Thursday, February 25, 2010

A Mature & Reasoned Objection

I saw this in my inbox today and just had to present it here. In other discussions regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the move to eliminate the restrictions on homosexuals in the military, I had expressed concern about those who must deal with the change should it occur, they being the officers in command positions. The linked piece contains a letter from a retired Navy Captain with 30 years in the military. He lists his credentials and relates his experiences and in doing so, touches on some of the points I tried to make albeit with more eloquence and authority. He also relates problems already experienced with regard to homosexuals already in the Navy, to answer points made by some that they are rare. They apparently are only rare as compared to non-homosexuals who comprise a larger percentage of the service.

Many of the points and concerns raised by the captain are dismissed as inconsequential in the larger picture by those for whom homosexuality is a cause on par with racism, which of course it is not. They only want it to be seen as such because it helps the cause. But the captain makes a great case and as he says himself, shows that he has really considered the question, rather than what appears to be merely a bow to politically correct inanity so typical of the pro-homo activists and their enablers.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

If We Were Fools Then, What Does This Make Them Now?

We who didn't buy it were called all sorts of things by the sophisticated adherents. We were rubes who didn't understand science. And of course, those professionals who also denied were criticized as being less than theirs, not really qualified, or worse, paid to deny by corporations who stood to profit by our destruction.

But now we see a blizzard of evidence indicating that it is the adherents who have been less than honest. We have a rising tide, as it were, of contrary info that shows that the adherents were less than selfless in their research.

This Selwyn Duke article lists a litany of abuses and questionable practices by those who have championed the AGW sham upon the world. There are many such sources available now showing how tax money was stolen for the sake of this nonsense. Imagine if the Copenhagen talks went better for the warmists! Imagine if Bush had signed on to Kyoto! The money that would have been wasted would have been more than criminal, it would have been demonic. And we still have politicians in this country that are looking at cap & tax policies, looking to force stricter regulations that can cripple job growth.

What it comes down to is that we just missed a financial catastrophy and wiping our brows and gasping, "Whew! That was close!" is about right. But as Duke suggests, it ain't quite over and we must push those who intended to foist upon us this crapola and bring them all out into the light of our warming sun and determine if criminal charges are in order for any of them.

In the meantime, we can now enjoy those who cling to the lie and laugh as they have little left but to try and pretend we don't know the difference between weather and climate because we use recent snowstorms to mock the warmists. Their overinflated sense of superiority is always good for a few chuckles.

P.S. It should be re-stated, because many on the left will always seek to try to pretend we don't care, that the state of our environment is always a righteous concern for all. Though the weather is beyond our ability to improve or destroy, we can muck up the earth if we aren't careful. Let's not be pigs and let's punish those who are.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Partisans Just Sayin' "No"

So Evan Bayh says he's not coming back. Partisanship and gridlock, he says. I wonder what his constituents think of his "leadership". Is running away from challenges what they were thinking when they voted for him?

(As a sidebar, a lefty blogger who no longer visits here thinks his excuse was better than Palin's when she stepped down as governor of Alaska. Don't think so. He quit because of the job. SHE quit because lefty haters were interfering with her ability to do her job with their goofy lawsuits and such. In addition, her Lt. Gov had already proven himself in her place as she campaigned with McCain, so it's not as if she left her people hanging.)

Back to Evan. More precisely, back to partisanshihp and the party of "No". First of all, I don't think partisanship is a bad thing at all. Gridlock indicates there are some real problems with what one side is trying to propose. In a time when one side lost there power after forsaking principles, holding fast to those principles is a good thing. (When the government can't operate, they can't get in our way.) I don't think the founders meant that anyone just roll over and accept what they think is a bad idea. I think they meant that these things get hashed out extensively before imposing anything on the nation.

But we know that the idea is to ram stuff through as quickly as possible before anyone can really get a handle on what is being proposed. This is definitely NOT what the founders had in mind at all. So any obstruction is a good thing. And what we've seen over the past year is that when there is obstruction, time is had to pour over just what Barry & Co were trying to do to us. (They'd say "for" us, but it's really "to" us when the impact is felt.) There's really no excuse for any administration to rush any legislation, especially considering the size and scope of things like health care reform, the banking industry, stimulus packages, etc.

So now, of course, we hear that the GOP is just the "party of 'no'". We hear that the right has no alternatives. Let's look at this.

Suppose there's an apartment building on fire. A guy name Barry O rushes forth and says "I can fix this!" and he whips out a big bucket of gasoline and is intent on throwing it on the fire. A bunch of guys scream at him "NO!!!" and Barry insists that if they don't have an alternative, they should shut up and let him throw the gasoline on the fire. Of course they have an alternative. They have water and history has shown that water is a good thing to use to put out fires. But did they really need to have an alternative in order to be justified in telling Barry "NO!!! Don't throw gas on the fire!!"? Of course not, because they know his idea is stupid and only going to make the matter worse.

This is what we are witnessing now in Washington. Barry is intent on throwing gasoline on the fire that is our messed up economy. We know his proposals are detrimental because they parallel similar moves in history. The right doesn't need an alternative in order to be justified in telling him his ideas suck.

But the right DOES have ideas. This Randle Hoven article lists a few health care proposals. This Christopher Chantrill article lists some budget cutting ideas. Check out Newt Gingrich's American and more ideas can be found there. Wisconsin's Rep. Paul Ryan(R) has a mess of ideas.

There's plenty from the right and we know that Barry doesn't even give them the time of day. They've been kept out of meetings, though now Barry says he's going to invite them to talk health care. I hope they continue to obstruct because frankly, he's not about to do anything about their ideas anyway. And we know Senate buffoon Harry Reid is intent on using reconciliation to push whatever the hell he thinks is a good idea.

No. Keep saying "NO" and obstruct as long as you can. If they want to really discuss, then discuss and articulate the superiority of conservative ideas. If we can obstruct until the mid-terms, that'll be far better than allowing more economy destroying liberal policies to go into effect.

Just say "NO!"

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Real Awareness

Do you display one of those pink ribbons for Breast Cancer Awareness? How aware are you really?

I'm someone who believes that there are really few, if any, incurable diseases and/or conditions. Among those that seem to be incurable, many, if not most, are avoidable. Cancer falls into either category. We often set ourselves up for cancers by our lifestyles through what we ingest, inhale or absorb through our skin. We cripple our immune systems and render them too weak to do their jobs from these poor practices as well as through poor nutrition needed to fuel our systems properly. Not easy to do as we live our lives in today's world, but not impossible if we really care enough. Like most of life, it's a matter of trade-offs, a little work and study, and some of that nasty self-discipline.

Self-discipline. That's the hardest part. Doing what's best and avoiding what ain't. Here's a trade-off for ya: the pill or no sex? Of course, one could say, the pill or condoms. Either way. The pill has been shown to raise the chances of breast cancer, especially in young women who have not yet been pregnant. (Irony here. Doing what one tries to avoid might prevent what one doesn't want.) This article presents information that should be more public but isn't.

Like the abortion/breast cancer link, the pill/breast cancer link is downplayed. You'd think feminist groups like NOW and NARAL would be sounding the alarms...oh wait. They LOVE abortion and the pill. They love the pill so much they insist on a morning after version which is just the pill at a larger dose. OK, that's just a joke. Not the part about feminists loving abortion and the pill. The joke is that they are really looking out for womanhood. They aren't looking out for women anymore than GLSEN is looking out for homosexuals. If they really cared, this stuff about connections with cancer wouldn't be underplayed. What it amounts to is an incredibly heinous lie that leads to death or disfigurement.

It's simple, really. Do you like your breasts? I do. I don't want to see them harmed in the least. They look good on you, they belong on your chests and someday some baby of yours might want lunch. Why take chances? To get laid? C'mon. You're supposed to be liberated now. Why use your liberation to be like the men you considered immature? Why put yourself at risk? Take charge of yourselves and you'll be taking care of yourselves.

Ya Prolly Seen Dis Awready...

...but I thought I'd reprint it anyway. I got it in an email a couple of times and whether it's true or bunk, it's a good way to go about layoffs these days. Enjoy (or wet yourself if you're a lefty):

A Lay-off letter from an excellent boss.

Dear Employees:

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that
Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will
increase in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by
about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the
dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees

This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here and
I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty
'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks
will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach
this problem. They voted for change...... I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.


Saturday, February 06, 2010

Took The Words Out Of My Mouth

I've been thinking about the Rahm Emmanuel incident regarding his use of the word "retarded" and trying to figure out how I wanted to address it. I've just read this Paul Shlichta article which says it all for me. The same could be said for other words, such as "bastard" which I once used as it was meant to be used and good golly how the poop hit the fan! Shlichta nails it. Now that I think of it, I get the same crap for using "homo".

Friday, February 05, 2010

Just Like Us?

I came across this article in my email inbox and found evidence of what has been said before, yet denied by the activists and enablers. Homosexuals aren't interested in monogamy in the traditional sense. They aren't interested in marriage in the traditional sense. And despite the fact that there are cases of heteros willingly engaging in wife-swapping, in inviting a third party to the conjugal bed, and other deviancies, that has never been considered, to say the least, typical of what a marriage or monogamy is or is meant to be.

There is little doubt that the main drive is to redefine both marriage and family so as to accomodate every perversion possible. Michelle O'Mara suggests that everyone finds ways to make their relationships work. By this she implies that it isn't a matter of submitting one's self to the traditional sacrificial aspects of a true union, but instead, finding ways to accomodate each individual's personal desires.

This is ass-backwards. We have marriage, wherein a man and a woman willingly bind themselves to each other for life to become as one unit manifested in the compact of fidelity to each other. That is marriage. Not one man with another man, or woman with another woman, or any other arrangement with no fidelity. They are trying to redefine the whole game to their own satisfaction due to their personal weakness regarding with whom they choose to have sex.

Dan Savage, who twice has engaged in "three-ways" with his "husband" says this: "The culture says if there is love there is no desire for others and that makes people–essentially puts them at war with their own instincts and leads to lies and deceit because you’re lying and deceiving yourself."

I don't know of which culture he speaks, but I don't think that's the case in the one in which I live. I've heard people say that, and it's surely a romantic notion, but I've never known that to be a given. In fact, the standard and traditional set of marital vows makes that notion quite naive. Why would each party have to vow to love each other from this day forward in good times and bad, for better for worse, etc, etc, etc forsaking all others and such 'till death do they part? Right there it suggests to me that temptations will not be magically rendered non-existent, and like all other temptations we are to resist them, rise above them and do the right freakin' thing. I do not lie to myself about being attracted to other women. I simply do not allow myself to be ruled by those attractions. That's not lying. That's being a man.

Then of course there's the whole monogamy thing. I don't think it is typical in the hetero world that both parties agree to open relationships. But according to the small Lowen and Spears study, 40% of the homos begin their relationships with an open arrangement while the remaining percentage get to it eventually. I don't think you find those numbers in hetero situations. And when you do find a party looking outside his/her vows, they're doing it on the sly whilst the other remains committed.

We're expected to change our laws to accomodate a segment of the population that even within itself has few that really care about true devotion to their partners. And that strengthens the institution how, exactly?