Two relatively quick comments regarding two road based occurrences:
The Tour de France: So, for the 8th year in a row an American has won the Tour de France. I'm sure I don't need to tell you this annoys the French more than when people try to speak their language! You know what an American winning the Tour means, right? Allegations of drug use. That's right, it's in the fine print of the Tour rules: "If an American wins the tour, claim he cheated." Isn't that right, Lance?
Well, they've once again been able to enforce that rule. Floyd Landis has been accused of using a performance enhancing drug. What did they find in Landis' blood? Testosterone! Technically, the finding was a "high level of testosterone." 'Cuz that's hard. "Look, the American man had a higher level of testosterone than the French!" What a surprise!
The real joke about all this was that he was tested just before the 17th leg of the race; just after his collapse in the Alps. This was the day he had an amazing comeback to get within striking distance of the lead. The French are claiming that the testosterone is what gave him an edge during that part of the race. This is ludicrous!
He'd been tested three times before this leg of the race, all three times there was nothing found. Testosterone is like an anabolic steroid. It does not work like an upper. It takes months for testosterone to take effect, not hours. It's a strength builder, not an endurance builder. The French have again shown their desire to take back their race. But I can understand to a point. Imagine if the Aussies kept winning the America's Cup. We'd be pretty peeved, too.
The Big Dig: The Big Disgrace is more like it. Billions over budget and now we find they were cutting corners to save money? Where did that money go? Obviously not back into the project. Now it'll be millions more to fix what wasn't done right in the first place.
But I feel much safer now. Finally a politician is overseeing the project. Fwhew!
Yup, Mitt Romney ("in '08" should be following his name shortly) was able to oust Matthew Amorello (former head of the Turnpike Authority) because someone’s head has to be on a pike and Amorello already had the word in his job title!
I can't imagine how many "contributions" Romney got from the companies who dug this national embarrassment for him to go after the figurehead instead of the men actually taking the state's money!
Here's what needs to happen: The companies who made the tunnels need to fix the tunnels at their own cost. There was Federal money given to this project! Why should Joe Shmow metal working in Iowa have to pay for the greed and irresponsibility of fat cat Boston Big Dig Contract winner? After they've fixed them, they need to set up a payment plan to pay the American people back for their waste of time and money. The companies responsible need to pay back every cent they went over budget plus interest. That sounds crazy? How can they afford it? Why should Sue Blue the lunch lady be made to pay for it? The fault falls squarely on the contractors.
So while Mitt flies in as "savior" and Amorello is left holding the fake blame, the real culprits recline in their multimillion dollar houses with their indoor Jacuzzis sipping on daiquiris. Something's very wrong here.
(On a final note: several News stations have been covering the ceiling panel fall as the "Big Dig Collapse." Can we say sensationalism? The Big Dig did not collapse. That conjures images of massive cave ins and road blockages. It was a ceiling panel that fell at the wrong time of the day. Had it fallen at 4am this whole issue would be being handled quite differently.)
Where the rubber meets the road: (whatever that means) Just my opinion.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Friday, July 21, 2006
Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's speech, full of "his-bull-ah"
In his recent speech, the Prime Minister of Lebanon whined that his nation was too weak to get Hezbollah under control. Boo Hoo. Woe is me. Please help. He acts as though he had no idea that they were in his country. There are six members in his Parliament!
So, just whose responsibility is Hezbollah? Lebanon's, that's who. I don't care how much he cries and whines. And if Lebanon can't control their own people? Israel has every right to protect themselves.
I see it like this: My neighbor has a dog. A big vicious dog that even my neighbor has become afraid of. The dog attacked me. First, I say to my neighbor, "Control your dog." When he fails, I take care of the dog. Now, in this fictional situation, the right thing to do is call the authorities and have them send in the animal control officer. I suppose in our real life situation, that would be the UN. We all know how effective the UN is, don't we?
Well, if the animal control officer is too chicken to do something about it, or if the officer comes out and announces that he will be withholding my neighbor's mail until he does something about the dog, I'm going in.
The problem with the "animal control officer" is that he knows everyone in town. And he has to listen to what they have to say. I think that for the "ACO" to be effective, if you have a rabid, dangerous animal on your property and most of the other people in town know about it, you no longer have a say in what the "ACO" does. Otherwise, the "ACO" is deadlocked and can't ever get anything done!
This is why my neighbors Lebanon, North Korea, Iran, France (just because), Sudan, Iraq (before Operation Iraqi Freedom), Syria, and Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to talk to the "ACO." Maybe then he could actually do something about the problems that are before him!
I wish the world would listen to just my opinion.
So, just whose responsibility is Hezbollah? Lebanon's, that's who. I don't care how much he cries and whines. And if Lebanon can't control their own people? Israel has every right to protect themselves.
I see it like this: My neighbor has a dog. A big vicious dog that even my neighbor has become afraid of. The dog attacked me. First, I say to my neighbor, "Control your dog." When he fails, I take care of the dog. Now, in this fictional situation, the right thing to do is call the authorities and have them send in the animal control officer. I suppose in our real life situation, that would be the UN. We all know how effective the UN is, don't we?
Well, if the animal control officer is too chicken to do something about it, or if the officer comes out and announces that he will be withholding my neighbor's mail until he does something about the dog, I'm going in.
The problem with the "animal control officer" is that he knows everyone in town. And he has to listen to what they have to say. I think that for the "ACO" to be effective, if you have a rabid, dangerous animal on your property and most of the other people in town know about it, you no longer have a say in what the "ACO" does. Otherwise, the "ACO" is deadlocked and can't ever get anything done!
This is why my neighbors Lebanon, North Korea, Iran, France (just because), Sudan, Iraq (before Operation Iraqi Freedom), Syria, and Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to talk to the "ACO." Maybe then he could actually do something about the problems that are before him!
I wish the world would listen to just my opinion.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Would you rather
I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other day and thought it might be fun to play a little "Would you rather" game with some current events. So please comment with which you'd rather for each of the following:
Would you rather:
1) Eat at Denny's or Stay at Motel 6?
2) Play for the Kansas City Royals (32-60) or warm the bench for the Detroit Tigers (62-30)?
3) Be the 2008 Presidential Campaign Manager for Al Gore or Hillary Clinton?
4) Drive through the I-90 tunnel or Beruit?
5) Be a bad guy with Batman after you or Superman?
Please comment with your opinion.
Would you rather:
1) Eat at Denny's or Stay at Motel 6?
2) Play for the Kansas City Royals (32-60) or warm the bench for the Detroit Tigers (62-30)?
3) Be the 2008 Presidential Campaign Manager for Al Gore or Hillary Clinton?
4) Drive through the I-90 tunnel or Beruit?
5) Be a bad guy with Batman after you or Superman?
Please comment with your opinion.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
A Congress full of cowards
I am so sickened by the "lawmakers" of Massachusetts. I put their title in quotes because they have not only allowed thier position to be usurped by the courts, but when they are given an opportunity to be the check and balance for that radical, power grabbing branch of the state government, they flee in terror!
For we've been waiting for them to vote on the Constitutional Amendment to ban same sex marriage in the state for quite some time. When the day finally arrived, they voted. They voted to postpone the vote.
Maybe they just needed more time. Maybe they wanted to find out what the people they were representing wanted. Maybe they were yellow.
They postponed the vote until just after the November elections! They didn't want to offend their constituents by actually voting on this issue! (A note to Janitors and the second half of Team Juloa: This is just another proof that the government is only out for self preservation. Why won't they vote on this? They want to get re-elected. They can say whatever they want to get the votes in November, then vote however they please right after. And they'll vote very soon after the elections so there is as much time between the vote and the next elections as possible. End Note) I don't even really care which way they vote! Look, put your Nikes (c) on and just to it!
Actually, if they listened to their constituents, they'd put the issue before the people of the state. Let the people decided if they want marriage to be defined as a union between one man and one woman or not. I mean if they are going to be cowards then they might as well chicken out all the way and not give the appearance that they are going to make a law. Put it on a ballot. Decide the law that way.
They've allowed the courts make laws, why not actually let the people make a few.
I am now announcing my voting plan for the upcoming elections. If your name has the term "Incumbent" next to it, you will not receive my vote. I encourage others to do the same. If this session of Congress is too afraid to vote, we'll be sure to replace them with people who aren't.
Once again, just my opinion.
For we've been waiting for them to vote on the Constitutional Amendment to ban same sex marriage in the state for quite some time. When the day finally arrived, they voted. They voted to postpone the vote.
Maybe they just needed more time. Maybe they wanted to find out what the people they were representing wanted. Maybe they were yellow.
They postponed the vote until just after the November elections! They didn't want to offend their constituents by actually voting on this issue! (A note to Janitors and the second half of Team Juloa: This is just another proof that the government is only out for self preservation. Why won't they vote on this? They want to get re-elected. They can say whatever they want to get the votes in November, then vote however they please right after. And they'll vote very soon after the elections so there is as much time between the vote and the next elections as possible. End Note) I don't even really care which way they vote! Look, put your Nikes (c) on and just to it!
Actually, if they listened to their constituents, they'd put the issue before the people of the state. Let the people decided if they want marriage to be defined as a union between one man and one woman or not. I mean if they are going to be cowards then they might as well chicken out all the way and not give the appearance that they are going to make a law. Put it on a ballot. Decide the law that way.
They've allowed the courts make laws, why not actually let the people make a few.
I am now announcing my voting plan for the upcoming elections. If your name has the term "Incumbent" next to it, you will not receive my vote. I encourage others to do the same. If this session of Congress is too afraid to vote, we'll be sure to replace them with people who aren't.
Once again, just my opinion.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
The All Star game & the Patriot Act
"This time it counts!" What a joke the All Star game is. An exhibition game in the middle of the season with some fake meaning attached to it by giving the league (AL or NL) that wins the game home field advantage for the World Series. The players that don't make it use the three days as a vacation. The players that make it give it their all day in and day out and deserve the vacation more than the players that don't make it. This is why more and more players are saying "no thanks" to the All Star nod. They want the time off.
Another reason it's a joke is that the manager of the team gets to fill in the gaps. When a player is hurt or decides he doesn't want to play, the manager of the team (which is the manager of the team who represented the league in the World Series the previous year) gets to select the player who will take the place of the one not playing. Ozzie Guillen (Manager of the Chicago White Sox) had that honor this year. Did anyone else notice that there were about 9 White Sox in the All Star game? Wow, that must be some team! Either that or there's some homerism going on! I wonder which it could be...
So, my favorite moment of the All Star game was when there was a routine ground ball to the third baseman (A-Rod, who plays third everyday). The reigning MLB MVP booted it. He got a normal hop and booted it, he recovered and threw the ball toward first. He threw it in the dirt. The first baseman (David Ortiz, who plays first maybe 18 times a year) makes an amazing dig on the short hop to get the runner. The runner up MLB MVP saved the MVP from getting slammed with a big fat E5! Poetic justice if I've ever seen it.
Slammin' the right: I was catching bits and pieces of Law and Order last night. The story line had something to do with anthrax and murder. Well, turns out the Feds staged an anthrax scare at the Police station so they could evacuate it and steal all of the evidence and research. The police are allowed back into their building and are shocked at what's happened. Gasps of "They can't do this!" abound. One officer says, "They can do whatever the hell they please because of the stupid Patriot Act." Oh really? Excuse me, Mr. Detective, if they can do whatever they please why did they stage an anthrax scare? Why not just walk in and declare national security and all that jazz and take what they wanted? Because they can't.
This was a double slam on the right. First, it's that stupid Patriot Act. Apparently it allows for Carte Blanche for the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. But not so much that they can do it in broad daylight; they have to get rid of some people first. Second: the people "enforcing" or "taking advantage of" the Patriot Act do in a slimy, despicable, dishonest way. What a load!
The police went to the Feds and tried to get their stuff back, and the Feds played the "National security," "You're not authorized," "Top Secret" crap. The Patriot Act is designed to increase communication between the Feds and local authorities, not sever it.
Of course, people who know little to nothing about it, save what they are spoon fed by NBC and the other networks, will just take that at face value and not question it. I wonder if NBC is contributing to the Democratic Party or if it's the other way around.
There you go: two completely unrelated examples of just my opinion.
Another reason it's a joke is that the manager of the team gets to fill in the gaps. When a player is hurt or decides he doesn't want to play, the manager of the team (which is the manager of the team who represented the league in the World Series the previous year) gets to select the player who will take the place of the one not playing. Ozzie Guillen (Manager of the Chicago White Sox) had that honor this year. Did anyone else notice that there were about 9 White Sox in the All Star game? Wow, that must be some team! Either that or there's some homerism going on! I wonder which it could be...
So, my favorite moment of the All Star game was when there was a routine ground ball to the third baseman (A-Rod, who plays third everyday). The reigning MLB MVP booted it. He got a normal hop and booted it, he recovered and threw the ball toward first. He threw it in the dirt. The first baseman (David Ortiz, who plays first maybe 18 times a year) makes an amazing dig on the short hop to get the runner. The runner up MLB MVP saved the MVP from getting slammed with a big fat E5! Poetic justice if I've ever seen it.
Slammin' the right: I was catching bits and pieces of Law and Order last night. The story line had something to do with anthrax and murder. Well, turns out the Feds staged an anthrax scare at the Police station so they could evacuate it and steal all of the evidence and research. The police are allowed back into their building and are shocked at what's happened. Gasps of "They can't do this!" abound. One officer says, "They can do whatever the hell they please because of the stupid Patriot Act." Oh really? Excuse me, Mr. Detective, if they can do whatever they please why did they stage an anthrax scare? Why not just walk in and declare national security and all that jazz and take what they wanted? Because they can't.
This was a double slam on the right. First, it's that stupid Patriot Act. Apparently it allows for Carte Blanche for the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. But not so much that they can do it in broad daylight; they have to get rid of some people first. Second: the people "enforcing" or "taking advantage of" the Patriot Act do in a slimy, despicable, dishonest way. What a load!
The police went to the Feds and tried to get their stuff back, and the Feds played the "National security," "You're not authorized," "Top Secret" crap. The Patriot Act is designed to increase communication between the Feds and local authorities, not sever it.
Of course, people who know little to nothing about it, save what they are spoon fed by NBC and the other networks, will just take that at face value and not question it. I wonder if NBC is contributing to the Democratic Party or if it's the other way around.
There you go: two completely unrelated examples of just my opinion.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
The 4th of July
Ooo, Ahh, the Fourth of July. There's nothing like a big "Up Yours" to Britain to bring the nation together!
"Hey Britain, tax this!"
Think about it: What is this holiday all about? We are free from being under "big brother's" thumb! Like an arrogant teenager we loudly celebrate the day we moved out.
And look how we celebrate it: We go all out for this holiday! For which other "American" holiday do we universally get the day off of work, gather with other family, barbeque all day, families get together in the center of town, clad in red white and blue, and watch explosive devices in celebration. (Not to mention that nearly every town in the United States has its own fireworks display.) On top of all of this, we toss in some parades, block parties, and tons of live music! Do we do it for Flag Day? Memorial Day? Veteran's Day? D-Day? V-Day? V-J Day? Nope, no, nah, nyet, nine, and no.
It's just one big national middle finger to our "friend across the pond."
Of course, we aren't the only ones to celebrate our independence day. Here are a few others:
January 1st, Australia from England
March 6th, Ghana from England
May 31st, South Africa from England
(Anyone see a pattern?)
July 4th, United States from England
July 5th, Algeria from France
July 6th, Malawi from England
July 9th, Argentina from Spain
August 15th, India from England
August 19th, Afghanistan from England
September 7th, Brazil from Portugal
September 16th, Mexico from Spain
October 24th, Zambia from England
December 24th, Libya from Italy
Ok, so they weren't all from England...
In fact if you visit Earth Calendar you can flip through the holidays celebrated all over the world and you'll find that there are surprisingly few days that do not have a nation's "Independence Day" listed. I think we should name it something else, though. Some thoughts I've had: "Up Yours Day," "We Don't Need You (Unless We're Attacked By Someone) Day," "Nah Na Nah Na Nah Na Day," or "Pffpt Day."
A little trivia: We share our Independence Day with another nation. Which nation is that?
Speaking of a big flip off to other nations, has anyone thought about what North Korea is doing? Testing missiles on our Independence Day around the same time as our space shuttle launch? Is this Kim Jong il guy nuts or what? Some of the largest, strongest nations have said that if he tests these missiles they would regard that action as a serious provocation. He's like a five year old whose mother just said "no" that he can't have a cookie. He looks up at her and slowly reaches his arm over to take a cookie. Like she's not going to notice.
But we have nothing to worry about. The UN is on the case. The mighty UN who showed Iraq that they were serious about their resolutions. The fearless UN who has taken such an active role in the Sudan. The powerful UN who has caused Iran to reconsider their nuclear programs. The awesome UN who is... what? Out of missile range? Oh, well never mind then.
What's the solution? I think a type of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). MAD is a dinosaur from the Cold War era. Here's the difference. We tell Kim Jong that if he launches a single nuclear warhead and his nation suddenly ceases to exist. No boots on the ground, no invasion, just a few MOABs (Mother of All Bombs - a non nuclear multi-ton reign of destruction). So it's just be AD or perhaps N-KAD.
So happy ""Nah Na Nah Na Nah Na Day" to my fellow Americans.
Thanks for reading that which is just my opinion.
"Hey Britain, tax this!"
Think about it: What is this holiday all about? We are free from being under "big brother's" thumb! Like an arrogant teenager we loudly celebrate the day we moved out.
And look how we celebrate it: We go all out for this holiday! For which other "American" holiday do we universally get the day off of work, gather with other family, barbeque all day, families get together in the center of town, clad in red white and blue, and watch explosive devices in celebration. (Not to mention that nearly every town in the United States has its own fireworks display.) On top of all of this, we toss in some parades, block parties, and tons of live music! Do we do it for Flag Day? Memorial Day? Veteran's Day? D-Day? V-Day? V-J Day? Nope, no, nah, nyet, nine, and no.
It's just one big national middle finger to our "friend across the pond."
Of course, we aren't the only ones to celebrate our independence day. Here are a few others:
January 1st, Australia from England
March 6th, Ghana from England
May 31st, South Africa from England
(Anyone see a pattern?)
July 4th, United States from England
July 5th, Algeria from France
July 6th, Malawi from England
July 9th, Argentina from Spain
August 15th, India from England
August 19th, Afghanistan from England
September 7th, Brazil from Portugal
September 16th, Mexico from Spain
October 24th, Zambia from England
December 24th, Libya from Italy
Ok, so they weren't all from England...
In fact if you visit Earth Calendar you can flip through the holidays celebrated all over the world and you'll find that there are surprisingly few days that do not have a nation's "Independence Day" listed. I think we should name it something else, though. Some thoughts I've had: "Up Yours Day," "We Don't Need You (Unless We're Attacked By Someone) Day," "Nah Na Nah Na Nah Na Day," or "Pffpt Day."
A little trivia: We share our Independence Day with another nation. Which nation is that?
Speaking of a big flip off to other nations, has anyone thought about what North Korea is doing? Testing missiles on our Independence Day around the same time as our space shuttle launch? Is this Kim Jong il guy nuts or what? Some of the largest, strongest nations have said that if he tests these missiles they would regard that action as a serious provocation. He's like a five year old whose mother just said "no" that he can't have a cookie. He looks up at her and slowly reaches his arm over to take a cookie. Like she's not going to notice.
But we have nothing to worry about. The UN is on the case. The mighty UN who showed Iraq that they were serious about their resolutions. The fearless UN who has taken such an active role in the Sudan. The powerful UN who has caused Iran to reconsider their nuclear programs. The awesome UN who is... what? Out of missile range? Oh, well never mind then.
What's the solution? I think a type of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). MAD is a dinosaur from the Cold War era. Here's the difference. We tell Kim Jong that if he launches a single nuclear warhead and his nation suddenly ceases to exist. No boots on the ground, no invasion, just a few MOABs (Mother of All Bombs - a non nuclear multi-ton reign of destruction). So it's just be AD or perhaps N-KAD.
So happy ""Nah Na Nah Na Nah Na Day" to my fellow Americans.
Thanks for reading that which is just my opinion.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Two completely unrelated posts
I'll start with the non-sports post...
The way we view the universe: I was thinking the other day that we (and by we I mean the "academic intellectuals" (Or AI's) among us) like to think that a) there is other intelligent life in the universe and b) it is technologically advanced beyond us. So basically, this is a way of being humble. "We aren't the greatest, smartest in the universe. There are others that have advanced far beyond us, and perhaps someday they will visit us." (It's a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there?) I think Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) put it best when he said, "I think the surest proof that there is intelligent life out there is that none of it has chosen to visit us."
But I digress. I would like to submit some evidence that we (again, the AI's) are not as humble as we purport to be. How old do they believe the universe to be? Somewhere between eleven to thirteen billion years. And how old is our Earth? Somewhere between three to four billion years. How are distances in space calculated? By light years, or the distance light travels in one year. One Earth year. The arbitrary amount of time that it takes our planet to rotate around our star. We measure the age of the universe by something that has existed for less than half supposed age of the great expanse!
What happens when (if) we encounter another intelligent life form and their life sustaining orb takes 20 times longer to complete a rotation around their sun? We start comparing notes... How old is the universe? About 600,000 years. How far is there planet from ours? About a third of a light year away. Took nearly no time to get here.
Second, who's to say that the other life forms are more technologically advanced than us? Someone has to be first! If we aren't the most advanced, are the creatures that visit us? Or is there another, even more advanced culture than theirs?
So they get here, and we're more advanced than they are. Wouldn't they be like, "Dude, you guys are so much more technologically advanced than we are, We only live 1/3 of a light year away! Why haven't you come to visit us?!"
Ok, now sports.
Ozzie Guillen: Ozzie is the manager of the "World Champion" White Sox. (To see why it's in quotes click here, here, here, here, or here.) Recently, they were playing the Texas Rangers and one of his players was hit by two different pitches. He sent a rookie to the mound to hit one of the Ranger's stars in retaliation. (This is a great example for the "World Champion" manager to set). The rookie threw inside twice, both times missing the batter by a significant margin. He then got the batter to ground out, getting out of the inning.
What did Ozzie "Manager of the Year" Guillen do? He reamed him out in the dugout on national TV. Screaming that he didn't follow his instructions and that he was going back to the minors. What a surprise, this pitcher is no longer with the major league White Sox. He now plays for one of their minor league teams.
This is the reward this kid gets for respecting the game and keeping some honor in it? Let's say he even tried to hit the Ranger and failed. What would happen if he gave up a run or two? The same treatment? Probably not! Ozzie Guillen needs to be fined and punished for his behavior. MLB does not condone throwing at batters even in retaliation, that is why there are warnings issued, people ejected and fined. An example needs to be set. Ozzie's intentions were clear and action needs to be taken.
There you go. Today's "We don't have a baby yet" dose of just my opinion.
The way we view the universe: I was thinking the other day that we (and by we I mean the "academic intellectuals" (Or AI's) among us) like to think that a) there is other intelligent life in the universe and b) it is technologically advanced beyond us. So basically, this is a way of being humble. "We aren't the greatest, smartest in the universe. There are others that have advanced far beyond us, and perhaps someday they will visit us." (It's a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there?) I think Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) put it best when he said, "I think the surest proof that there is intelligent life out there is that none of it has chosen to visit us."
But I digress. I would like to submit some evidence that we (again, the AI's) are not as humble as we purport to be. How old do they believe the universe to be? Somewhere between eleven to thirteen billion years. And how old is our Earth? Somewhere between three to four billion years. How are distances in space calculated? By light years, or the distance light travels in one year. One Earth year. The arbitrary amount of time that it takes our planet to rotate around our star. We measure the age of the universe by something that has existed for less than half supposed age of the great expanse!
What happens when (if) we encounter another intelligent life form and their life sustaining orb takes 20 times longer to complete a rotation around their sun? We start comparing notes... How old is the universe? About 600,000 years. How far is there planet from ours? About a third of a light year away. Took nearly no time to get here.
Second, who's to say that the other life forms are more technologically advanced than us? Someone has to be first! If we aren't the most advanced, are the creatures that visit us? Or is there another, even more advanced culture than theirs?
So they get here, and we're more advanced than they are. Wouldn't they be like, "Dude, you guys are so much more technologically advanced than we are, We only live 1/3 of a light year away! Why haven't you come to visit us?!"
Ok, now sports.
Ozzie Guillen: Ozzie is the manager of the "World Champion" White Sox. (To see why it's in quotes click here, here, here, here, or here.) Recently, they were playing the Texas Rangers and one of his players was hit by two different pitches. He sent a rookie to the mound to hit one of the Ranger's stars in retaliation. (This is a great example for the "World Champion" manager to set). The rookie threw inside twice, both times missing the batter by a significant margin. He then got the batter to ground out, getting out of the inning.
What did Ozzie "Manager of the Year" Guillen do? He reamed him out in the dugout on national TV. Screaming that he didn't follow his instructions and that he was going back to the minors. What a surprise, this pitcher is no longer with the major league White Sox. He now plays for one of their minor league teams.
This is the reward this kid gets for respecting the game and keeping some honor in it? Let's say he even tried to hit the Ranger and failed. What would happen if he gave up a run or two? The same treatment? Probably not! Ozzie Guillen needs to be fined and punished for his behavior. MLB does not condone throwing at batters even in retaliation, that is why there are warnings issued, people ejected and fined. An example needs to be set. Ozzie's intentions were clear and action needs to be taken.
There you go. Today's "We don't have a baby yet" dose of just my opinion.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Eminent Domain
There is a law, called Eminent Domain, that allows for a government (be it town, state, or federal) to force people to sell their land to said government (usually for less than market value) if the government needs it. This was designed to allow for necessities that the ruling body deems important. For example: roads, power plants, schools, public works, parks, etc.
There is a state that is citing Eminent Domain to steal the houses of some people who have lived where they are for many years. These people do not want to leave and do not believe the state has the right to do what they are trying to do. The state is going to build private upscale condos, a hotel, and a convention center. This is private development! And, therefore, illegal.
This case is now before the Supreme Court and, hopefully, the court will do what's right and stop this thievery by the state government.
But here's the kicker: what state do you think is doing this? Is it a "big business" red state like Texas or North Carolina? What about a "swing" state like Florida or Ohio. No. This is being done by a die hard, "we're-here-for-the-little-guy," continually blue, nearly bluist of the blue states: Connecticut!
Connecticut! My home state! I am embarrassed that my former state is attempting this travesty. I hang my head in shame that they are willingly ignoring the original intent of this law. I hope for one of two things: either the state has to return the land it's already stolen and the people can keep their money. Or the state is allowed to buy the land for at least 5 times the value of the property.
Why aren't the "we don't like big businesses" leftist government officials stepping forward on behalf of these people? Because this case is about two things, one obvious, one hidden:
1) The obvious one is that businesses will get this land. Shouldn't the right be all for this? Doesn't the right love to help big businesses? Well, I don't personally see it that way, but for the sake of argument, let's say they do. The other issue that this case revolves around outweighs the rights "love of big business."
2) The hidden (and I'm sure the left wishes it'd stay that way) agenda of this case is regarding the power of the government. Dems love a big powerful government (Don't forget, you must wear your helmet!) They want to be able to take your land whenever they want for whatever purpose they want. The far left of the left are the Socialists. Socialism isn't against big business. In fact Socialism loves big business. Truth be told, they wish the government were the only big business.
This action is despicable and it should be stopped! Come on US Supreme Court, don't let us down! (The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the state. The liberal judges outweighed the conservative! The left is pushing this through! Let's see what the US Supreme Court does!)
Hopefully, I'll be able to post on this again saying that justice has been served. You may hear then that all of this isn't just my opinion!
There is a state that is citing Eminent Domain to steal the houses of some people who have lived where they are for many years. These people do not want to leave and do not believe the state has the right to do what they are trying to do. The state is going to build private upscale condos, a hotel, and a convention center. This is private development! And, therefore, illegal.
This case is now before the Supreme Court and, hopefully, the court will do what's right and stop this thievery by the state government.
But here's the kicker: what state do you think is doing this? Is it a "big business" red state like Texas or North Carolina? What about a "swing" state like Florida or Ohio. No. This is being done by a die hard, "we're-here-for-the-little-guy," continually blue, nearly bluist of the blue states: Connecticut!
Connecticut! My home state! I am embarrassed that my former state is attempting this travesty. I hang my head in shame that they are willingly ignoring the original intent of this law. I hope for one of two things: either the state has to return the land it's already stolen and the people can keep their money. Or the state is allowed to buy the land for at least 5 times the value of the property.
Why aren't the "we don't like big businesses" leftist government officials stepping forward on behalf of these people? Because this case is about two things, one obvious, one hidden:
1) The obvious one is that businesses will get this land. Shouldn't the right be all for this? Doesn't the right love to help big businesses? Well, I don't personally see it that way, but for the sake of argument, let's say they do. The other issue that this case revolves around outweighs the rights "love of big business."
2) The hidden (and I'm sure the left wishes it'd stay that way) agenda of this case is regarding the power of the government. Dems love a big powerful government (Don't forget, you must wear your helmet!) They want to be able to take your land whenever they want for whatever purpose they want. The far left of the left are the Socialists. Socialism isn't against big business. In fact Socialism loves big business. Truth be told, they wish the government were the only big business.
This action is despicable and it should be stopped! Come on US Supreme Court, don't let us down! (The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the state. The liberal judges outweighed the conservative! The left is pushing this through! Let's see what the US Supreme Court does!)
Hopefully, I'll be able to post on this again saying that justice has been served. You may hear then that all of this isn't just my opinion!
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Big Ben meets Big Cadillac
Yesterday, Ben Roethlisberger (QB Pittsburgh Steelers) was in a motorcycle accident. He wasn't wearing a helmet. The star for the Steelers is alive but needed surgery for a broken jaw, crushed sinus cavity, head laceration, and lost teeth.
This has sparked a debate because Pennsylvania does not have a helmet law. Massachusetts does. So my question is: Should our government be passing laws because they are for "our own good?"
Here is my belief: In America, we have the right to be stupid.
If I want to ride my motorcycle without a helmet please view me as an experiment in Darwinism. If I want to drive without wearing a seatbelt, please see me as a public service announcement ("This is your body without a seatbelt....")
Where do these laws end? If we continue passing "For your own good" laws, then I propose the following:
A law against using a hair dryer in the tub
A law requiring a helmet while skiing
A law demanding that Grady Little pull Pedro in the seventh inning
A law that limits the amount of time you can drive within 10 miles of your house (after all 90% of all accidents happen within 10 miles of your house)
A law against running with sissors
A law that caps the amount of car commercials that air in one hour, because after about five of them I wanna break things
A law that fines people for driving with hot coffee between their legs
These laws would all be for my safety. Because I need to be protected from myself... Hey Big Brother: No thanks! I'm all set. (That was for you Jason). I have a mother and I'm and adult. I don't need you telling me to be sure to finish my vegatables.
Another thing that annoys me to no end is that we have a government that tells me I have no choice about wearing a seatbelt or a helmet and turns around and tells me that I do have a choice when it comes to an unborn child.
And the people who are backing helmet laws are opposing the governmental tapping of international phone calls. How do you justify this? They are both for your own good! One protects you against yourself, the other against international terrorists. You can't have it both ways.
What is my solution? Do not mandate helmet or seatbelt wearing. Here is the law that needs to be in the books: If you are in an accident and you are found to not have been wearing a helmet or seatbelt, you are responsible for your medical expenses. Even if it is not your fault or if you do not have health insurance, if you are going to exercise your right to be a moron, you will pay for the consequences. Other drivers will not and tax payers will not. Problem solved. I have the freedom to not wear the life saving devices and no one else is at risk.
This is an issue of big vs little government. The more we allow our government to tell us what we must and must not do, the closer we come to a big government tells me how many calories you must intake to be healthy or face punishment, a government that outlaws motorcycles all together because they are so dangerous to the rider, and a government that regulates how much coffee you can drink because, after all, it's for your own good.
What's best for me? A government that let's me make my own mistakes. A government that let's me be free to be stupid. A small government that I hardly notice. That's what's best for me. Anyone agree with that which is just my opinion?
(By the way, at the time of the accident, Ben didn't have a valid Pennsylvania Motorcycle License...)
This has sparked a debate because Pennsylvania does not have a helmet law. Massachusetts does. So my question is: Should our government be passing laws because they are for "our own good?"
Here is my belief: In America, we have the right to be stupid.
If I want to ride my motorcycle without a helmet please view me as an experiment in Darwinism. If I want to drive without wearing a seatbelt, please see me as a public service announcement ("This is your body without a seatbelt....")
Where do these laws end? If we continue passing "For your own good" laws, then I propose the following:
These laws would all be for my safety. Because I need to be protected from myself... Hey Big Brother: No thanks! I'm all set. (That was for you Jason). I have a mother and I'm and adult. I don't need you telling me to be sure to finish my vegatables.
Another thing that annoys me to no end is that we have a government that tells me I have no choice about wearing a seatbelt or a helmet and turns around and tells me that I do have a choice when it comes to an unborn child.
And the people who are backing helmet laws are opposing the governmental tapping of international phone calls. How do you justify this? They are both for your own good! One protects you against yourself, the other against international terrorists. You can't have it both ways.
What is my solution? Do not mandate helmet or seatbelt wearing. Here is the law that needs to be in the books: If you are in an accident and you are found to not have been wearing a helmet or seatbelt, you are responsible for your medical expenses. Even if it is not your fault or if you do not have health insurance, if you are going to exercise your right to be a moron, you will pay for the consequences. Other drivers will not and tax payers will not. Problem solved. I have the freedom to not wear the life saving devices and no one else is at risk.
This is an issue of big vs little government. The more we allow our government to tell us what we must and must not do, the closer we come to a big government tells me how many calories you must intake to be healthy or face punishment, a government that outlaws motorcycles all together because they are so dangerous to the rider, and a government that regulates how much coffee you can drink because, after all, it's for your own good.
What's best for me? A government that let's me make my own mistakes. A government that let's me be free to be stupid. A small government that I hardly notice. That's what's best for me. Anyone agree with that which is just my opinion?
(By the way, at the time of the accident, Ben didn't have a valid Pennsylvania Motorcycle License...)
Monday, June 12, 2006
Marathon Post
A friend recently said that due to the fact that I hadn't posted in a bit, she was concerned that the Queen of Hearts and I had our son and hadn't informed her. The truth is: we haven't had our son yet and due to my inability to post I have about 17 different things to rant on. I'll try to express them in order of succinctness compared to time sensitiveness. (I'll headline them so you can skip the ones that don't interest you).
Shiloh Nuvelle Jolie-Pitt: Brangelina have had their baby. Who cares? I hope no one, and here's why: People magazine paid $4 million for exclusive North American rights to the first pictures of Shiloh Nuvelle Jolie-Pitt. That's a lot of money. Where did they get it? From anyone who buys this edition of their periodical! That's right: People has more than doubled the cost of their magazine for this one edition. If you want to have the first pictures of this child born out of wedlock to a man and woman who were married to other people when the began their relationship ~ You are going to pay for it! Why oh why do we worship celebrities in our culture?
The UN: This impotent grouping of nations continues to baffle me. Due to the suicides in Guantanamo they are once again calling for it's closure. How susceptible and emotional is this body of ambassadors? If suicides lead to the demand of the closure of a detention center then the doors of all jails should be closed. Why doesn't the UN worry about Sing Sing? What about the genocide and civil wars in Africa? Why don't they cry out about those? Look: Be like Amnesty International who is at least consistent in their knee-jerk human rights for all including convicts and murders, or continue to meet without actually doing anything (You're good at that anyway.) (Oh, by the way: Germany is trying to take over Europe through the EU, have you noticed that? No, I didn't think so.)
Canada: Recently (or not so recently anymore), Canada apprehended terrorists in their nation that were planning on assassinating their Prime Minister. This is a massive blow to the "let's pull out of Iraq and the terrorism will cease" crowd. What has Canada done in regard to Iraq? Opposed the war, avoided the coalition, made their stance known around the world. What is Canada? Still a target for international terrorism. It seems that simply not being Islamic is a good enough reason for terrorists to plan on breaking into your legislature and beheading your Prime Minister with a sword.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: When I heard the news I was happy. Then I realized: I'm happy that someone is dead. I'm happy that someone has lost his opportunity for redemption. I wasn't too happy after that. I was puzzled. This is the man who beheaded "infidels." He was the mastermind of the attacks on my countrymen. He was the Al-Qaeda mastermind in Iraq (wait, I thought Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq). My contemplation lead me to a place where I wanted to say that "This was a man that God wanted to love." Did not God love him anyway? I think he did. And now Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is separated from his maker forever. I continue to believe that no human has the right to hoist that punishment on another. That is for God to justly decide. In allowing/causing al-Zarqawi's death, wasn't God sovereign over this and, therefore, sentencing al-Zarqawi to this judgement? Whoops, theological spiral that will drive me crazy. The conversion of a radical Muslim (which would probably lead to his martyrdom) would be much more powerful on the world stage than the death of one at the hands of an enemy.
Measles: There have been enough cases of the Measles recently for the CDC (center for disease control) to label this as an outbreak. It's interesting to note that it hasn't only been the Measles, "German Measles" (or Rubella) have also been reported. Many have been asking, "How are these people getting the measles? Aren't we all inoculated against them?" The answer is: Yes. By law, one must receive their measles shots before they can attend school. Measles shots are a three stage process that inoculates you against Measles and Rubella. In fact, if you are going to immigrate into this country, you must also "have your shots." However, some of our neighboring countries do not offer their citizens immunizations against these diseases. So, if someone were to enter this country without the government knowing and without the government being able to regulate their medical care, then they would be susceptible to these diseases. I mean, this would only happen if someone entered the country, say, illegally. But we should continue to allow this and let them stay, right? (I don't think I got my small pox vaccination, have you?)
Ann Coulter: Critics of Ms. Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" are focusing on one sentence in particular: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Most news outlets will tell you that this is a statement about 9/11 widows. This is a gross overstatement. This is about four women from New Jersey who have appeared in political ads, and other public forums. Many people take issue with this statement. I am among them. This quote is rude, abrasive, and calloused. Is it untrue? They are millionaires, they have been interviewed countless times because of their dislike for the current administration, and they have actively supported liberal candidates. The "enjoying" portion is simply opinion, and if I were them, this sentence might spur me into reviewing how I've been behaving because someone thinks I'm enjoying my spouse’s death. The flip side of this is that many people do not take issue with other "controversial figures" like Michael Moore. Is this because they are on the other side of the isle? No one bats an eye when he says things like: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win." (Really, people killing Americans are to be honored? Is this something he's hoping for?). Even "wikipedia" slams Coulter while pretending to offer criticism of Moore. Bottom line: Too often people claim that you cannot disagree with people like the New Jersey Widows because of their losses. Well, if they didn't want to face criticism they should have stayed out of the spotlight. Also, while I cannot support the manner in which Coulter presented her argument, why doesn't anyone slam the Left like they love to rage on the Right? Ann's job is to sell books. This one sentence may double her sales.
So, now that you’ve taken an hour to wade through all of this, any comments on what you’ve read? Would you like to respond to what which is just my opinion?
Shiloh Nuvelle Jolie-Pitt: Brangelina have had their baby. Who cares? I hope no one, and here's why: People magazine paid $4 million for exclusive North American rights to the first pictures of Shiloh Nuvelle Jolie-Pitt. That's a lot of money. Where did they get it? From anyone who buys this edition of their periodical! That's right: People has more than doubled the cost of their magazine for this one edition. If you want to have the first pictures of this child born out of wedlock to a man and woman who were married to other people when the began their relationship ~ You are going to pay for it! Why oh why do we worship celebrities in our culture?
The UN: This impotent grouping of nations continues to baffle me. Due to the suicides in Guantanamo they are once again calling for it's closure. How susceptible and emotional is this body of ambassadors? If suicides lead to the demand of the closure of a detention center then the doors of all jails should be closed. Why doesn't the UN worry about Sing Sing? What about the genocide and civil wars in Africa? Why don't they cry out about those? Look: Be like Amnesty International who is at least consistent in their knee-jerk human rights for all including convicts and murders, or continue to meet without actually doing anything (You're good at that anyway.) (Oh, by the way: Germany is trying to take over Europe through the EU, have you noticed that? No, I didn't think so.)
Canada: Recently (or not so recently anymore), Canada apprehended terrorists in their nation that were planning on assassinating their Prime Minister. This is a massive blow to the "let's pull out of Iraq and the terrorism will cease" crowd. What has Canada done in regard to Iraq? Opposed the war, avoided the coalition, made their stance known around the world. What is Canada? Still a target for international terrorism. It seems that simply not being Islamic is a good enough reason for terrorists to plan on breaking into your legislature and beheading your Prime Minister with a sword.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: When I heard the news I was happy. Then I realized: I'm happy that someone is dead. I'm happy that someone has lost his opportunity for redemption. I wasn't too happy after that. I was puzzled. This is the man who beheaded "infidels." He was the mastermind of the attacks on my countrymen. He was the Al-Qaeda mastermind in Iraq (wait, I thought Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq). My contemplation lead me to a place where I wanted to say that "This was a man that God wanted to love." Did not God love him anyway? I think he did. And now Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is separated from his maker forever. I continue to believe that no human has the right to hoist that punishment on another. That is for God to justly decide. In allowing/causing al-Zarqawi's death, wasn't God sovereign over this and, therefore, sentencing al-Zarqawi to this judgement? Whoops, theological spiral that will drive me crazy. The conversion of a radical Muslim (which would probably lead to his martyrdom) would be much more powerful on the world stage than the death of one at the hands of an enemy.
Measles: There have been enough cases of the Measles recently for the CDC (center for disease control) to label this as an outbreak. It's interesting to note that it hasn't only been the Measles, "German Measles" (or Rubella) have also been reported. Many have been asking, "How are these people getting the measles? Aren't we all inoculated against them?" The answer is: Yes. By law, one must receive their measles shots before they can attend school. Measles shots are a three stage process that inoculates you against Measles and Rubella. In fact, if you are going to immigrate into this country, you must also "have your shots." However, some of our neighboring countries do not offer their citizens immunizations against these diseases. So, if someone were to enter this country without the government knowing and without the government being able to regulate their medical care, then they would be susceptible to these diseases. I mean, this would only happen if someone entered the country, say, illegally. But we should continue to allow this and let them stay, right? (I don't think I got my small pox vaccination, have you?)
Ann Coulter: Critics of Ms. Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" are focusing on one sentence in particular: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Most news outlets will tell you that this is a statement about 9/11 widows. This is a gross overstatement. This is about four women from New Jersey who have appeared in political ads, and other public forums. Many people take issue with this statement. I am among them. This quote is rude, abrasive, and calloused. Is it untrue? They are millionaires, they have been interviewed countless times because of their dislike for the current administration, and they have actively supported liberal candidates. The "enjoying" portion is simply opinion, and if I were them, this sentence might spur me into reviewing how I've been behaving because someone thinks I'm enjoying my spouse’s death. The flip side of this is that many people do not take issue with other "controversial figures" like Michael Moore. Is this because they are on the other side of the isle? No one bats an eye when he says things like: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win." (Really, people killing Americans are to be honored? Is this something he's hoping for?). Even "wikipedia" slams Coulter while pretending to offer criticism of Moore. Bottom line: Too often people claim that you cannot disagree with people like the New Jersey Widows because of their losses. Well, if they didn't want to face criticism they should have stayed out of the spotlight. Also, while I cannot support the manner in which Coulter presented her argument, why doesn't anyone slam the Left like they love to rage on the Right? Ann's job is to sell books. This one sentence may double her sales.
So, now that you’ve taken an hour to wade through all of this, any comments on what you’ve read? Would you like to respond to what which is just my opinion?
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
06/06/06
Ooo. Today's date is so scary. There are some that are taking advantage of this date:
The Omen opens today. This is a remake (What a surprise! Is there anything original coming out of Hollywood these days?) of the original The Omen. The Anti-Christ is born, people die, blah blah blah. Have you heard the tag line for this film? Close your eyes and... wait, you can't read if you do that. So, keep your eyes open and hear in your head that grizzled movie voice doing the "this is a horror movie" trailer. Here's what he says: "Evil..." (dramatic pause) "... has a birthday." GAG!
But evil isn't the only one using today's date. There's a book that has a national release date today: "The Rapture" by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye is the third book in their prequel series entitled "Before They Were Left Behind." This series chronicles the lives of the main characters from their 12 book "Left Behind" series. Can we say: "beating a dead horse?" How about: "Anything for the money?" Let's try: "Who is buying this crap?!" Thankfully, this tired book leads right into the first of their terrible series and the world ends in book 12 of it so there can be no more. Unless they feel the need to publish a "Prior to Before They Were Left Behind." (Don't miss the first installment of this 40 book series due out in August!)
There was a pregnant woman so concerned about if her child would be born on this date that she had herself induced before it to make certain it didn't happen!
Why are we so superstitious? Friday the 13th. 06/06/06. My mother didn't want her children born on Halloween or Veterans Day. My brother's birthday is November 11th. That always makes me chuckle.
It's not as though God is going to do anything based on man's arbitrary calendar. Look, you're still here reading this. There's my proof. Will my generation live to see Christ's return? Will my son's? Somehow, I doubt it.
On a brief side note: I was watching a program on the end of the world on ITV (Formerly Pax) and they were asking lots of questions regarding today's events and Biblical prophesies. "Could this be the fulfillment of [insert questionable interpretation here] spoken of in Isaiah?" Funny, the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls were asking the same questions. Their answers were yes, too.
Modern Christians are way too focused on the end of the world and not focused on the now of the world. We are looking to the horizon to see if Christ is coming while our brothers are starving next to us. Yes, Christ will return. And I bet he'd be happier to find us feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and tending to the sick than gazing in his general direction. When the master returns, let's be busy working for him, not looking for him!
The Omen opens today. This is a remake (What a surprise! Is there anything original coming out of Hollywood these days?) of the original The Omen. The Anti-Christ is born, people die, blah blah blah. Have you heard the tag line for this film? Close your eyes and... wait, you can't read if you do that. So, keep your eyes open and hear in your head that grizzled movie voice doing the "this is a horror movie" trailer. Here's what he says: "Evil..." (dramatic pause) "... has a birthday." GAG!
But evil isn't the only one using today's date. There's a book that has a national release date today: "The Rapture" by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye is the third book in their prequel series entitled "Before They Were Left Behind." This series chronicles the lives of the main characters from their 12 book "Left Behind" series. Can we say: "beating a dead horse?" How about: "Anything for the money?" Let's try: "Who is buying this crap?!" Thankfully, this tired book leads right into the first of their terrible series and the world ends in book 12 of it so there can be no more. Unless they feel the need to publish a "Prior to Before They Were Left Behind." (Don't miss the first installment of this 40 book series due out in August!)
There was a pregnant woman so concerned about if her child would be born on this date that she had herself induced before it to make certain it didn't happen!
Why are we so superstitious? Friday the 13th. 06/06/06. My mother didn't want her children born on Halloween or Veterans Day. My brother's birthday is November 11th. That always makes me chuckle.
It's not as though God is going to do anything based on man's arbitrary calendar. Look, you're still here reading this. There's my proof. Will my generation live to see Christ's return? Will my son's? Somehow, I doubt it.
On a brief side note: I was watching a program on the end of the world on ITV (Formerly Pax) and they were asking lots of questions regarding today's events and Biblical prophesies. "Could this be the fulfillment of [insert questionable interpretation here] spoken of in Isaiah?" Funny, the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls were asking the same questions. Their answers were yes, too.
Modern Christians are way too focused on the end of the world and not focused on the now of the world. We are looking to the horizon to see if Christ is coming while our brothers are starving next to us. Yes, Christ will return. And I bet he'd be happier to find us feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and tending to the sick than gazing in his general direction. When the master returns, let's be busy working for him, not looking for him!
Friday, June 02, 2006
Man, I feel like a woman
When I first heard about this story I thought, "That'd be a good blog issue." After some consideration I thought, "But what can I say? Common sense will win out and there'll be no need for me to post on this." Looks like I was wrong.
Robert Kosilek, an admitted killer, is demanding that the state pay for his sex change. He is a man (still) who calls himself Michelle who killed his wife and is serving a life sentence. He has informed the state that he will commit suicide if he is not granted the surgery to complete his transformation.
The state has already paid for his laser hair removal ($500 per treatment, several treatments needed) and female hormone injections ($200 per injection). He is also demanding that the state (read: tax payers) pay for his breast implants ($5,000), chest hair removal ($600 per treatment, typically 10 treatments needed), two surgeries (total $12,500 for both), and recovery costs.
Of course, my first impression is to chuckle. That's pretty funny, nice try, you're a convict you have lost your freedom to change your sex. However! This felon's lawyer has found medical experts to side with him. One psychiatrist said "not allowing Kosilek's sex change operation is the same as denying a patient treatment for a burst kidney." Pardon? Because he's gonna die if he doesn't receive "treatment?" ("Treatment," obviously, is a misnomer as this is a voluntary operation. They are making it seem as though a nose job were "treatment.") Well, he may die, but only at his own hands. Another article explains that he's attempted suicide twice before. Hmm, seems to me he isn't very talented at this. Do we really have a lot to worry about? (he's also threatened to castrate himself... Ok, have fun!)
The controversial side of me asks, "If he does kill himself, is that so bad? Lowers the number of inmates, lowers the cost to feed, clothe, and house him, lowers court costs for all the times that he's going to sue for this procedure (This is his third attempt). Why stop him?"
Another issue is that there are about 15 prisoners hoping he wins because they want the same procedure! So a conservative estimate of the overall "treatment" would be $25,000 just for him. If he is awarded this tax payer funded gift, all of the others would be able to receive it as well, costing the state $375,000. This isn't something that I could get the tax payers to pay for. But this man has killed someone so he's entitled to it? Am I the only one who sees the problem here?
Let's take a step back and suppose that this man isn't crazy but rather brilliant. He's serving a life term in a male prison with male guards. If he has this done he would have to be moved to a woman's prison yet he would still have his male muscular make up. Perhaps he thinks that he has a better chance of breaking out of a female prison. Or even more devious: he changes his gender, changes his name, changes his identity. Suddenly, he is no longer Robert Kosilek, the man who murdered his wife. He is Michelle Kosilek, the woman trapped in a man's body that has finally emerged and deserves to go free. She hasn't done anything!
No matter what the case, this man does not deserve my money to become a woman. I wish our society would stop giving things away to people who don't deserve them! If you break the law, you lose your freedom. America is no longer the land of the free for you! If you wanted to become a woman, you should have saved some money, paid for the surgery, and not killed your wife! I'm sure you could have gotten a divorce once you made your sexual intentions known.
It's insane that this issue is even being discussed. It should be laughed out of court and he should have to somehow pay reparations to the state for what we've already paid for! I wish I could say this was more than just my opinion!
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Dryer Lint
That's right, you read the title of this post correctly. I'm musing on dryer lint (that would be a really cool band name) and other things that are needlessly taking up brain cells.
Dryer Lint: Why is it that, no matter what I put in the dryer: be it towels, colors, sheets, or shoes, the lint caught in the screen is always the same color? I could throw in a single, white, lint free item and at the end of the cycle the lint catcher will be caked with that grey, woolly lint that peels off like it's home made paper! Something tells me there are lint gnomes living in my dryer, cursing every time I use it because they lose more and more of their abodes to the evil lint screen!
Roger Clemens: Yes, a sports post, but a brief one. Consider this: Roger Clemens (returning to the Houston Astros) will be 44 this year. That is amazing longevity for an MLB pitcher. He has missed the first 52 games of this season. The new penalty for a first time positive steroids test is a 50 game suspension. Also, he has admitted that he doesn't know how good he is going to be this year. Could all of this be due to a surreptitious suspension by the MLB brass and a knowledge that The Rocket won't be able to use his quick recovery booster? Just something to ponder.
Minority Report: (Yes, the one starring Tom Cruise.) This is a great movie. I just have one beef with the plot: The fact that the Pre-Cog sees Anderton (Cruise) kill the man is what sets Anderton on the path that leads him to the place where he has the opportunity to do so. If the Pre-Cog hadn't seen the incident, it never would have happened. Hence: the Pre-Cogs viewing of the murder caused it to happen. So how did the Pre-Cog see it if it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't seen it? Oh well. When dealing with time viewing/travel, Hollywood just can't quite get it right. I really need to write my screenplay to see if others can find those inconsistencies in my plot structure.
Bonds: (I'm really sick of writing about him, so there will probably be only one more after this) I just wanted to briefly point out that Bonds is suing the writers of the book that calls him out for his steroid usage (Game of Shadows) for using classified grand jury testimony as evidence for their publication. He is not suing for defamation of character. This means one thing: Barry is admitting that he has done steroids. If he didn't take steroids then his grand jury testimony was perjury as proven by his actions in suing the authors for using it. So there are your choices, Barry: Either you are innocent of taking steroids and you perjured yourself and are facing jail time. Or you took steroids and you deserve to be catapulted out of baseball for good. So Barry: deal, or no deal?
Just some thoughts that ramble through my head while I ponder other serious matters. Don't forget: They are all just my opinion.
Dryer Lint: Why is it that, no matter what I put in the dryer: be it towels, colors, sheets, or shoes, the lint caught in the screen is always the same color? I could throw in a single, white, lint free item and at the end of the cycle the lint catcher will be caked with that grey, woolly lint that peels off like it's home made paper! Something tells me there are lint gnomes living in my dryer, cursing every time I use it because they lose more and more of their abodes to the evil lint screen!
Roger Clemens: Yes, a sports post, but a brief one. Consider this: Roger Clemens (returning to the Houston Astros) will be 44 this year. That is amazing longevity for an MLB pitcher. He has missed the first 52 games of this season. The new penalty for a first time positive steroids test is a 50 game suspension. Also, he has admitted that he doesn't know how good he is going to be this year. Could all of this be due to a surreptitious suspension by the MLB brass and a knowledge that The Rocket won't be able to use his quick recovery booster? Just something to ponder.
Minority Report: (Yes, the one starring Tom Cruise.) This is a great movie. I just have one beef with the plot: The fact that the Pre-Cog sees Anderton (Cruise) kill the man is what sets Anderton on the path that leads him to the place where he has the opportunity to do so. If the Pre-Cog hadn't seen the incident, it never would have happened. Hence: the Pre-Cogs viewing of the murder caused it to happen. So how did the Pre-Cog see it if it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't seen it? Oh well. When dealing with time viewing/travel, Hollywood just can't quite get it right. I really need to write my screenplay to see if others can find those inconsistencies in my plot structure.
Bonds: (I'm really sick of writing about him, so there will probably be only one more after this) I just wanted to briefly point out that Bonds is suing the writers of the book that calls him out for his steroid usage (Game of Shadows) for using classified grand jury testimony as evidence for their publication. He is not suing for defamation of character. This means one thing: Barry is admitting that he has done steroids. If he didn't take steroids then his grand jury testimony was perjury as proven by his actions in suing the authors for using it. So there are your choices, Barry: Either you are innocent of taking steroids and you perjured yourself and are facing jail time. Or you took steroids and you deserve to be catapulted out of baseball for good. So Barry: deal, or no deal?
Just some thoughts that ramble through my head while I ponder other serious matters. Don't forget: They are all just my opinion.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
May "Just Your Opinion" results
Question: What do you think of "The DaVinci Code?"
Results:
Results:
- I think it is mostly true and its facts should be investigated.
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (11.1%)
- 1 vote (11.1%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 7 votes (77.8%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Yup, not in your name.
Another of America's bastions of open dialog for multiple viewpoints showed it's true colors yesterday. Some from this place of higher education, where professors hope to expose their students to various paradigms, attempted to disgrace their commencement speaker. In reality all they did was show their own hypocrisy.
Boston College, a catholic university, had the good fortune of having Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, present their commencement speech. The college even bestowed upon her an honorary doctorate.
The issue at hand is that there were 200 students and faculty that attempted to silence the Secretary of State. They petitioned the college encouraging it to not allow her to speak! These people who are all for "alternative viewpoints" tried to stop someone from sharing hers because it differed from there own. Can't get much more "tolerant" than that!
Once they learned that their hypocrisy was not going to be supported by institution, they decided to protest at the commencement exercises. They wore signs on their arms, backs, and mortar boards that said, "Not in my name." Signifying that they didn't agree with the presentation of an honorary degree. Of course, this is no more than a statement of the obvious. What good is an honorary degree from the students of Boston College? That would look good on a resume. "Why yes, the undergrads of Boston College gave me a Doctorate." What arrogance to think it is in their name! I'll be sure to list that right next to the "Nicest Smile" award I received from my high school senior class.
One of the reasons the protesters gave for not allowing her to speak was that the felt "Doing so contradicts the universityÂ’s Catholic, Jesuit, and humanistic identity." (From the letter sent to the administration, see comments for the whole letter.) Margery Eagan, a columnist from the Boston Globe asked a very interesting question: "Where were those students and faculty when, literally across the street, Bernard Cardinal Law was covering up the biggest child sex scandal in America?" Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
The irony of this is that while these 200 people booed and turned their backs on the Secretary as she received her degree, they ended up facing the 30,000 people who were standing and cheering this modern day hero. (That's 0.6% of the attendees, in case you were wondering.) (I found this interesting: One of the protesters was Former Boston College professor Mary Daly, a feminist theologian who clashed with the college over her refusal to admit men to her classes. There's a "tolerant" person!)
Let's put this in perspective. I find the best way to do this is to alter a few details. Let's say this were a conservative university. (Do those really exist?) And they were protesting a democratic African American female secretary of state. What would the reaction be? Outrage. The labels used would include "Racists," "Bigots," Chauvinists," "Radicals," and "Fanatics." Why are these protesters not seen in the same light? Is it because it's fashionable to be a left wing nutcase, but not a right winger?
Ms. Rice had a few words of advice for the protesters (And, one hopes, for her administration): "The next time you absolutely sure that you are correct, find someone who disagrees with you."
I think that it is very appropriate to honor this African American woman who has worked very hard to get where she is, who is an independent thinker (as proven by the fact that she is has not been bullied into being part of the left by the people like "Rev." Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton), and who is one of the few upstanding people in politics. Good for you BC for not caving and for honoring this woman who truly deserves it.
All in all, though, it's just my opinion.
Boston College, a catholic university, had the good fortune of having Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, present their commencement speech. The college even bestowed upon her an honorary doctorate.
The issue at hand is that there were 200 students and faculty that attempted to silence the Secretary of State. They petitioned the college encouraging it to not allow her to speak! These people who are all for "alternative viewpoints" tried to stop someone from sharing hers because it differed from there own. Can't get much more "tolerant" than that!
Once they learned that their hypocrisy was not going to be supported by institution, they decided to protest at the commencement exercises. They wore signs on their arms, backs, and mortar boards that said, "Not in my name." Signifying that they didn't agree with the presentation of an honorary degree. Of course, this is no more than a statement of the obvious. What good is an honorary degree from the students of Boston College? That would look good on a resume. "Why yes, the undergrads of Boston College gave me a Doctorate." What arrogance to think it is in their name! I'll be sure to list that right next to the "Nicest Smile" award I received from my high school senior class.
One of the reasons the protesters gave for not allowing her to speak was that the felt "Doing so contradicts the universityÂ’s Catholic, Jesuit, and humanistic identity." (From the letter sent to the administration, see comments for the whole letter.) Margery Eagan, a columnist from the Boston Globe asked a very interesting question: "Where were those students and faculty when, literally across the street, Bernard Cardinal Law was covering up the biggest child sex scandal in America?" Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
The irony of this is that while these 200 people booed and turned their backs on the Secretary as she received her degree, they ended up facing the 30,000 people who were standing and cheering this modern day hero. (That's 0.6% of the attendees, in case you were wondering.) (I found this interesting: One of the protesters was Former Boston College professor Mary Daly, a feminist theologian who clashed with the college over her refusal to admit men to her classes. There's a "tolerant" person!)
Let's put this in perspective. I find the best way to do this is to alter a few details. Let's say this were a conservative university. (Do those really exist?) And they were protesting a democratic African American female secretary of state. What would the reaction be? Outrage. The labels used would include "Racists," "Bigots," Chauvinists," "Radicals," and "Fanatics." Why are these protesters not seen in the same light? Is it because it's fashionable to be a left wing nutcase, but not a right winger?
Ms. Rice had a few words of advice for the protesters (And, one hopes, for her administration): "The next time you absolutely sure that you are correct, find someone who disagrees with you."
I think that it is very appropriate to honor this African American woman who has worked very hard to get where she is, who is an independent thinker (as proven by the fact that she is has not been bullied into being part of the left by the people like "Rev." Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton), and who is one of the few upstanding people in politics. Good for you BC for not caving and for honoring this woman who truly deserves it.
All in all, though, it's just my opinion.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Anything for a story
So, FOX25 is bugging me again. They have an exclusive story about registered sex offenders. What are these perverts doing now? Delivering your mail!
Look, I understand the desire to protect citizens, but isn't this going a little far? Bear in mind that a registered sex offender is not only someone who victimizes children. Also, if these people are registering, they are obeying the terms of their parole. How much of a debt to society do these people owe? They already do jail time, and then have to register where they are living for the rest of their life. Now we aren't going to let them deliver mail? Yes, no day care, no physical education teachers, no clowns who make balloon animals for kids' parties. No police officers or others who carry weapons. But what else are we going to prevent these people from doing?
Delivering Mail: They know where you live! (Does anyone's mailman show up when their kids are home?)
Public Bus Driver: There may be potential victims who ride that bus.
Reporter: Sometimes, new reporters interview people one on one.
Supermarket Bagger: Occasionally, they carry the bags to your car!
Remodeler: They actually enter your home.
Cable Guy: see above.
What will we allow them to do?
IRS: Nobody likes them anyway.
411 Operator: Never actually interact with customers.
Radio Shack Guy: See above.
President of the United States: Oh, wait, that one was consensual.
Professional Athlete: Or do you have to be an Athlete first...
I digress. My real purpose for this post is that I am so sick of FOX25 selling fear to get people to watch their newscast! "Is there a common household item that could kill your children? Tune at 10 to find out." "The unknown danger in your back yard: tonight at 10." "Who is the scary woman living in your attic? We'll tell you, at 10 o'clock."
Just once I want them to sell the fear factor and then deny it. Example: "Is there a hidden threat in your child's school? Find out, tonight at 10." Then, when they get to that segment: "Now, an issue we've been advertising for the past three weeks: Is there a hidden threat in your child's school? No. Now let's go to Buck with sports."
I swear the FOX25 people sit around brainstorming their worst fears, then try to find a way to report and exploit them. "What if there was a sex offender coming to your home every day?" "Ohh, that's good. What could we look for? Jim, you take paper boys. Sally: garbage men. Milton: Mailmen. I want your findings by 3!"
Again, my aim is not to "defend" the registered sex offenders. FOX needs to knock it off, or I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop watching! They don't really care, though, because it's just my opinion.
Look, I understand the desire to protect citizens, but isn't this going a little far? Bear in mind that a registered sex offender is not only someone who victimizes children. Also, if these people are registering, they are obeying the terms of their parole. How much of a debt to society do these people owe? They already do jail time, and then have to register where they are living for the rest of their life. Now we aren't going to let them deliver mail? Yes, no day care, no physical education teachers, no clowns who make balloon animals for kids' parties. No police officers or others who carry weapons. But what else are we going to prevent these people from doing?
Delivering Mail: They know where you live! (Does anyone's mailman show up when their kids are home?)
Public Bus Driver: There may be potential victims who ride that bus.
Reporter: Sometimes, new reporters interview people one on one.
Supermarket Bagger: Occasionally, they carry the bags to your car!
Remodeler: They actually enter your home.
Cable Guy: see above.
What will we allow them to do?
IRS: Nobody likes them anyway.
411 Operator: Never actually interact with customers.
Radio Shack Guy: See above.
President of the United States: Oh, wait, that one was consensual.
Professional Athlete: Or do you have to be an Athlete first...
I digress. My real purpose for this post is that I am so sick of FOX25 selling fear to get people to watch their newscast! "Is there a common household item that could kill your children? Tune at 10 to find out." "The unknown danger in your back yard: tonight at 10." "Who is the scary woman living in your attic? We'll tell you, at 10 o'clock."
Just once I want them to sell the fear factor and then deny it. Example: "Is there a hidden threat in your child's school? Find out, tonight at 10." Then, when they get to that segment: "Now, an issue we've been advertising for the past three weeks: Is there a hidden threat in your child's school? No. Now let's go to Buck with sports."
I swear the FOX25 people sit around brainstorming their worst fears, then try to find a way to report and exploit them. "What if there was a sex offender coming to your home every day?" "Ohh, that's good. What could we look for? Jim, you take paper boys. Sally: garbage men. Milton: Mailmen. I want your findings by 3!"
Again, my aim is not to "defend" the registered sex offenders. FOX needs to knock it off, or I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop watching! They don't really care, though, because it's just my opinion.
Friday, May 19, 2006
I can't believe they said that!
Peter Gammons is a Hall of Fame reporter for ESPN. Recently, on WEEI, he said the following, "I'm ok with Russ Springer getting a 25 day suspension, because what he did was an embarrassment to baseball."
Pardon?
A pitcher throwing at an admitted cheater is enough of an embarrassment to warrant a 25 day suspension. But the same admitted cheater chasing one of the most coveted records in baseball history is not? It's not an embarrassment that the Player's Union protects disgraceful players like Bonds?
Hay, Gammons: get your lips off of Barry's bum! If there is an embarrassment to baseball it is the fact that the commissioner is too much of a coward to kick Bonds out of the game for good.
Some of you may not know that ESPN is currently airing a show called "Bonds on Bonds." It's Barry Bonds' way of attempting to garner some sympathy from the foolish people who watch this show. Basically, it's a Bonds love fest! Gammons is clearly unable to separate himself from the opinion of his employer. What kind of reporting is this?
Hey Gammons: stop taking marching orders from the Bonds worshippers at ESPN and talk about the real travesty in baseball: That Bonds isn't being thrown at every time he steps to the plate.
Paul McCartney (is he the real Paul McCartney?) and his wife of three years are getting divorced. What a surprise! And have you heard the reason for their break up?
According to Paul, it's the media! That's right. They blamed it on the media.
Look, I don't like the paparazzi just as much as the next guy, and I still blame them for Di's death (I'm not ready to throw that on the British Government just yet.). But give me a break! "We were unable to work out our differences because we're incredibly famous. Don't get me wrong, one of the reasons that we are so wealthy is because we are so famous. And if people didn't want to see our mugs everywhere we probably couldn't live in this multimillion dollar house and drive a different car per day, and I might actually have to get a job, but this is all why we are splitting up."
Just call it irreconcilable differences. (Here's the kicker: She's been with him for three year and she'll probably get half of what he earned as a Beatle! I think she should get half of what he's earned during these three years but that probably won't happen.)
I'm completely disgusted with both of them, but we all know, that it's just my opinion.
Pardon?
A pitcher throwing at an admitted cheater is enough of an embarrassment to warrant a 25 day suspension. But the same admitted cheater chasing one of the most coveted records in baseball history is not? It's not an embarrassment that the Player's Union protects disgraceful players like Bonds?
Hay, Gammons: get your lips off of Barry's bum! If there is an embarrassment to baseball it is the fact that the commissioner is too much of a coward to kick Bonds out of the game for good.
Some of you may not know that ESPN is currently airing a show called "Bonds on Bonds." It's Barry Bonds' way of attempting to garner some sympathy from the foolish people who watch this show. Basically, it's a Bonds love fest! Gammons is clearly unable to separate himself from the opinion of his employer. What kind of reporting is this?
Hey Gammons: stop taking marching orders from the Bonds worshippers at ESPN and talk about the real travesty in baseball: That Bonds isn't being thrown at every time he steps to the plate.
Paul McCartney (is he the real Paul McCartney?) and his wife of three years are getting divorced. What a surprise! And have you heard the reason for their break up?
According to Paul, it's the media! That's right. They blamed it on the media.
Look, I don't like the paparazzi just as much as the next guy, and I still blame them for Di's death (I'm not ready to throw that on the British Government just yet.). But give me a break! "We were unable to work out our differences because we're incredibly famous. Don't get me wrong, one of the reasons that we are so wealthy is because we are so famous. And if people didn't want to see our mugs everywhere we probably couldn't live in this multimillion dollar house and drive a different car per day, and I might actually have to get a job, but this is all why we are splitting up."
Just call it irreconcilable differences. (Here's the kicker: She's been with him for three year and she'll probably get half of what he earned as a Beatle! I think she should get half of what he's earned during these three years but that probably won't happen.)
I'm completely disgusted with both of them, but we all know, that it's just my opinion.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Beaning Barry
Finally! Finally a pitcher had the stones to do what needs to be done. Barry Bonds has been plunked. It was wonderful! ~And this was no accident!
You see, Russ Springer is my new hero. The Houston pitcher threw five pitches at Barry Bonds. The first was behind him, then at his knee, then at his shoulder (which hit his bat as Bonds attempted to get out of the way), then high and inside again, then he finally hit him high on the shoulder. Yeah! That's some stones. I love it! The pitcher was tossed without a warning, I can't imagine why!
(Wanna see it? You can get the video of the best play in baseball yesterday from this article!)
Barry Bonds (as you can see by the side bar) needs only 2 more *enhanced home runs to pass Babe Ruth in regards to career home runs. This is something that should not be allowed. For quite some time I've been a proponent of walking Bonds every time he's at bat. But why waste four pitches on this cheater? Just nail him: Same result, fewer pitches. Russ Springer has seen the wisdom of this idea. Granted it took him five pitches, but he eventually clocked the admitted cheater. The best part about it: the plunking drew a thunderous ovation from the 35,286 fans in attendance.
A side note: This "Future Hall of Famer" has been batting .143 since his last home run, with 3 hits. One of which was an extra base hit. He has managed 3 RBI in that time frame. He's "resting" and won't be playing in today's game. Probably won't be playing till he returns to the blinded San Francisco stadium.
Hey Barry, how do you like your just desserts?
Keep it up opposing pitchers. And a message for you umps: pretend you didn't see it. If the Commissioner is to weak to oust this guy from baseball, the players and umpires need to do it for him! Anyway, it's just my opinion.
You see, Russ Springer is my new hero. The Houston pitcher threw five pitches at Barry Bonds. The first was behind him, then at his knee, then at his shoulder (which hit his bat as Bonds attempted to get out of the way), then high and inside again, then he finally hit him high on the shoulder. Yeah! That's some stones. I love it! The pitcher was tossed without a warning, I can't imagine why!
(Wanna see it? You can get the video of the best play in baseball yesterday from this article!)
Barry Bonds (as you can see by the side bar) needs only 2 more *enhanced home runs to pass Babe Ruth in regards to career home runs. This is something that should not be allowed. For quite some time I've been a proponent of walking Bonds every time he's at bat. But why waste four pitches on this cheater? Just nail him: Same result, fewer pitches. Russ Springer has seen the wisdom of this idea. Granted it took him five pitches, but he eventually clocked the admitted cheater. The best part about it: the plunking drew a thunderous ovation from the 35,286 fans in attendance.
A side note: This "Future Hall of Famer" has been batting .143 since his last home run, with 3 hits. One of which was an extra base hit. He has managed 3 RBI in that time frame. He's "resting" and won't be playing in today's game. Probably won't be playing till he returns to the blinded San Francisco stadium.
Hey Barry, how do you like your just desserts?
Keep it up opposing pitchers. And a message for you umps: pretend you didn't see it. If the Commissioner is to weak to oust this guy from baseball, the players and umpires need to do it for him! Anyway, it's just my opinion.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The United States: "Built on immigration"
As requested, and expected, I have an opinion on the President's speech last night. Below are some of the thoughts I had (and many I said) while listening to our Commander in Chief:
"We are also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways." The President is correct in this. We are a nation of immigrants. My issue with this is that the term "immigrant" suggests that the people are here legally, that they jumped through all of the necessary hoops and respected this nation enough to obey our laws. Illegals are not immigrants, they are trespassers.
"At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history." Yeah, it's called a fence.
"Mexico is our neighbor and our friend." Just not one we want to have over for dinner, hence the fence.
"Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. When asked if he had any requests, he made two a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him and the chance to become an American citizen." Um, how good were his papers that this non-citizen was able to volunteer for the Marines? If this isn't an advertisement to terrorists on how to infiltrate our defenses, I don't know what is! "Ok, here's the plan. We sneak in from Mexico, become Marines, then they give us weapons, and we can do what we like. Let's see if we can get a tank or two for good measure!"
"That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law to pay their taxes to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law." So what does this mean? You've been breaking our laws longer than others so you get special treatment? And while you are waiting in line behind those who followed the law, please feel free to continue living in our nation illegally. Not really thinkin', were ya, George?
This was a Democrat responding to the President's speech: "This issue must not be used for political gain. If the President is going to send troops to the Southern Border, is that going to become yet another military action with no clear exit strategy? Will that become another quagmire?" These statements were made in sequence. This Democratic responder to the Presidents speech said that the issue must not be used for political gain and then proceeded to attempt to use it for political gain. Apparently, this Democrat (forgive me for not getting his name) missed this line of the President's speech: "The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities that duty will be done by the Border Patrol." And he thinks we are dumb enough to believe that because he said that it must not be used for political gain, that the sentence that immediately followed that assertion was not designed to gain him any political stature, at all, in the slightest... honest.
There's only one problem with the Temporary Guest Worker program. The people that the President wants to offer this to do not consider themselves temporary. They haven't been invited which removes the whole "guest" premise, and they shouldn't be working if they are illegals.
Bottom line: We have too long allowed this debate to be about "Immigration." This is not about "immigration," it is about laws. Immigrants have papers, documents, and approval. The people we are discussing have none of these least they have been forged. This issue is about people breaking our laws to get into the country and companies breaking our laws to pay these people lower wages. Both need to stop. If the TGW program is as the President made it seem last night: paperwork to allow non-Americans to work in our nation for a temporary period of time, great, I'm all for it. If it is to justify illegals already in the nation to stay here, I'm not behind it.
If you desire to be in America so much that you're first act is to break one of her laws, then your respect for the nation you want to be in must not be very high. I'm Marc from Just my opinion, and I approve this message.
"We are also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways." The President is correct in this. We are a nation of immigrants. My issue with this is that the term "immigrant" suggests that the people are here legally, that they jumped through all of the necessary hoops and respected this nation enough to obey our laws. Illegals are not immigrants, they are trespassers.
"At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history." Yeah, it's called a fence.
"Mexico is our neighbor and our friend." Just not one we want to have over for dinner, hence the fence.
"Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. When asked if he had any requests, he made two a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him and the chance to become an American citizen." Um, how good were his papers that this non-citizen was able to volunteer for the Marines? If this isn't an advertisement to terrorists on how to infiltrate our defenses, I don't know what is! "Ok, here's the plan. We sneak in from Mexico, become Marines, then they give us weapons, and we can do what we like. Let's see if we can get a tank or two for good measure!"
"That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law to pay their taxes to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law." So what does this mean? You've been breaking our laws longer than others so you get special treatment? And while you are waiting in line behind those who followed the law, please feel free to continue living in our nation illegally. Not really thinkin', were ya, George?
This was a Democrat responding to the President's speech: "This issue must not be used for political gain. If the President is going to send troops to the Southern Border, is that going to become yet another military action with no clear exit strategy? Will that become another quagmire?" These statements were made in sequence. This Democratic responder to the Presidents speech said that the issue must not be used for political gain and then proceeded to attempt to use it for political gain. Apparently, this Democrat (forgive me for not getting his name) missed this line of the President's speech: "The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities that duty will be done by the Border Patrol." And he thinks we are dumb enough to believe that because he said that it must not be used for political gain, that the sentence that immediately followed that assertion was not designed to gain him any political stature, at all, in the slightest... honest.
There's only one problem with the Temporary Guest Worker program. The people that the President wants to offer this to do not consider themselves temporary. They haven't been invited which removes the whole "guest" premise, and they shouldn't be working if they are illegals.
Bottom line: We have too long allowed this debate to be about "Immigration." This is not about "immigration," it is about laws. Immigrants have papers, documents, and approval. The people we are discussing have none of these least they have been forged. This issue is about people breaking our laws to get into the country and companies breaking our laws to pay these people lower wages. Both need to stop. If the TGW program is as the President made it seem last night: paperwork to allow non-Americans to work in our nation for a temporary period of time, great, I'm all for it. If it is to justify illegals already in the nation to stay here, I'm not behind it.
If you desire to be in America so much that you're first act is to break one of her laws, then your respect for the nation you want to be in must not be very high. I'm Marc from Just my opinion, and I approve this message.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
It's my right!
There have been two stories in the news that have recently ignited my ire as I view Americans and their understanding of their "inalienable rights." Few things anger me more than people who feel they are entitled to something that is clearly a privilege or reward.
It's my prom!
Two girls from Dennis MA were told that their prom dates were not allowed to attend the prom because the men had criminal records. The school discovered this by doing background checks on all non-students who were planning on attending this school sponsored event. (Students are required to request permission from school authorities for any non-pupils they are planning on bringing to this event.)
Of all the non-students that were planning to attend, two were denied access. The girls (and their mothers) were indignant that the school would dare deny these two boyfriends (19 and 20 year olds) from attending the big dance. Did I mention that their criminal records contained drug and alcohol charges?! That's what I want at my kid's prom. Two adults (what non-high schooler actually wants to go to a prom anyway?) with drug and alcohol problems!
The two students (a 17 year old who is dating the 20 year old, and an 18 year old with the 19 year old) have recently won a victory in this issue. The school board agreed to review the situation and suspend the ban until the issue has been resolved. As they will not be able conclude this investigation before the prom, the druggies, I mean dates, will be allowed to attend.
Investigation? What is there to investigate? It is a school function. The school has the right to deny anyone they choose. Why make the students ask permission if there isn't the possibility of denial? What reason would there be to deny someone other than a criminal record for controlled substances?
Let's say the school allows these kids in and some students get busted with drugs or alcohol and it turns out the "dates" brought it in? Is there not outrage? Are parents calling the school asking why these people were allowed to attend? You better believe they are because some "investigative reporter" would uncover their records.
So the school has to keep such substances out of the prom, they can't decline the entrance of people who'd be likely to bring it in, so they have to search people as they come in! Of course, This is a relatively wealthy area and parents wouldn't stand for their teens being searched before attending the prom! (One of the articles I read said that the 18 year old may hire a lawyer. the 18 year old, not her family, or mother; the student!)
And speaking of parents: Why are the mothers of these students trying to get the criminals into the prom? Shouldn't they be a bit concerned that their teenage daughters are dating men with records?! I guess not. They really only seem to be concerned about the $500 dollars they spent on their daughters dress, limos, and tickets. Great message you're sending, mom!
One of the local State Representatives said, "This is still the United States and everyone should be given an opportunity to participate." Well, not really, sir (Atsalis, D-Barnstable). See, the school is running the event and they can deny anyone they like. And even if you were right, these men lost the opportunity when they decided to break the law.
And the correct "right" falls to: The School.
It's my lunch!
A middle school has recently sent out a list of things that parents can and cannot include in their children's bagged lunches. Many parents (of course) are livid saying they have the right to send what ever they like. Well, I agree, to a point. The reason for the parameters is the high number of peanut allergic pupils the school has. (Any resonance, Apu?)
People who have peanut allergies could die from exposure to peanuts. Perhaps the parents could keep their allergic children out of public school. But they have a right to an education, don't they?
So let's weigh these rights: The right to live and get an education vs the right to send homemade cookies with peanut butter chips in my kids lunch. Do I need to say it?
The correct "right" falls to: The School.
Just because you want something, or don't like a situation, doesn't mean you have a right to it. America loves individuality, but there comes a point where we all have a responsibility to the community that over shadows our own desires.
(Hey Nathaniel, this blog is part of my responsibility to the community!) But it's all just my opinion.
It's my prom!
Two girls from Dennis MA were told that their prom dates were not allowed to attend the prom because the men had criminal records. The school discovered this by doing background checks on all non-students who were planning on attending this school sponsored event. (Students are required to request permission from school authorities for any non-pupils they are planning on bringing to this event.)
Of all the non-students that were planning to attend, two were denied access. The girls (and their mothers) were indignant that the school would dare deny these two boyfriends (19 and 20 year olds) from attending the big dance. Did I mention that their criminal records contained drug and alcohol charges?! That's what I want at my kid's prom. Two adults (what non-high schooler actually wants to go to a prom anyway?) with drug and alcohol problems!
The two students (a 17 year old who is dating the 20 year old, and an 18 year old with the 19 year old) have recently won a victory in this issue. The school board agreed to review the situation and suspend the ban until the issue has been resolved. As they will not be able conclude this investigation before the prom, the druggies, I mean dates, will be allowed to attend.
Investigation? What is there to investigate? It is a school function. The school has the right to deny anyone they choose. Why make the students ask permission if there isn't the possibility of denial? What reason would there be to deny someone other than a criminal record for controlled substances?
Let's say the school allows these kids in and some students get busted with drugs or alcohol and it turns out the "dates" brought it in? Is there not outrage? Are parents calling the school asking why these people were allowed to attend? You better believe they are because some "investigative reporter" would uncover their records.
So the school has to keep such substances out of the prom, they can't decline the entrance of people who'd be likely to bring it in, so they have to search people as they come in! Of course, This is a relatively wealthy area and parents wouldn't stand for their teens being searched before attending the prom! (One of the articles I read said that the 18 year old may hire a lawyer. the 18 year old, not her family, or mother; the student!)
And speaking of parents: Why are the mothers of these students trying to get the criminals into the prom? Shouldn't they be a bit concerned that their teenage daughters are dating men with records?! I guess not. They really only seem to be concerned about the $500 dollars they spent on their daughters dress, limos, and tickets. Great message you're sending, mom!
One of the local State Representatives said, "This is still the United States and everyone should be given an opportunity to participate." Well, not really, sir (Atsalis, D-Barnstable). See, the school is running the event and they can deny anyone they like. And even if you were right, these men lost the opportunity when they decided to break the law.
And the correct "right" falls to: The School.
It's my lunch!
A middle school has recently sent out a list of things that parents can and cannot include in their children's bagged lunches. Many parents (of course) are livid saying they have the right to send what ever they like. Well, I agree, to a point. The reason for the parameters is the high number of peanut allergic pupils the school has. (Any resonance, Apu?)
People who have peanut allergies could die from exposure to peanuts. Perhaps the parents could keep their allergic children out of public school. But they have a right to an education, don't they?
So let's weigh these rights: The right to live and get an education vs the right to send homemade cookies with peanut butter chips in my kids lunch. Do I need to say it?
The correct "right" falls to: The School.
Just because you want something, or don't like a situation, doesn't mean you have a right to it. America loves individuality, but there comes a point where we all have a responsibility to the community that over shadows our own desires.
(Hey Nathaniel, this blog is part of my responsibility to the community!) But it's all just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)