter what party they happen to represent. Make sure they understand that above all, they are to represent us.

Please keep the course and character of our nation in mind today. We must not let that course continue in the current direction. We must not allow the character of our nation to diminish any more than it has, but must insure that its character is refined and elevated so that our leadership amongst nations is again apparent.

In the meantime, don't blow off any fingers today. Enjoy the day, but remember why it's special.

Mayor Daley Is An Idiot

I just read this online and frankly, it's not surprising. Aside from Daley being a Democrat, and that alone makes him an idiot, his position on gun control is about the goofiest pile of steaming bile one can imagine. This line is a gem:

"As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.

If he knew how to read, he could bone up on the studies that show a marked drop in violent crime following the enactment of concealed carry laws in states that have them. He could also see how states like his (which is also mine) have much higher murder rates per capita than do states with more reasonable gun laws. If he didn't have his fat head buried so deeply up his posterior, he would understand that the scum of the earth will not be the least bit put out by his attempt to further contribute to gun violence by continuing to disarm the law-abiding in Chicago.

The following is from the list of restrictions he's planning on enacting once the SCOTUS decision takes effect:

"• Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

He almost gets it right. Convicts, I believe, are already prohibited from gun ownership, though I might be wrong on that. But that is a good law to have. I don't mind that right being restricted for those who have proven to be a lawbreaker already. But the rest of the line poses problems. Neither domestic violence or drunk driving means one is likely to go shooting up the place. And domestic violence can mean varying degrees, with one side being somewhat, uh, less violent.

In any case, this would be a wee bit less insulting if the Mayor was not armed himself, either personally or by virtue of having bodyguards. None of his proposals should be passed without him having to surrender any arms or bodyguards that he uses for personal protection. OR, he should not be able to leave the house, or sit on his porch, or be in his garage with his bodyguards with him. Leave them in the house.

Will Geoffrey Breathe Easier?

As we mark the passing of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, I can't help but wonder if sometime visitor Geoffrey will feel thathis death relieves us of the burden of having to recall that he is still among those stealing oxygen from the rest of us. Try as I might, I could never find anything attributed to Helms that matches the level of evil racism this Powerline piece attributes to Byrd. So I'm surprised that as of this writing (11:34PM CST), Geoffrey has yet to post the same celebratory obituary that he joyously posted for Helms.

It's easy to rip on southern politicians of the generation of Helms, Byrd, Thurmond (I wonder what Geoffrey thought of Trent Lott's speech to Strom on his 100th birthday---he must have gotten the vapors!), as they all came up in a time when racism was just the way things were. We look down on them for their racist beliefs (those who actually had them) and lump them all together if they ever uttered the "N-word". But there are differences between Byrd and Helms (Thurmond was somewhere in the middle leaning more toward Byrd than Helms, as far as I can tell).

For some, and Geoffrey's input will help clear the air as far as he's concerned, the differences are mostly political. It was hard to find stories of Helms that didn't label him as the worst kind of racist. But despite the fact that he claimed not to be a racist, and despite the fact that he had black people on his staff, he was (and still is) vilified more because of his politics than for him actually being a racist. He never supported affirmative action, which is racist in a different direction. He didn't support making MLK JR's birthday a holiday (Oh. The. Horror!) He didn't support propping up third world countries with tax dollars. And of course he didn't support abortion or homosexual "rights", which makes him Satan.

Byrd, on the other hand, was an officer of the KKK, a recruiter and as the linked article shows, fully expressed the worst kind of racist sentiments as part of his duties in Congress. He said that his time with the Klan was "a mistake", but good gosh, what a doozy! What in Helms life ever compared to THAT? And apparently, in March of 2001, Byrd allegedly called someone a "White Ni**er" while miked. Is there a Helms anecdote like that anywhere?

Hey, I'm not saying there isn't such things about Helms, but only that I've not found anything. I've looked again before beginning this post. What I'm seeing is that there are a ton of websites and blogs listed on Google that talk about Helms being an awful racist. One needn't even click on a link; it's right there. Google "Was Jesse Helms a racist" and see what I mean.

The question is, will we see the same for Byrd? Will he get the exact same treatment in the many obits that will appear, or will that "(D)" next to his name mean he gets a pass? As this AmericanThinkerBlog post shows, he'll likely get the latter.

But at least Geoffrey will be able to rest assured that the oxygen Byrd was stealing is now available for some really deep breaths. Kinda like springtime after a gentle rain, ain't it?

No Truce On Social Issues

I came across two articles from Illinois Family Institute that I found to be essential reading for conservatives and Republicans. The first is from Laurie Higgins and the second by David E. Smith. They both refer to comments made by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniel(R), a guy I think on the whole to be a very fine governor. He has done a lot to keep Indiana from suffering the fates of other states that have fallen from the effects of liberal thinking. The state of Indiana is doing quite well by comparison to my own Illinois, Ohio, California, Michigan and a host of others in these hard economic times. (Indiana is also the home of Republican Congressman Mike Pence, an example of superior conservative thought and a long-time champion of many of the policies Daniel has put into place in their state.)

But the point here is in reference to something Daniel has said regarding social issues and whether or not it is wise for Republicans to spend much time and effort on them. I personally have heard a right-wing friend or two suggest that spending time on issues like abortion would be detrimental to the cause of steering our nation back toward the clearly superior conservative leadership. As I stated in a humble piece I wrote at American Descent, I don't see how standing for truth and facts can ever be a bad thing.

Some would say that winning enough seats in Congress to regain Republican majorities and/or winning the White House is what matters most. We can't do much if we're in the minority and have no audible voice in the White House. I can't knock this argument entirely, because it's true. We're seeing this now.

But to totally ignore the social issues, especially now, only serves to allow those who are on the blatantly wrong side of those issues (that would be pretty much everyone in the BO administration, most of the Democratic Party and everyone Barry would ever think to appoint to any judicial post) to dictate laws and legislation and policies that would wreak havoc on our culture.

The second article to which I linked counts the costs in dollars to our nation as well as to our national character and it is our character as a nation that concerns me most. Of those issues Smith lists, we have a stituation by which our character is defined by the lust of sexual gratification. I'm no prude, but I can't see how bowing to our lusts makes us a better nation, particularly with all the negatives that go along with it, such as abortions, unwed child mothers, STDs, etc.

One of my liberal visitors has commented that we (mostly me) seem to be obsessed with sex. This is truly a poor understanding of what I have been trying so hard to make clear. What concerns me is the obsesssion of our nation with sex. It has lead to so many problems in our society and indeed, has been a problem throughout history. The left proudly views itself as progressive for its position on human sexuality, but to compare today with all of history shows nothing progressive at all. Instead, it shows the left deludes itself that it has a better grasp of human sexuality which it then uses to justify its own unsavory lusts.

The right needs to find a better voice for defending virtue amongst our citizenry. Like it has with so much else, the right has failed to articulate the benefits of a moral society creates for itself. It has cowered before the mockery of leftwing criticism so that it feels such defense is a losing proposition.

But really. Who cares about mockery if it comes from those so fixated on pleasuring themselves? Are these really the best people to guide us? Look what they've done to our nation so far. It's morally corrupt, it's decadent and it's trying to become more so because for too long, on the social issues, good men have done nothing.

More Common Sense Regarding DADT

This article in Human Events by William Buchanan (didn't he die in last season's "24"?), highlights the only sensible arguments that should be considered as Congress once again discusses a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which would allow openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military (in direct violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

A military spending bill that repeals DADT has already passed the House. This is a devious and dishonest ploy by enablers within our government. They tie this unconscionable repeal to spending meant to enhance the ability of troops now engaged in warfare to succeed. What results is that those who vote against this bill because of the part that repeals DADT, as whether it fails to pass or not, can be said to have been against supporting the troops. At the same time, the military has requested that Congress do nothing on this issue until it can be reviewed by the military, but apparently members of Congress think they know better what's best for the military than military people.

And this is where the article comes in. Even if the military leaders are wrong if they vote against a repeal (which they would not be), it is still something only they can righteously judge because the responsibility of the quality of our military falls on them.

But it seems there are too many political animals in the military as we see by an article in today's paper heralding the first batch of women now assigned to submarines in the Navy. There have already been higher incidents of rapes and pregnancies since women were allowed to serve on other ships, and now somehow, closer quarters won't make a difference. Don't these boneheads understand that our ability to protect the nation is at stake?

The article begins with a perfect example of boneheadedness:

"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen recently fired another salvo to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the 1993 law that prohibits openly gay people from serving in the Armed Forces, when he declared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, "No matter how I look at the issue I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." "

"Lie about who they are"? Not at all. What common sense people are hoping for is that such people resist who they are, just as we hope pedophiles resist who they are, adulterers resist who they are, thieves resist who they are, etc., etc., etc. Why should this behavior be considered immutable, yet all other behaviors forbidden under the UCMJ not? Where's the social justice for rapists and thieves? The lie is that there is no difference between homos and heteros and that there won't be serious negative ramifications should this stupidity be made into law. The article to which I've linked lists a number of considerations that are more than just potential, but are worth a wager for their extreme likelihood.

UPDATE: More common sense on the issue of DADT is found here. It is even better than the one above for the fact that it focusses more directly on the real point of the opposition to the repeal of DADT. As much as some want to see it as some kind of racial like discrimination against those poor homosexuals, it is and always has been an issue of military effectiveness and how that would be impacted by the repeal.

FOR MY NIECE EMMA and other young people I love

After commenting on my niece’s unnecessary use of the “F-bomb” on Facebook, she responded thusly:

“Can u like stop uncle art or ill just delete u off facebook my dad is my friend on fb and doesnt even comment these and u have no idea whats going on right now cause u never call me”

So now, my dear, I say to you:

You are more than free to delete or “de-friend” me for whatever reason you find sufficient. I’m sure someday (maybe months, maybe years, who knows?) I’ll learn to get over it. In the meantime, the truth remains unchanged: the use of such language shows a great lack of class. It shows a great lack of maturity. Before you or anyone else regard me as hypocritical, be it known that I do NOT consider myself exempt from this criticism and knowing that my daughters or nieces or nephews spew such vulgarity makes me more ashamed that I’ve cultivated the habit. And though your father might downplay your routine use of such language, I’m going to stick my neck out and say that it is not something which swells his chest with pride. (Go ahead---ask him. Ask him what would please him more---your continued use of profane and obscene language, or the knowledge that you are the unique one among your peers that never does. I dare you. See what he says and have him get back to me.)

Here’s something else to consider: It’s one thing when we let such words fly from our pie-holes. It’s quite another to consciously decide to type it out, in caps no less. In other words, it’s not like you were overcome with emotion that even your fingers on the keyboard are beyond your control. Besides, it really doesn’t matter what stresses you believe yourself to be under. It’s easy to be in control when there is no stress. It’s how we act when we are under stress that defines our character.

The Oil Thing

I had been wanting to address this oil leak disaster for awhile now. I wasn't sure from which angle to do so. I was leaning toward simply discussing that as bad as this disaster is, it should not push us away from drilling more. There is still the little matter of getting too much of our oil from nations that don't much care for us, and sending them money to get it, money that is surely used to increase their own power and ability to mess with us.

But that just seemed so incredibly obvious. We didn't stop space exploration when the Challenger blew up. Why should we stop extracting our own resources and spend the money here just because a rig blew up? We'll surely have improved our ability to prevent another such disaster. Indeed, if redundant safety measures not in use can be proven to have prevented this mess, then the issue is moot. Drill, baby, drill!

I could have jumped on the slow reaction time of Obama to this crisis and ask, "Why does Barry hate black people?" It's been two months now. When the Exxon-Valdez spill occurred, Geo HW Bush was chastised by the press only fifteen days into the situation. Dems were demanding swift action, damnit!

But then, in the last thread, Dan hit on it (thanks, Dan). The perfect angle!

As you may recall, gentle reader, in our last episode, I was making a couple of points about illegal immigration based on info not commonly expressed in the media. One of these was the incredible mess left behind by the invaders. It was and still is my contention that those who weep so many tears for the plight of illegal invaders who trespass across our border and then undeservedly avail themselves of the incredible bounty of these here United States should go down to Arizon and clean up after these poor unfortunate souls who's own country doesn't give a flyin' rat's ass about them. I mean, it's only fair considering how those of us who understand that abortion destroys a real person are expected to adopt and be responsible for the unwanted unborn, so to should those who care so desperately for the illegals who don't care about our laws be made to adopt and be responsible for them.

But Dan, in a weak attempt that for him must pass for being clever, suggested that I have no credibility regarding the environment because, I guess, I support the move to drill here, drill now (Baby!). According to Dan, he'll worry about the despoiled Arizona desert when I worry about the Gulf, as if I don't already. A few problems here with the first being that the Gulf has nothing to do with the topic I was covering. Next, in the case of the Gulf, where drilling I support makes me culpable somehow, clean-up efforts by those responsible were ongoing, whereas the mess made by illegals was NOT being cleaned up by either those responsible or those, like Dan, who support them.

Dan goes on to try to compare the extent of the damage and who and what is affected by it and thinks he's scored as a result. But of course, illegals destroyed the World Trade Center, killed many and deprived many more of jobs and income. So, by Dan's math, he's still in the hole. But what's worse was made more clear to me by this article. In it, Henry Wickham, the author, shows just how much the tree-huggers are responsible for this disaster as well. Their obstructionist actions regarding drilling in more reasonable locales has to be included if one wants to honestly think in terms of blame, because really, why would anyone want to drill a mile below the ocean's surface in the first place when there are plenty of safer and less expensive places to extract what is so wanted and needed? I tell ya, that ANWAR is lookin' a whole lot better now!

What this comes down to is the typical manifestation of the law of unintended consequences so often experienced following the implementation of most lefty proposals. A good rule of thumb would be that if a lefty has a plan, don't let it become law until it is properly scrutinized by smarter people. Likely as not, it'll end up hurting far more than it helps.

More AZ stuff

This AmericanThinker blog post shows what most Americans never see, and what most American libs would prefer we didn't see. Perhaps Dan, Geoffrey and Marty can buy about fifty 50 gallon drums to serve as garbage cans so the poor illegals seeking a better life have some place to throw out their crap so as not to despoil the land they really, really want to inhabit. And like this news report highlights (takes a few seconds to load---be patient), it points out a more sinister aspect of the border issue: those that want to do us harm enter in the same way.

These two reports show that members of terrorist groups actually learn Spanish so as to more easily sneak across the border. The Mexican scumbags that are preying on the poor that libs think they are considering will also help the terrorists get across the border to do whatever it is they are planning and hoping to do. Sure, perhaps some of these people from Arab lands are also seeking a better life but, like the Mexican illegals and S. American illegals, are illegal themselves.

But just meditate on the pictures, libs. In addition to the trash littering the desert, throw in the occasional dead body of an illegal who didn't make it, or was murdered by the thugs preying on those seeking a better life. Now think on just how open borders would work. Would there be simply open borders, get here as best you can? Or would you be insisting the feds spend my tax dollars to facilitate their entry? And what of those who live on the AZ side of the border, who own the property through which the illegals are now trespassing, would you insist that they sell part of it to the feds, or should the feds just take it under a lib interpretation of public domain?

For now, I insist that all you libs who think our current laws need amending or eliminating, those of you who think the United States provided the motivation for these illegals to leave their shithole environs governed by corrupt and/or incompetent politicians, those of you who insist that these invaders are just hard working people seeking a better life despite an apparent inability to clean up after themselves, I insist you all go to the Arizon desert and clean up after these forlorn people and maintain the area for as long as they need it to ignore our laws. And tell those terrorists you really want to be their friends. See how well that goes over.

UPDATE: I just had to add this absolute gem. Note at the bottom of the piece that the author is a grad of Berkeley and Harvard. Sure, he was there in the 70's, but it's amazing he got through those schools with his common sense intact.

UPDATE II: Two more relevant articles here and here.

Alien Nation---More Questions

*Just read this in a George Will column:

"...since 1952 federal law has said: "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him." "

It seems to me that a law such as this carries with it an expectation that at some point, and for some reason, such identification might be required of an alien in this country. Does it make sense that such a law should exist yet law enforcement should be prohibited from ever requesting that an alien produce such documentation? Why is asking for this documentation fascism and a cop asking for license, registration and proof of insurance after pulling someone over not?

*In today's local newspaper there were stories of rallies and marches for immigration reform. It stated that this was planned well before the AZ law became news. Aside from the fact that it presented a great opportunity for ICE to apprehend more illegals, it was basically an event organized to draw attention to the plight of people who broke the law to enter this country. Apparently, that they are "forced" to enter illegally is some kind of "social justice" issue. (I never needed Glen Beck to tell me that use of the term is a ploy.) I wonder where the justice is in demanding citizenship for illegals when we have 10% unemployment in this country. Far better that we deport as many illegals as we can to free up some of the jobs that they have taken. I don't want to hear this crap about them doing jobs Americans won't do. In today's economy, I have personally spoken to many who have "lowered" themselves to take jobs they never would have taken five to ten years ago.

*Also in today's paper, in the same article, was an activist with stats about how long it takes to go through the proper channels to enter this country. Supposedly, the United States is one of the most restrictive and it takes twenty years for some to go through the process. I'm tearing up. How it that our problem? How does it make us responsible for this "social injustice"? Apparently, we screwed up so badly the economies of so many other countries that we now owe these teaming masses a piece of the American pie. Of course that's crap. And La Raza thinks they're gonna get back California.

*So maybe by now, one of those who have posted comments opposing the AZ law could tell me what number would satisfy them as the proper amount we should let in each year, and while they're at it, explain where the hell they're all going to work? Explain also just what is wrong with the numbers we're letting in now. With our unemployment level, why should we let ANY in right now?

Theses are just a few of the questions that keep popping up in my head regarding the illegal invader issue. More will pop up I'm sure, at which time I'll add them to the list.

Way To Go Arizona!

There's been a lot of hoopla over this new Arizona immigration law that will take effect later this summer. The violence and hate that is normally said to be a trait of the Tea Party protesters (falsely) has been common in the protests of those who oppose this legislation. Critics have been taking pot shots at it such as Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who said that the law sends "a clear message that Arizona is unfriendly to undocumented aliens." So? How is that a bad thing? I mean, being unfriendly is rarely cool, but to be unfriendly to those who willfully break the law? That's supposed to be something for which anyone should be ashamed? What the hell has happened in this country?

Michael Medved, if I'm understanding him correctly, thinks this law, if supported by conservatives, will drive Hispanic support more in the direction of the Democratic party. I don't get that. Conservatives will lose support (or rather, not increase support) of the Hispanic community because they stand for the rule of law? Is that it? So are we supposed to be like the left who, rather than insist on proper behavior will alter the understanding of right vs wrong so as not to lose votes? I'd rather the country comes crashing down around us rather than to "compromise" on righteousness like that.

Medved thinks that because even legal residents of Hispanic background might know someone who is here illegally, perhaps even a relation, that they cannot be reasoned with regarding the need to follow proper procedures for entering this country and availing one's self of its bounty.

So what's so bad about this bill, anyway? I've looked it over and haven't found anything over which anyone should be alarmed. It basically says that henceforth, Arizona law enforcement will enforce the law. That's it. It states that cops can, with reasonable suspicion, insist that a person provides proof that he is here legally. That's already required, but what has been happening is that cops around the nation are being prevented from making such inquiries.

Indeed, Obama is said to have called for a cut in border enforcement, a stop in ICE raids and is planning to propose what's sure to be, another amnesty bill dressed up as immigration reform. And how's that fence coming along?

Here's the deal: We have laws for entering this country. They need to be obeyed. Period. Those who don't obey them, never mind just how hard working they are or how much they wish to provide for their families, should be deported. If they came through proper channels, then they wouldn't be deported. It's that simple. No. I'm not saying the immigration rules provide a simple means of entry. I'm saying that doing things by the way the law is structured will prevent deportation.

Here's more of the deal: We have every right and duty to regulate who enters our nation. It does not serve us to have open borders where there is no oversight as to who is or isn't here and why they came, what their intentions are, etc. If there happens to be more people wishing entry than our system is set up to allow in a given year, that's just too damned bad. They have to wait or prove they are more worthy than the next immigrant.

The Arizona law also prohibits other laws that might interfere with the ability of law enforcement to enforce the immigration laws. This is a good thing as it prevents any Arizona municipality from becoming a "sanctuary city". Some lefty mayor looking for more votes won't be able to game the system in order to win election.

Some, like Medved, wonder what will happen once this law is in effect. Will profiling take place? I hope so. But not only of the racial variety, but of the linguistic variety. Anyone who can't speak English should be under suspicion of being illegal. It's only logical. Are Hispanics now expected to carry papers, like the Jews in 1930's Germany? Not exactly. But aren't we all required to carry identification when we drive or seek to do various business? And if we are arrested for any reason, aren't we expected to identify ourselves with our legal names, and legal places of residence? I can easily provide a birth certificate if one is requested, as it has been for the last dozen or so jobs for which I applied. Why should it be any different for someone suspected of being here illegally, whether that person is Hispanic or not? And look, like most terrorists are youngish Arabs, most illegals are Hispanic looking/sounding. No, not all, but the Polish illegals will get theirs eventually as well.

What will we do with them? Are we to round them all up, and if so, where do we put them and how do we transport them? Stupid question. Who says that we have to get them all right away? Who says that once we show we are no longer going to protect illegals, but follow the law, that many of them won't start leaving of their own accord just to prevent the major hassle? And really, as far as transporting them, how did they get here in the first place? So they ride a crowded bus. Big deal. Many rode in the back of a trailer sitting on the floor. Some merely walked across. We can round them up, lock them up until we can transport them all on our own terms and timetables. If our facilities get crowded with illegals awaiting deportation, we'll just back off on the round ups until the facilities are emptied.

What of the children? Some are born here and are Americans! Assuming there are no legal Americans willing to take them in, they simply go back to their parent's country of origin with their parents.

This new Arizona law, for all intents and purposes, only does what existing laws are supposed to be doing. Enforcement. I applaud the Arizona governor for signing this bill. I hope more states adopt the law as well. The reform of our immigration policy must begin with enforcement of existing laws. It must begin with strengthening and securing our borders. All illegals must be deported and made to stand in line behind all those who are seeking entry in the legal manner, if any still exist.

What God Hath Joined...

I saw a bumper sticker today. It looked something like this:

What God has joined together

I support gay marriage

Well...I couldn't get the fonts and sizes to work the way I wanted them to, but you get the idea. I thought whoever created the sticker, as well as those who paste it to their bumpers, assume a lot considering they have no Biblical justification to believe that God would have anything to do with the joining of two people of the same sex. It assumes they know His mind in a way for which I am often chastised. Of course when I state something I believe God would do, think, say or whatever, I at least can back it up Scripturally. I guess it's OK if someone wants to proclaim that they support what the Bible would indicate is totally out of the question. But to suggest that God would take part in such a thing is really assuming a bit much. In fact, it's quite absurd based on all the Bible says about the subject of marriage and sexuality. But it's the world in which we live and for those who are determined to do whatever they want, it is necessary to get as many people believing as they do as to whether or not a behavior is right or wrong. Even if it means rewriting the Bible.

Northern Wisdom

I saw these articles over at Wintery Knight's blog. He always has such good material and is worth a gander with regularity. These Canadian articles were so good that I had to link to them here. Read them. They're excellent.

The first is an article by a guy named Rex Murphy and is an article explaining to the Canadians who Sarah Palin is. I put it here because he understands far better than do so many of her fellow Americans and quasi-Americans.

The second is also a Rex Murphy piece and it speaks to a different matter altogether. In this one, he reports on the state of human rights in Canada. It's an important piece because of what it portends for us if we continue to adopt the same inane attitudes regarding what does or does not constitute "human rights". It's important to remember such as this:

"The core concept of human rights is the protection of the irreducible safety and dignity of the individual from the massive and arbitrary power of the state. Not, the state wandering in, with its apparatus and procedures, its boards and tribunals into the doings, or speech, of the individual."

This is not merely a Canadian concept here, but something that is very American in understanding the place of the state versus the value of the individual. Murphy speaks of two specific cases of politically correct insanity (both involving "different" people) that cannot help but be in our own future should the wrong people (read=Obama &Co) be in charge for too long. He then asks,

"For this, did the great armies of the West storm the beaches of Normandy? For this, did Solzhenitsyn and Sharansky endure their endless nights of hell in the gulag?"

Indeed. What passes for rights these days would make many of bygone days roll over in their graves.

Finally, Howard Levitt followed up the above Murphy column with one of his own regarding employment. This, too, has implications for our country as this administration plays footsy with the unions. What results is a confusion over rights. Namely, who has them?

To say that we are headed in the direction the second and third articles describe is hardly a point of debate. We see it all the time in the constant whining for "gay" rights and the debate over Card Check and investigations into SEIU. We're only six and one half months away from correcting the drastic mistake of the electorate in November of 2008. Only 6.5 months to hold off this administration from further damaging our nation. And this administration will continue to berate those who see things clearly and speak with logic and common sense. People like Sarah Palin for example who, like Murphy understands all to well, is far more intelligent than the Obamaniacs have the courage to admit.

Born On The Side Of A Hill?

I brought this up once before, either here at Marshall Art's or on someone else's blog. I don't remember which and after several glasses of wine and a fine repast I'm not up for searching it out (not that I'd be up for it in any case). But the topic here is proper attire for church.

Call it a pet peave, but there's just something about jeans and t-shirts that seems something less than reverent in the setting of a Sunday service. The usual defense of this practice is that God loves us just the way we are, or some such nonsense. First of all, I don't believe that for a second. He loves us, that's for sure, but not necessarily the way we are. I mean, what's so good about any one of us that any one of us should take that attitude? Seems kinda prideful to me and that's not a good thing, either.

A variation of that is that as long as we go to church, that's the main thing. I don't buy that either. The Parable of the Wedding Banquet ends with the king in the story throwing out the guy not wearing wedding garments. Now despite the spiritual moral of the story, all the parables of Christ dealt with real world situations and applications. None of the parables involved things that did not also have practical "real world" value. This parable speaks of the man entering the wedding on his own terms which was insulting to the king. Seems to me that it is insulting to wear less than one's best to attend a worship service.

That is, insulting to God. Imagine actually going to a wedding wearing whatever you pulled out of the hamper. Would that not be insulting? Did not the bride and groom (whichever invited you) simply want you to attend? You went, that's the main thing, right? Of course not. Few would dare attend a wedding dressed in everyday clothes (unless one's everyday required a suit). How does anyone figure a jealous God would be cool with that same person then showing up on Sunday like he's off to clean the stables?

The whole thing here, is not really even a matter of what God might think of dressing down for service. My concern is in the thinking of the person that thinks shorts and sandles is appropriate for attending a worship service for the Supreme Being in Who's hands resides that person's eternity. Is He not important enough that looking one's best is worth the trouble? "Ah, it's only God. He loves me no matter what!" We know that God loves each and every one of us. That love, however, isn't a free pass. How much does one really love and revere the Lord if one can't muster up the effort to put on a tie, or, for women, to wear a dress?

There is one person I know who dresses very casually every Sunday. One Sunday was an exception. This person was dressed more formally than usual and my first impression was that something awaits this person after service that the person felt required the better clothes. Sure enough, I heard someone ask this person about the sartorial upgrade and the answer given was as I anticipated. I wanted to ask this person why this event after service was more deserving than service of such fine attire. I wish I had the courage to ask that question. But I didn't. (Such courage if fodder for another article.)

For my own part, I only recently resumed wearing a suit and tie. During my layoff I was unable to maintain my wardrobe as I preferred it to be. The last interview for which I needed a suit was January of '09 and I wasn't happy with the fit. In addition, that was the last shirt that I could button at the neck and it was quite snug. I hoped that the interviewers weren't scrutinizing my clothes too closely. As I moved into the trucking field, suits for interviews were actually discouraged. I was told to dress like a trucker. But I didn't dress like a trucker for church. I wore slacks, dress shoes and the best shirt I had in the closet. And that's the point. For God I wore the best I had.

Now, I've been able to get my suits re-tailored and I have a few shirts that fit, so I'm back to my preferred Sharp Dressed Man status. A more handsome man would be hard to find. (A quick hint to those whiners who think neckties are uncomfortable: buy a shirt that fits. If the shirt fits around the neck, you shouldn't even notice the tie until you look down or in the mirror, at which point you'll say to yourself, "You look marvelous!")

I am not worthy to be in God's presence. I'm not worthy to be in His house. That I am invited does not change that. The only thing that makes me worthy is me and how I relate to my God. There is nothing I can do (beyond accepting Christ) to win His favor, but that doesn't mean I need do nothing. He is deserving of my best and that includes how I dress. I do it to glorify Him. I do it because He's worth it. I do it because I care about how I present myself to Him for worship.

Happy Easter!!!

In a recent long running discussion, the subject of Easter services came up and what is appropriate for teaching during such a service. It was my contention that Easter, being the single most pivotal event in the history of mankind, deserves to have the events of that day, indeed the events of that weekend memorialized every year at this time to the exclusion of all else. Without the Easter weekend event, there is no Christianity. It's that simple. The events of the Crucifixion through the Resurrection are essential events without which we are still bound by the law of Moses (if we gentiles even get to be considered). The whole weekend 2000 or so years ago took place to allow us the means by which we are forgiven and that physical death will not be the end for us. Now that Jesus died and rose we have the ultimate "in" regarding access to Heaven and God's presence.

So what was the services like at my church? That was a question posed to me after I critiqued the services of another. I begin with Thursday, Maundy Thursday and our Tennebrae service. In this service, the pastor begins by welcoming everyone and then speaks a bit about the service and what the point is. We look at this day as the day of the Last Supper and the events that surrounding it, such as Gethsemane, etc. So the choir, of which I am a part singing tenor, begins the Shadows of the Cross contada with a member of the elders doing readings in between hymns. The readings are simply a retelling of the events up to the Resurrection, and throughout, candles specially set up are extinguished as the readings and hymn singing go on. We then partake of communion, followed by another hymn.

Friday and Saturday, my wife and I were in Galena, IL celebrating our 20th anniversary, and she couldn't be happier.

Sunday, today, my wife attended the early service so as to give her time to prepare for the family coming over for Easter dinner and the daughter and I attended service at the usual time. A regulary feature of our Sunday service includes time for joys and concerns, wherein congregants express things in their lives that have brought them joy or given them cause for concern for which we can all pray together as a community or extended family. Both my wife and I each voiced our joy for our anniversary. Isn't that just too sweet? (Say "Awwww!" here.)

As the service progressed, all hymns were Resurrection related as were the readings from Scripture. Then came the sermon. The pastor, Pastor Pete, began to speak about "Dancing With The Stars" for the purpose of bringing up Buzz Aldren, who, I guess, is a contestant. He brought up Buzz because he landed on the moon and supposedly once there, asked Houston for a moment or two wherein he served up the Eucharist to the rest of the crew. I'd never heard that story before and I found it quite cool, but the point of bringing it up was that there were and are some who think the moon landing never happened. They think it was a hoax. Buzz doesn't care what they think because he was there and knows what is or isn't true about it.

Then Pastor Pete spoke of the Holocaust and how there exists those who think that didn't happen, but that there are still Jews alive with tattoos on their forearms who know if it did or didn't. From there, he spoke of the Resurrection and how some believe that never happened and have been such people since the time it did happen. And he spoke about belief in the Resurrection as an essential belief of the Christian faith. He spoke about whether or not there would be a Christian faith had not the Resurrection occurred.

So Pastor Pete spoke about, not flowers and clean water, but the Resurrection. He didn't really get too much into why it is important, but he didn't speak about some nonsense regarding politics in Roman occupied Jerusalem of the first century. No. He spoke about Easter. He spoke about the Resurrection and how it is an essential of our faith. And despite my serious reservations regarding the heretical teachings of the denomination in which my congregation is a part, I am pleased to know that at least in my church, we know what Easter is all about.