Social Security and the Democratic Wall

Social Security is not out of money yet, but one day it will be. Would you rather pay me now or pay me later?

Pay me later of course.

Democratic stonewalling, plus ads by AARP and other groups, are confusing the issue. Confusion is all the DNC can hope for. Why are they trying to stop the Presidents Social Security reform plan?
Well maybe because of genuine doubt as to whether the problem is urgent. I think a larger part of what motivates Democrats is: It's the Presidents plan. They would have liked to have thought of it.They are against it because the President is for it. By God, we couldn't kick him out of the White House, so we'll try to trip him up and stall him any way we can. Let's not let anything stand in our way of our monkey-wrenching either. Maybe we'll filibuster in the Senate and delay the appointment of Bush's nominations for the Federal bench too. Never mind that the Constitution doesn't not allow for filibuster in this area. I wish somebody would take that issue to the Supreme Court.

This brings to mind another reform program nobody wanted. Welfare reform.

That reform wasn't necessary either it you believed what the Dem's were saying. Remember? It's mean and it's going to destroy families. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it working? Aren't there fewer people on welfare in the states that were allowed to change welfare "entitlements"?
Are working people better of than people on welfare?
Isn't Social Security worth saving too?

What's So Bad about Teachers Having Sex with Their Students?

Every teenage boy I know (including me when I was a teenager) would be glad to have sex with his female teacher.(If she met the proper guidelines of weight in proportion to height and age). Teenage girls would giggle at the idea for a while, but they could be persuaded with the right amount of class credits.

Let's be realistic about this.
Schools administrators have been asking teenagers to practice safe sex and passing out condoms to the young people of America. Let's not rely on nature and hormones to show these little amateurs the basics of sex.
I say practice makes perfect. Sex education classes can only go so far. Those classes just show a few films and talk, talk, talk. Better to leave it to an expert to prepare these young people for the real world. Most big city high schools have overflow trailers on campus. Bring in a few more house trailers as "Love Lairs" and have a study period everyone will be grateful for.

Level the playing field!
It's really unfair to let these teen agers have ALL the teen age sex while the rest of us are left out. If we oldsters were included it couldn't be called teen age sex, but never mind about that.
There are even state laws against adults having sex with minors! Some Federal laws too.
Can you believe it?
Adults teach these kids in all their other classes right? Why not sex?
I propose that a dedicated cadre of horny, unsatisfied, middle-aged men and women volunteers get involved with the schools in their districts and show this kids the ropes, as it were. Background checks and blood tests would be performed to identify teachers with unsatisfied partners or STD's. These "questionable" instructors" would have to undergo remedial training and medical treatment.

Apparently the minors in some states are more sexually "ready" for instruction than minors in other sates; as evidenced by the various ages of consent.
Age of Consent in the United States, by state.
AS OF AUGUST 6,1994
Alabama........16
Alaska.........16
Arizona........18
Arkansas.......16
California.....18
Colorado.......16
Connecticut....16
D.C............16
Delaware.......12 Now that's a progressive state! Details; A child who has not yet reached his or her sixteenth birthday is deemed unable to consent to a sexual act with a person more than 4 years older than said child. Children who have not yet reached their twelfth birthday are deemed unable to consent to a sexual act under any circumstances.
Florida........18
Georgia........14
Hawaii.........16
Idaho..........18
Illinois.......16
Indiana........16
Iowa...........14
Kansas.........16
Kentucky.......14 [1]
Louisiana......17
Maine..........14
Maryland.......16
Massachusetts..18
Michigan.......16
Minnesota......16
Mississippi....18 [2]
Missouri.......16
Montana........16
Nebraska.......16
Nevada.........16
New Hampshire..16
New Jersey.....16
New Mexico.....13
New York.......17
North Carolina.16
North Dakota...18
Ohio...........16
Oklahoma.......18
Oregon.........18
Pennsylvania...14
Rhode Island...16
South Carolina.16
South Dakota...16
Tennessee......18
Texas..........17
Utah...........14
Vermont........15
Virginia.......16
Washington.....18
West Virginia..16
Wisconsin......18
Wyoming........18
FOOTNOTES:[1] Age 16 if the man is 21 or older.[2] If the female is over 12, the statute applies only to virgins.

Think about this; teenagers are ten times more likely to have an accident compared to an adult. Adults could help prevent accidents.
Accidents cause people!

I hope you realize I am just kidding! Have a nice day!

Utah Discovers Illegal Aliens Have A Right to Hide

This just in;
Illegal aliens living in Utah are being discriminated against by taking away their driving licenses. I think the key word here would be ILLEGAL. I would have more sympathy for their plight if they had entered the country legally.

According to Leo Bravo, director of Hispanic Center of Cache Valley, legal and otherwise; the new law just passed by the Utah legislature, which would replace driver's licenses previously issued to illegal aliens with "driving privilege" cards, is equivalent to the marking of the Jews(with yellow stars is assume) by the Nazis. Read the story here.

Leo, I have toured the concentration camp at Dachau and believe me, you owe every Jew an apology. NOTHING could ever equal what the Nazi's did to the Jews. Well maybe what some middle eastern terrorists would like to do, but I doubt it.

My Two Cents on Homosexuality and Religion

Here is my take on the situation.
First, this is assuming you believe in God to begin with. If you don't believe in God, then the sky, or the pit, is the limit.

For those that believe homosexuality is not sinful and believe in God, I think the logic goes something like this;
All things are from God. God is good.
Ergo, homosexuality is from God, and good.

God made Satan and his angels. Does this mean that Satan's behavior is acceptable by God?
I don't think so.
Why did God create Satan in a way that allowed him to make a decision God didn't like?
God allowed Satan and his angels to make choices. They chose to be self serving instead of serving God and disobedient instead of God serving and obedient. God found this unacceptable. Satan and his angels paid the price for their decision by being cast out of Heaven.
I don't fully understand how this was part of God's plan, but I believe that it was.

I believe people, like angels, are allowed to make choices too. We, like Satan and his angels, will someday be judged for the choices we have made.

Concerning Choices.

I have read the research theorizing that homosexuality is due in large part to genetic predisposition. I agree that the majority of homosexuals are in this category.

Whether or not the genetic code directs someone to be homosexual or heterosexual, they still must make a choice to follow that path. The choice to follow heterosexual urges is easier to follow culturally because it is more acceptable. There is no social stigma attached to heterosexual urges unless the are completely unrestrained.
Homosexual urges are another matter. The culture is battling this out right now. Is it acceptable and moral or vice versa? I believe the urge does not justify the act when it goes contrary to what the Bible teaches. I understand there are differences of opinion about the authenticity of the Bible and the existence of God. For my discussion, I will compare the Biblical to the world view.

I am approaching this issue with the belief that God would not ask of us what would be impossible for us to give. He asks us to choose to be holy and to repent from our sinful behavior. The sin is in the embracing of our sinful desires. This is not limited to homosexual behavior.
Not embracing or acting on our sinful desires may make some uncomfortable, but there is always a choice to be made. We choose the time, the place, the partner and then act. Not acting on sinful desires will be difficult, but it is possible with our effort and God's help. A member of my church recently addressed the congregation about his being rescued from the homosexual lifestyle by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. It can be done.

My opinion here is that we are all guilty of most of the prohibitions taught in the Bible. Either by thought or deed, we are guilty. We have thought about it, or done it, or both.
The fact of genetic predisposition makes it easy to say that someone just can't help it. If a person is coded genetically to be a homosexual, then to some extent they are able to rationalize their behavior by saying I am not responsible for my actions. God made me this way. He wants me to be this way. I don't have a choice. Therefore society has no right to say my behavior is wrong. If it is not wrong, then there should be no discrimination against me. Sexual orientation has been elevated to the same legal status as physical disability or ethnicity. We have laws that prohibit treating people negatively because of these states of being.

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
You will find several verses that say that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination. It also says that people who engage in such behavior will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. It also mentions that fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven either. To state it simply, sex outside of marriage, with an unrepentant heart, will leave you standing at the station when the last train pulls away.

The Fairness Requirement

Some enlightened critics of these Bible verses have an explanation that nullifies what the Bible teaches.

There are standards of fairness that God must adhere to.
Since it would be unfair for God to keep people from going to heaven because they;
Are having sex with members of the same sex, or
Are having sex with someone other than their spouse, or
Are people who are really good people but are not Christians,
The Bible must be wrong.

How can the infallible Word of God be wrong?
The critics have an explanation here too.
It isn't God's Word. God didn't write it. Men wrote it. Maybe they were inspired by God, maybe they weren't. Who is to say? Me. You. Them.
Not only that, men decided what books to put in the Bible to begin with. They didn't put in anything that would disagree with their own notions about God. Talk about stacking the deck.
So I have as much right to interpret these teachings as any of the fathers of the early church. I am not obliged to follow any directions that can not be shown to have come directly from the mouth of God directly to me. (Especially if it does not agree with what I think is correct.)

There is some good stuff in the Bible that it is positive to believe in. I can take the good stuff and leave the bad stuff. The bad stuff is anything that tries to convict me or make me change my ways.
It's Cafeteria Style Christianity.

Here are some examples.(Try to have a sense of humor okay?)
Loving your neighbor as yourself?
Good idea! Well maybe. I love myself a lot. I might have some love left over for my neighbor.

Forgiving all my sins?
This is great, a bill that doesn't have a "due by" date. A get out of jail free card! God understands that I can't help it.

Not covet my neighbors wife?
Have you seen her? What a horseface! That's an easy one. Besides, I'm a homosexual and I don't covet her anyway.

Judge not lest ye be judged?
This is one of the best ones. This means I can do anything I want and you should have NOTHING to say about it. Wonderful idea! (Actually it is a little bit different than they way it is interpreted by most folks. It depends on whether one is inside or outside the church)

Though shalt not steal?
Well, God didn't write the tax code. The LORD giveth and the IRS taketh away. I'm claiming everything I'm entitled to and every other deduction I think the IRS won't verify.

Thou shalt not kill?
I don't like confrontation. Can someone explain why did God sent the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of the promised land? Now that REALLY was not fair. David killed Goliath. Very confusing, but I like it anyhow.

Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me?
As long as we can agree.

Pursuit of Happiness Vs. Freedom of Religion

I agree that people should not be discriminated against for whom they choose to love.
I also think that people have a right to protect their family from what they consider to be immoral influences.
If, in the pursuit of freedom of religion, people choose not to have their children exposed to homosexuals as teachers, cub scout den masters or pastors of churches, how should they go about doing that? Withdraw from society? Convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia?

Michael Jackson's Trial Unfair?

I was watching C-SPAN Saturday night. There was a program about Black Unity.
Jesse Jackson suggested something was unfair about not having black people on the jury in Michael Jackson's trial.
"Can you imagine if Robert Blake's murder trial only had black people on the jury?" Jackson asked.

I could imagine it. Am I naive?

Are we to believe, as Jackson suggests, that Black people are only going to get a fair trial by having Black jurors participate in deliberating their guilt or innocence?
Is it proper then to assume that Black people would be incapable of making an unbiased verdict on a white person?
Wouldn't that logic require that for true justice Black defendants only have Black juries and White defendants only have White jurors?

We Need A National Identity Card

Why do so many people get upset at the idea of a national I.D. program?
If you are willing to commit a felony, you can acquire a birth certificate (not your own) fill out the passport application, send it in with the birth certificate (and some money) and in a few weeks you will receive a U.S. Passport in the name of your new identity. You can do something similar for a drivers license or an state identity card.

For some reason, our governments has never passed laws requiring that birth records and death records be matched up. Just doing that would keep a lot of identity fraud from occurring. Wouldn't it be nice to know that the man who just applied for a passport died three years ago?

I suppose the government is treating this problem the same way they treated the problem of counterfeit currency. In the fake money fix, they simply hired more Secret Service Agents to track down the counterfeiters. The idea was to let people counterfeit and then try and catch them. It's cheaper to do it that way instead of redesigning the currency to make it harder too counterfeit. (Which they ended up doing anyway).

If you had the birth and death records matched, and added your social security number along with your picture and fingerprint, you would have a national I.D. card as well as proof of citizenship. Put all that in a national database, and you have a pretty good identity card.

Some critics say this would be an invasion of privacy. Privacy to do what? Privacy to be an identity thief? Privacy to be a illegal alien?

Laying the Groundwork for Our War with Iran

In the February 17, 2005 Wall Street Journal is an article by David Cloud entitled
"U.S. Cites Iran Threat in Key Strait, Tehran Is Believed to Be Able to Stall Shipping Out of Gulf Waterway"
The article quotes Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, the head if the Defense Intelligence Agency, as saying that the Iranians could briefly close the strait of Hormuz by using a combination of naval, air and ground forces.

He is not alone in that belief. Porter Goss, the head of the CIA and Thomas Fingar as State Department Intelligence chief also agree with Jacoby.
If the accessment is accurate, it means the Iranians can mess with our oil supply. If you really want to make Uncle Sam mad, all you have to do is take a poke at his oil supply.

It seems to me that revealing this information now is laying the groundwork for attacking Iran at some point in the future. The U.S. may be able to avoid it, and I hope we can. If the Iranians head down the road that leads to nuclear weapons, combined with the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz I hate to think of what might happen next.

To be sure, the U.S military has it's hands full in Iraq right now. But someday soon the U.S. will be less involved with the daily security actions that are bogging our forces down.
The primary benefit of disengaging in Iraq (oh heck, you can imagine all the benefits of that). The secondary benefit to an improving security situation in Iraq is that we will have our ground forces standing on Iran's doorstep. If we keep them there for an extended length of time, we could do much to dissuade the Iranians from exerting any leverage against the present balance of power. (The present balance of power being Israel and United States versus the rest of the Arab world.)

In the meantime, the EU is about to muddy the waters, as they are so good at doing. The EU wants to use the "carrot and the carrot" approach to get the Iranians to stop looking for their own A-bomb. (If the Russians and French could figure out a way to do it without getting caught, they would sell the Iranians one of their own A-bombs.) For those of you unfamiliar with the carrot and carrot approach, one carrot(trade) would be for the Iranians, and the other carrot(oil) would be for the Europeans.

Apparently, the EU seeks to involve the Iranians with improved trade and in that way get the Iranians to fall so much in love with Belgian chocolate and French cheese they would never want to threaten their new love affair by doing something stupid. (Like putting a nuke on a missile and sending it into Tel Aviv.)
The best part for the EU is that they get the chance to pull the same smoke and mirrors act they pulled with Saddam and his oil for food program. You can bet the information and equiptment for nuclear development would come flooding into Iran after this new Iran/EU detente is fully established.

Then it would be deja vu all over again when we want to put a stop to Iran threatening our national interests. I can just see Condi Rice, or her equivalent, standing before the UN Security Council and showing the evidence to the Germans and the French and Russians, who have no economic interest in listening.

It doesn't help matters that the Russians have helped the Iranians build a nuclear reactor at Bushehr. The Germans were actually supposed to build it back in the 1970's. Now the outside is German and the inside is designed by the Russians.

The latest on this from the Associated Press is that the Russinas are going to make the Iranians promise to give back all the spent fuel rods so they (the Iranians) can't extract the plutonium from the rods and make weapons out of it. How about this quote from Russian president Putin;
"The spread of nuclear weapons on the planet does not aid security, it does not strengthen security. The latest steps from Iran confirm that Iran does not intend to produce nuclear weapons and we will continue to develop relations in all spheres, including the peaceful use of nuclear energy,".

Can somebody explain why a country, that is sitting on 125.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, needs nuclear reactors if they aren't pursuing a weapons
program?

I think we have been down this road before. Can you say Iraq?

Homosexuality, Descrimination and Religion

I got this e-mail from my nephew a couple of days ago. It was so well written, on both sides of the discussion, I thought I would pass it on.

Dr. Dobson;
Why are the rest of us out here, the non evangelicals, supposed to be tolerant of your group, when it is obvious that you have no tolerance for others? We are tolerant because of a little thing called "religious freedom", guaranteed in the Bill of Rights....oh, I forgot, you don't believe in that particular document.There is a second half of the bible....it's called the New Testament. That is where Jesus can be found...you know, the Son of God, the one who loved all people, regardless of what they were or represented. Gay is not a "lifestyle choice". Who would choose life as a pariah? Fundamentally, a gay person is born that way, just as a child with Mental Retardation is born with that developmental disability. Perhaps, people are just born without tolerance, as well. Jesus would have accepted them, too. While it is clear that this is a letter of complaint, I am testing your wisdom. I would like an answer as to why we should collectively be tolerant of intolerant people, especially those who sell themselves as Christians to make a buck when there is nothing Christ-like in their attitudes.I'll close with a suggestion. If you want the government out of your churches (i.e.: gay marriage or abortion), perhaps the churches should get out of government. Is your need to tell everyone else how to live dictated from the Bible, or just your own inner fear that Heaven won't have enough white Americans within it's gates? I wouldn't mind a well-reasoned answer to that question, as well.
Eagerly awaiting your reply,
Matthew A. Scott

Thank you for your e-mail to Dr. Dobson, Matthew. Being unable at present to reply personally, he has asked me to respond. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to answer your message on his behalf.It was good of you to take the time to share your belief that "a gay person is born that way." While we value your feedback, your correspondence leads us to conclude that you have significantly misunderstood Dr. Dobson’s criticism of the We Are Family Foundation’s promotion of homosexuality under the guise of “tolerance.” It’s our pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to the accusation that Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family are “intolerant” toward homosexuals or any other group of fellow human beings.In our society, there is a great deal of confusion over the definition of the word “tolerance.” Some argue that to be tolerant means that we must not only be respectful and compassionate to all people, but we also must unreservedly sanction and embrace any behavior or lifestyle. In contrast, we maintain that it is possible to live out the first part of this definition, reject the second part, and still be “tolerant.” Allow us to explain our reasoning on this point.We believe that tolerance is properly understood as the manner in which we interact with others; namely, it is shown by demonstrating an attitude of respect. Tolerant people do not engage in name-calling or express falsehoods designed to undermine another’s dignity. Rather, they manifest civility and do not harbor personal animosity toward those with whom they disagree.We believe, however, that people are not intolerant for holding that certain ideas are wrong while others are right and that some acts are immoral while others are moral. Many point to Christ’s interaction with the woman caught in adultery as evidence of His tolerance. Indeed, this passage does show Him exhibiting great compassion and love for this woman. And yet, His final words to her were “Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:11). Was Jesus displaying intolerance because he told the woman to stop living a “life of sin”? No, He illustrated true love, caring enough for the woman’s welfare to call her to leave her destructive lifestyle.We at Focus on the Family must do the same if we are to follow Christ’s example. There can be no doubt that the Scriptures prohibit homosexuality as a viable option for the expression of human sexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-27). Jesus Himself adequately addressed this subject when He said, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5; quoting from Genesis 1:27, 2:24) This is the Bible’s most complete and definitive statement of God’s design for marriage and human sexuality. To suggest that conveying these truths to others is synonymous with hating homosexuals is ludicrous, particularly given the fact that, whether one accepts the Bible’s authority on the matter or not, it is irrefutable that the gay lifestyle is filled with psychological, emotional, and medical risks.Having said all of this, it should now be apparent that Dr. Dobson’s issue with the We Are Family Foundation’s efforts to promote “tolerance and diversity” is NOT that their materials might lead children to treat homosexuals with courtesy and respect. We suggest you read his February 2005 newsletter to understand the real reasons for his concern over the We Are Family Foundation’s agenda. It can be accessed at http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0035339.cfm; Finally, because it is difficult to adequately convey the breadth of our perspective on homosexuality by e-mail, we’d be pleased to send you a complimentary set of booklets that explain our views in greater detail. If you’d be interested in receiving them, simply send a return e-mail with your name and mailing address and ask for item code XY289.Additional online articles may be found at the following link:http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/homosexuality/ We hope this response has clarified our point of view on this matter. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if we can be of further assistance, Matthew. Grace and peace to you!
Tessa Camp
Focus on the Family

Dear Folks,Although I was not swayed by your arguments on the subject, I am pleased with the thoroughness of your reply. I still firmly believe that tolerance as you define is incorrect. When people request tolerance, they are not asking for a person to "sanction or embrace any behavior or lifestyle". They are asking only that they be accepted as equal and valid humans, and not be discriminated against.Certain behaviors are intolerable in society. Murder or pedophilia are perfect examples. There is no proof that "the gay lifestyle is filled with psychological, emotional and medical risks". "Psychological and emotional" risks within homosexuals could be defined more practically within the context of sociology, in terms of how gays are unaccepted sociologically. As for medical risks, AIDS only seems to take a pass on heterosexual males, and homosexual women. Heterosexual females and homosexual males face approximately the same risk, medically, from AIDS.I do understand that love can be shown by asking of someone else to show respect for themselves. Your reply indicates that you equate a homosexual person to a woman "caught in adultery". Adultery as a sin connotes an action taking place, and a choice that can be made, not an unchangeable state of existence. Homosexuals have no choice. They are gay, just as I am straight, because of how God made them. It is not a question of telling someone to, "stop living a life of sin". It is not "sin" to live in the state of being that God creates for each of us individually. Finally, it is not enough just to treat someone with "courtesy and respect". My ex-stepmother told me once to call a black person "Sir, because that's what they like". Considering the words that she used to describe African Americans, the "courtesy and respect" she intended me to show was very hollow indeed. Most people who are in disadvantaged states of existence, sociologically, such as blacks, quadriplegics, the developmentally disabled, and homosexuals are not asking for that kind of courtesy and respect. They just want the simple human dignity of being accepted as equals.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Scott

Thanks for writing again, Matthew, and for explaining your position in greater detail. In response, we'd like to direct you to a selection of articles that further clarify our perspective on homosexuality and why we do not believe it's something over which individuals have no choice:http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/homosexuality/ Thanks, again, for taking the time to write. Although specific disagreement remains, know that the effort you’ve invested in opening a dialogue with us is much appreciated. God’s grace and peace to you in the days ahead.
Tessa Camp
Focus on the Family

Grateful to be protected by American Soldiers

I just wanted to say a few words about what I feel for my brothers and sisters serving in the military.

First, I'm biased. I am an Army Viet Nam veteran. I know a little of what it's like to be in the position that many of my fellow soldiers are in. I call them MY fellow soldiers because I really feel that they are my brothers and sisters. I don't care what branch of service they are serving in. We share common experiences. We share common feelings for what we have been through.

Second, I know that when you're up to your neck in crap, it's difficult to remember that the reason you are in that position is for someone else's gain. All you know at the time is that it's crap, it stinks, and you want to get out of it.

Having the benefit of over thirty years of "aging", allows me to dull some of my memories, shake off some of the crap that still clings to me, and see things in a more enlightened way. At least I hope I've been enlightened.

This I say to all of you who are in harms way;
I pray for you every day. I pray for angels to be all around you, protecting you.
I pray for you to have skill in battle.
I pray for your minds to be protected from the awful things you have to see.
I pray for your families to be comforted by the Holy Spirit, and to have their worries put to rest.
I pray for you all to be brought closer to God, so that if you are lost to us , you will next awaken in His presence.
I pray that this war will be over soon, and you will all be home safely with your families.

No matter what the outcome of all this fighting, your sacrifice has been worthwhile. You will have "run the good race".

One more thing; NEVER be ashamed of your service.

God Bless you all.

A Conspiracy within a Conspiracy

I had heard about the subject of an HIV/AIDS conspiracy from some friends at work. I had no idea it was so popularly believed.

See the story from MSNBC here.

But you see, those who believe the conspiracy theories are thinking too simply. Those of us who really know how evil white people are, know that what is really going on is that the government didn't introduce the virus, they introduced the conspiracy theory.
The theory was to keep black people suspicious of the motivations of white people. (An altogether good suspicion to have).
That suspicion would help keep us(black AND white) from seeing each other as members of the same human family who have to be responsible for our own actions or inaction.

Did I just contradict myself? THEY knew I was going to say that.

Since President Bush Declared an End to Major Combat.....

Remember when, before the presidential election, every night on the evening news the reporter used to follow the casualty figures from Iraq with something like;
"and that's the 149th soldier to be killed in Iraq SINCE PRESIDENT BUSH DECLARED AN END TO MAJOR COMBAT".

Whatever happened to that?
Why don't I hear them say that anymore? It's not any less true now than it was then. So what was behind it?
I believe it's was because when they were saying it, they were hoping to influence people's vote for president. Since it is too late for that now, there is no need to say it anymore.

It still appears that the casualties are reported with some degree of senasationalism.

Take today's news for example.
By combining the number killed in a helicopter crash in western Iraq with the number killed in ambushes in eastern Iraq, the news vultures are able to say;
"the single deadliest day for U.S. forces since the war in Iraq began nearly two years ago, defense officials said".(that from the Washington Post)


While I'm at it, I'll add a comment about "time", the way news people use it.
I think it's amusing to hear a news person say something like; "that is the largest increase in unemployment figures in nearly two DECADES!"
Now I know they hope to make two decades sound like it's a hundred years. Maybe it would sound even longer if they said "almost a thousand weeks" next time.

Women vs Men; Natural Abilities

I saw that the President of Harvard made some comments about women and natural ability which got him in some hot water.

Why is it okay to take notice of the innate differences in men and women's behavior, but not okay to suggest that we might have different learning abilities? Political correctness?

And oh my gosh, this story just in based on a study from a the University of California at Irvine.

I think I'll rest my case.

ACLU and Religion

Hey boys and girls, this from the ACLU website;
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States. This means that the government may not give financial support to any religion. That's why many school voucher programs violate the Establishment Clause -- because they give taxpayers' money to schools that promote religion."

Here is what the Constitution actually says about that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think the key here is "CONGRESS shall make no law", and "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

In our upside down world, my right to freely exercise my religious beliefs is held hostage by the liberal judge's interpretation of what constitutes Congressional legislation.

By the way, is it okay for school teachers to discuss Buddha? Is that religious establishment that is prohibited too, or is it just Christian religion that is prohibited?

Peggy Noonan; Too Much God?

I read a Wall Street Journal commentary by Noonan in which she was complaining that there was "way too much God" in President Bush's inaugural speech.

Way too much God. I don't see how you can have too much God in anything. God and Presidents; I hope we have more like George Washington.

Would she ever have written a piece about "Too little God?"

Speaking of too little God; we removed God from the public classroom, how do you like the results?

Why Do They Do That in Sports?

Baseball:
Why does the team that hits a baseball out of play (out of the park) get a point for that? Wouldn't the game be more exciting if the ball stayed in play?

And after they do hit the ball out of play, why does the hitter run around the bases? Why not just go sit down? Is it a victory lap?

Just a side question; aren't there any women who can hit well enough to play professional baseball with men?

Basketball:
Why is the basket so low that the players can stick their hand down inside and dunk? Shouldn't the basket be higher so they would have to shoot? I think that would make for better all around players.

Social Security and a Solemn Commitment?

I almost choked the other night.
I was watching the news, and there is Ted Kennedy telling us that we can't fool around with social security reform because Franklin Roosevelt had given the people a "solemn commitment". Then the news anchor explains that the truth actually is that the social security trust fund has a surplus that will last for another 30-40 years.

I couldn't believe it!

I think it works like this; The government collects money from your paycheck, then it puts the money in the SS Trust fund where it is invested in U.S. government bonds which pay interest. The interest is paid by the government back into the fund which is held by the government. Then the government gives the money to someone else who probably will take more out of the fund than they put in. If I ran my finances the way the government does, I would be put in jail for fraud.
Before we had social security, we managed to look after each other pretty well. Children took care of their aging parents. Churches took care of widows and orphans. We cared for our neighbors more. It was not ideal , but for the most part, people made do.
Now Social Security is seen as a substitute for managing your own finances to provide for yourself. Wouldn't it be better if we were a little more independent?

Back to Mr. "solemn commitment";

During JFK's inauguration speech on 1961, didn't John F. Kennedy say;
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Here is Ted Kennedy's answer to his brother's "solemn commitment" to defend liberty.
"This misguided war in Iraq has distracted us from the real war we must win and made that war harder to win, because even as we combat terror, it has left America more and more isolated in the world,"
That's the war we must really be fighting, the war to be liked by our more enlightened overseas friends.

I don't know about you, but when Germany and France protest our policies, it tells me we are probably going in the right direction.

California Mudslide. Why Doesn't The State Do Something About That?

I was watching what passes for the national news last night.

In a video from the site of the California mudslide, a woman resident questions Gov. Schwartzenegger about why the state didn't do more to protect them from mudslides. She tells him that they had asked the state to terrace the hillside but the state had said it was too expensive. And just how much money was it costing to come out and try and dig out the bodies now?

That attitude might be understandable in the aftermath of a tragedy such as happened there. But it is the same attitude that blames others for decisions that you make for yourself.
Her feet weren't nailed to the ground. If she thought it was too dangerous to live there, why was she living there? She was living there because she CHOSE to live there. She weighed the possibilities, and bought a home there anyway. NOW since it turned out to be a questionable decision, she is not going to blame herself for making that choice, she is going to blame the government for not protecting her from the consequences of her decisions.

Certainly the state has a responsibility to protect it's citizens, but the costs of that protection must be weighed against the benefits of using those resources in other areas.
Those types of decisions are made by the representatives that chosen by the people.
If they are doing their best to make the right decisions, I think that is the best you can expect.

But in typical knee-jerk fashion, I imagine the State of California will now spend some huge amount of money to take the top off that mountain and move all the threatened homes to Indiana where it's safer.
While the state is at it, maybe they could take a look at that woman's eating and exercise habits to make sure she lives a long and fulfilling life. Make sure she wears a seat belt when she drives too.

We are supposed to gather information and then make rational decisions for ourselves.
I'm sure that before all is said and done, there will be lawsuits filed against the State of California (for not spending a billion dollars to remove the mountainside), the Fire Department (for not rescuing people sooner) and maybe God for not stopping the mud from sliding.

Actually, someone did try to sue God once, but the subpoena could not be served.

Charities

I heard on the news yesterday that some charities have raised too much money for the tsunami relief efforts. The charities could no longer promise that all the money they collect will go to help the victims.

And hey, we want to make sure all the money we give goes where we want it to. By golly, no darned charity better try to spend any extra money on anything other than what tugged at our heartstrings and made us want to give in the first place.
That's why the families of the victims of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack got paid hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for the death of their loved ones, in contrast to the families of the soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq on the war on terror who get about $10-20,000. (But that's another subject.)

At dinner time tonight the phone rang. We usually let our answering machine screen our calls for us, but tonight we stupidly answered it (because we had just left a message on a friends answering machine and thought they were calling back.)

The caller said they had an "EMERGENCY" message for us .

Well, that got our attention; we have a loved one in the hospital in a coma, and an elderly relative in Florida. But no need to get excited, it was only World Vision.
Not wanting to miss a golden opportunity, they were calling to capitalize on the misfortune of all those suffering the effects of the disaster around the Indian Ocean, by hitting me up for a donation.

I understand the squeaky wheel getting the grease, but that really gets my goat.

I make donations to charity regularly, year after year. The charities I give to, almost without exception, then pester me with phone calls, e-mails, letters and cards telling about the latest disaster and asking me for more money.
In the beginning I even went along with them. I naively thought that there must be a real need for it or they wouldn't be asking. So I would give another $50 and they would send a nice thank you letter, and not wanting to waste the postage or the opportunity, ASK FOR MORE MONEY! Often times offering to give me a calendar, coffee mug, tote bag or umbrella as a small token of their esteem.

Well sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and sometimes the wheel gets replaced.
I doubt they would notice if I replaced them.

Why elected officials don't always answer to the voters

When was the last time you contributed money to ANY politician's campaign?
Does NEVER sound about right? That's what it would be for me.
If you aren't giving any money to politicians to finance their run for office, where do you imagine the money comes from?

Some of it comes from their own pockets, but most comes from PAC's and donations to the National Party made by special interests. If those contributions don't buy influence, why in the wide world would those special interests want to give away millions of dollars to people who aren't going to listen to them and/or do what they want?

I admired the frankness of Charles Keating, who headed Lincoln Savings and Loan in the 1990's during the savings and loan crisis. When asked by a reporter if he thought his donations to the campaigns of various senators had bought him any influence, his reply was "I certainly hope so". He had to go to jail anyway, but the carrers of Congressmen Cranston, Reigle and DeConcini were cut short by the scandal.

Actually, I have to lower my voice here. My sister told me that I sound arrogant. Maybe I am arrogant. It's hard to judge for me to judge. Judge for yourself.

So, maybe most politicians aren't part of an elaborate sheme to lie to us, tax us and then pay back their buddies. It could be that they are incompetent.
Would the results be about the same?

Elections

Why don't more people vote?
Could it be because they think that both candidates are unworthy of their vote?

How about a new choice for the ballot;
( ) NONE OF THE ABOVE.

If more than a certain percentage of the voters make this choice, the candidates are disqualified and the parties must offer two new candiadates.

Or how about amateurs for office.
We could choose the next officeholder by lottery. Okay Joe Schmo, it's your turn to be the Representative from the 1st Congressional District of Ohio. Maybe that would bring some common sense back to government.
Because you would never know who the candidate would be, the special interests would not have the ability to influence you future conduct with their campaign donations before you took office.