The Public Has A Right To Know??

There are apparently more photos from the prison at Abu Graib than we have seen. Apparently the abuses were much more serious than we had originally been told.

These abuses, when committed by Americans are absolutely indefensible. Those responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We expect much better of ourselves and each other than that.

However, I find the continued harping about this subject by the American Media to be a bit distasteful as well. I think that the Media may as well, when they get all of their facts together, rather than publish them themselves, put them in a box, mark it "TERRORIST RECRUITMENT MATERIALS, HANDLE WITH CARE", and send it directly to Al Jezeera. In a way, I would rather they did this than lend their own credibility (such as it is) to the story.

The soldiers who were involved in these atrocities have been apprehended, relieved of their duties there, and are being tried and sentenced by the military courts, as is their right by law. If found guilty (There is no reason to believe that they won't be...) they will be punished according to the Military Code of Justice. If it is found that people higher in the chain of command knew about these atrocities, and did nothing to stop them, then these people will be dealt with as well. I would expect nothing less from my government, and the American military. The investigation is ongoing.

At what point (within the context of this conflict) do we draw the line between informing the public and aiding and abetting the enemy? Is Dick Durbin's right to say whatever he wants on the floor of the senate more important than an American soldier's right to life? If this soldier is killed by a terrorist who was emboldened by Al Jezeera's coverage of Durbin's comments, is Durbin now responsible (in part) for the death of this soldier? If the same soldier is killed by a terrorist who was emboldened by the latest news on the Abu Graib story, then is the New York Times responsible for his death?

Does the public really need to know at this point how serious these atrocities were? If I believed that atrocities like those that may have occured at Abu Graib were the normal policy of American prisoner of war detainment facilities, then I would say yes.

But I don't believe this to be the case.

Abu Graib was an isolated incident. I don't believe that the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay were ever mistreated (by the worldwide standards for treatment of Prisoners of War.) To continually stress the point that they were does no one any good except our enemies in this war. ( With the possible exception of the Democrat Party, who want this issue for political advantage.)

I don't want to be kept in the dark on issues like this, but if informing me means that we endanger the lives of American Soldiers, then I can be content to wait until the conflict is over to be informed.

As long as I know that the people in charge are conducting the proper hearings (which they are), you can spare me the details.

Al Jezeera does not need any more anti-American material.

Freedom Is A Messy Business...

Is Gay Pride week a nationally recognized holiday? (Or group of holidays, as it were?) Are our tax dollars rightly spent promoting Gay Pride book displays, Gay Pride parades, or other Gay Pride festivities? Who, if anyone, has the power to decide whether to promote Gay Pride week, or to try to obscure it behind the shelves or in the back room of the public library?

"(Hillsborough county) Commissioner Ronda Storms said she will schedule the (Gay Pride display) issue for a board discussion where she intends to ask that such displays be banned. As the mother of a 6-year-old daughter, she said she does not want to be forced to explain homosexuality and transexuality if her child passes such a display and starts asking questions.
"I do not want to have to explain to my( 6 year old) daughter what it means to question one's sexuality," Storms said during a budget workshop Wednesday."(From St. Petersburg Times, June 9,2005)

In Hillsborough county (Tampa), Florida, the county commission has voted 5-1 to ban Gay Pride displays in public libraries.

I am having a really hard time with this one.

Do I want my tax dollars going to promote Gay Pride? No. Do I think that Gay Pride is an appropriate subject for discussion with every patron of the public library, regardless of age? No. Do I agree with the Gay lifestyle and the activities that this lifestyle encompasses? No.
(MY OPINIONS. Whether anyone agrees or not, I have the right to think what I think, and to say whatever I want.)

I do, however believe in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I believe that the public library should be and MUST be the repository of ideas and alternative viewpoints. In my opinion, if there is a place in the world for a display about Gay Pride, it is the public library.

Now, before you Conservative religious types come out of the woodwork and hammer me for supporting a public display dedicated to Gay Pride, remember that I also support the Ten Commandments being displayed in Courthouses, if the majority of the community has no problem with it. To me it is the same arguement.

Either you believe in freedom of speech or you don't.

I do.

Even if it means that I have to support a Gay Pride display, I still believe in freedom. (This also means that I would support an ANTI- Gay display in the same library, or Nazi-ism, or the Ku Klux Klan, or a display of Hillary Clinton's new book.) ("Freedom of speech" means "FREEDOM of speech".)

I don't, however, believe that a Gay Pride display (or ANY display on any subject that is as controversial as Gay Pride) should be in the common area of the library. It should be in the Adult Non-Fiction section, where the children of people who would like to sheild their young children from subjects like this, until they feel that their children are able to cope with such things, will not stumble across it, and ask questions to which they may not be able to understand the answers.

I think that the Board of Commissioners got this one wrong. They should have regulated the displays, limited the areas in which they could be erected, and allowed the displays to stand.

Until the end of Gay Pride week.

And then they should have denied any request from the Gay community, whatever it was, until Gay Pride week next year.

I will state for the record that I believe that until a cure for the AIDS virus is found, that it is an extremely bad idea for society to promote the Gay lifestyle. However, I also believe that even Gays have the constitutional right to express their opinions in public just like everyone else, whatever their opinions may be.

Freedom is a messy business...

I must give credit where credit is due. My Democrat friend ER was the first that I ever saw use the phrase "Freedom is a messy business..."
I thought it was very profound.

SAY WHAT??

Listening to the usual talk radio shows over the last couple of weeks, I have heard some amazing things.

I heard that a group of activists have been handing out tee shirts emblazoned with the words "I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE SEARCHED" at the entrances of the New York subways.

I heard one radio commentator say that anyone who supported the patriot act was "afraid" and would rather "trade their freedoms for a phony sense of security".

I heard one say that "we are all going to die anyway, so now the question becomes, how do you want to LIVE?" He also said that "If you search my bag and you find a bag of weed, LEAVE IT ALONE! That's not what you were looking for!"

I have over the last couple of weeks heard a U.S. senator compare U.S. Marines to Nazis, heard him compare an air conditioned detainment facility for prisoners captured in combat against U.S. troops to a Goulag, and heard him liken their treatment to the treatment that PolPot would have given his enemies.

I have heard this senator and many like him demand that these enemies of America be afforded full constitutional rights as if they were American citizens.

I have heard the Media construct a story of a presidential advisor leaking the identity of a CIA agent, and then heard them assert that this offense is much more serious than a President leaking military technology which made it possible for the enemies of America to target our homes with inter-continental ballistic nuclear weapons.

I heard the U. N. say that it is "unfair" for the United States to administer the internet, and then demand that control over the internet be turned over to them.

I heard that the Space Shuttle started falling apart on the launch pad, so NASA decided to "wiggle a few wires" and launch it next week.

I heard (repeatedly) that a "constructionist" judge or an "originalist" judge would roll back freedoms for women.

I heard another U.S senator make the statement that if John Roberts were confirmed to the Supreme Court, that five thousand American women every year would die from back alley abortions and still another senator say that the President looks like Alfred E. Newman.

I heard a sentor say that justices Thomas and Scalia were the most radical and activist justices on the Supreme Court.

And on and on and on.

So is it any wonder that now, when I sit down to write my post, against this cacophony of idiocy, I can think of absolutely nothing to say?

Hot For Teacher...

Well, Greco Middle School teacher Deborah Lafave is back in the news, and guess what??

She's going for the insanity defense!! I don't know if I can survive the shock!! I mean, how will she and her attourney ever convince a jury that a 23 year old woman with a brand new career and a gainfully employed, good looking husband would throw her whole life away just to provide oral sex to a 14 year old male student?

I think the insanity defense is a monumentally bad idea. The problem with pleading insanity is that right off the bat, she's admitting she did it. No going back after that. She may as well say "The Devil made me do it!!"

I am not a lawyer, and I know that nothing that I say can really help her, but I thought that I would suggest some alternative defense strategies...

Her lawyer is already on the trail of my first strategy, however I don't think that he fully realizes the possibilities of his line of thinking, so I will try to flesh out the idea for him (so to speak.)
He said this morning that she is "too pretty" to go to jail. Yeah! That's the ticket!
I will say this much for her... she is ONE HOT CHILD MOLESTER! Wowsers! Holy Moley!! This chick is a top shelf example of why I love living in the Tampa Bay area.
But just pointing out that she is pretty is not going to be enough. Her lawyer needs to come up with a few catchy little rhyming phrases to chant at the jury.
Such as..."If she has nice (?), you must aquit!" (If only I could think of a word that rhymes with "aquit"...) Okay I'm still working on that one.

Or, how about this?
She could call a big national press conference, practice making her lower lip tremble, and at the press conference, stare directly into the camera, stick her index finger into the air and as seriously as she can, say "I did NOT have sexual relations with that boy Mr.(name withheld to protect the identity of a minor.) Then she can assert that her sex life is none of anyone's business, declare the whole thing a witch hunt, and deny, deny, deny. She could also demand that the whole thing be dropped so that she can get back to the business of educating America's children. As long as she has destroyed HER blue dress, it should work. (If precedent is any indicator, anyway...)

Or maybe she could ask for a change of venue to Santa Maria, California, then admit that she slept in the bed with the boy, and in the backseat of the car, and that they were naked together occaisionally, but there is nothing wrong with anything that they did. It's beautiful! It's love! She was just showing her LOVE! She could tell the jury that she just LOVES children. (Especially the BOY children...)

What is she really guilty of anyway? All she did was help a young, innocent schoolboy to realize his dreams!

No?

Okay, I've had my fun, now let's get serious about this. (The jokes were just too easy...)

I do not believe that this young woman should be put in prison. She is a very disturbed individual. If you don't believe that then you should listen to the taped telephone conversations between her and the kid. These tapes will make your hair stand on end. (No offense intended to any bald people out there.) She has a very severe disconnect with reality.

In other words, The chick ain't right.

I can believe that she didn't realize that what she was doing was wrong.

However, I don't believe that she should be released either.

She is a sick person, and she should be confined to an institution until such time as she can be trusted around young boys again. Under no circumstances should she be allowed to ever teach school again, and if she gets a book deal out of this episode, all proceeds should be diverted to rape crisis centers for underage victims.

Nobody is too pretty to go to jail, but I believe that Deborah Lafave is absolutley too ill to go to jail.

This young woman is not John Couhy. She is not a monster who rapes and kills helpless victims.
She needs help, and now maybe she will get it.

I wish her and her attourney the best of luck.

New Tone?

I am beginning to think that maybe our friends over on the left may be right.

It may be time to impeach President Bush.

Not over the war, not over the Karl Rove mess, not over the supposed lies, not for any of the reasons that the left says he should be impeached...

I think we should start to think about impeaching the President over the New Tone in Washington. I think we should think about impeaching the President for not pressuring senate Republicans into triggering the Constitutional Option to stop the filibustering of his judges. ( I will no longer call it the Nuclear Option, The OPTION is constitutional, the FILIBUSTERING is nuclear...) I think we should start to think about impeaching him for not pushing the Republican, Right Wing, Conservative agenda that we elected him for.

When I went into the polling booth last November, there was one phrase playing over and over in my mind as I colored in those Republican circles on my ballot form...

"U.S. Supreme Court Cheif Justice Hillary Clinton."

That one phrase was enough to ensure that President Bush got my vote, even if all of the lies from the left had been true. Even if they had proof that there were never any WMD's, even if they produced videotape of the President HAVING SEX WITH THE KING OF SAUDI ARABIA, as long as he put Originalist (I did not say "Conservative"...) judges on the courts, he still would have gotten my vote. I could not stand the idea of John F. Kerry appointing judges to lifetime appointments to set policy for the entire Nation, in spite of the elected representatives of the people, and I knew that cheif Justice William Rehnquist was circling the drain. I knew that whoever was elected in 2004 would inevitably select at least one Supreme Court Justice, And I didn't want Kerry having anything to do with the selection process. This was THE most important issue to me during this past election cycle.

On Thursday morning of this past week, the President held a meeting at the White House with some key senate Democrats to discuss nominations for a replacement on the Supreme Court for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

WHAT?!?

Since when do members of the opposition party get to have ANY input into the SELECTION PROCESS for potential federal judges?? Has this EVER been done before?

The problem isn't Democrats. It is Republicans who will not support their own party, and the President for not putting more pressure on his own party members to stay in line. The Republicans hold 55 seats in the senate. They only need 50 to confirm a judge. This shouldn't even be an issue.

The only reason that it is an issue is that Republicans in the senate will not stick together and support the President. On this point I really admire and respect the Democrats. They never stray off the reservation for any reason. They understand that the people who elected them wanted Democrats in power. They understand that their constituancy does not want the representatives that they elected trying to make nice and come together with the opposition, and they present a united front.

Do you think that they would include a single Republican in the process if the situation were reversed?

NO.

Because THEY understand what is at stake. The Supreme Court is the avenue by which Liberalism becomes Policy in America. It doesn't win elections, it is ruled into law through the court system, and I am sick of it.

I think that when our elected leaders do not impliment ( and in a timely manner) the agenda of the people who elect them, then these leaders should be held accountable.

So let the impeachment proceedings begin! Maybe Dick Cheney will make a more effective President when it comes to representing Republican voters. I like him better anyway...

Told Ya...

Are you sick of the Karl Rove story NOW??

I tried to warn everyone to just wait a while before we all decided to label Mr. Rove a traitor, that the Grand Jury was still out, that we didn't have all the facts yet. (If you go to the link, READ THE WHOLE STORY....)

It seems that this story was drummed up by the (non-partisan?) Media in order to take down one of the President's confidants. (Rove's source was a reporter...) and now journalists are in jail, and Rove, it appears, will go free to advise the President another day.

Mr. Rove was just too juicy a target for the left (I still think because of that stupid movie...) to wait on. I mean the dream of people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is to lobotomize George W. Bush, don't you think?

But the Left was wrong on this one, just like I said. So there. I know that some on the left will continue in their denial or look now for another victim, but Karl Rove has not lied, has cooperated fully with the investigation, is not a traitor, and will not be removed from the Bush administration over this. The truth is that Karl Rove is too smart to get caught in something like this. I'm not saying that he is as innocent as a newborn non-aborted baby, I'm just saying he won't be caught in anything this stupid and trivial. The Left may as well set their sights on someone else.

I will accept apologies from those of you who said that I was wrong on my comments page. (Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.)

I for one am STILL sick of hearing about it. I still contend that this was a non-story from the beginning. It was a distraction from more important news stories...


Like these;

An Army Medic was shot by insurgents (murderous Islamic terrorist scum) in Iraq, Survived the attack, and then located the sniper, secured him with handcuffs, and gave MEDICAL ATTENTION TO THE MAN WHO HAD JUST TRIED TO KILL HIM! Why isn't this on the front page of every American newspaper?

Sandy Berger, former Clinton White House National Security Advisor apologizes for what he calls an "honest mistake." Honest Mistake?!?! The dude crammed sensitive National Security documents into his socks and drawers and took them home and destroyed them!! Want to talk about traitors now??

All of the highly trained and talented engineers at NASA can't seem to figure out why the "Check Engine" light on the space shuttle Discovery won't go off. After much thought and deliberation, they have decided to try "wiggling the wires." Where do I sign up to be in the space program??

Another false memo story? Will they never learn??

Senate Democrats disclose information about a top secret spy satellite program? Do you want to talk about traitorous information leakers now??

Let's talk about something important for a while and leave this dead end story alone, shall we?

Much Ado About Nothing...

Is anyone besides me sick of hearing about what a heinous criminal Karl Rove is?

The facts of the Karl Rove scandal, as I understand them, are (And please correct me if I am wrong, But back it up with factual information...)

Karl Rove, at the end of a telephone conversation about a totally different subject with a reporter, may or may not have mentioned the name of a CIA agent, who was not on covert assignment at the time, and had not been for nine years prior, and whom everyone in Washington who would recognize her name knew worked for the CIA, and he may or may not have warned the reporter not to pursue the story too hard because it was nothing in the first place.

Huh??

Why is this even news? The Grand Jury has not even said if a crime was commited or not, and we have Nancy Pelosi calling for Rove's head?
Why is this such a big story? I'll tell you why...It's because Pelosi and her ilk believe that Rove is the power behind the throne. They believe that President Bush cannot function without Karl Rove. (Yes, I watched the movie about "Bush's Brain" too, I just don't believe everything I see on T.V.)
Read the law again, all of you who think that Rove should be raped repeatedly in prison for this horrible crime that he has committed. Nothing in the law applies to the woman who was reportedly named. If anything, Rove tried to prevent a story from being written that would have disclosed her identity, if everyone hadn't known it already.
And by the way, hasn't this same woman appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair Magazine twice since she was supposedly outed by the supposedly unnamed source, supposedly Rove? She's really trying to keep a low profile, isn't she?

Don't get me wrong...If Karl Rove has committed a crime and is found guilty, I will support his punnishment right along with the rest of you. Criminals have no place in Presidential administrations and I don't want them there.
But make no mistake, losing Rove will not cripple the President. Rove works for President Bush, not the other way around. If Rove is fired or imprisoned, The President knows where there are ten more just like him.

I wonder why the New York Times has decided to leave Judith Miller rotting in jail? If Rove was her source, then why doesn't she say so and go home?
Maybe because Rove is not her source? If not, then who is?? It's a mystery!

All I know is that I am tired of hearing about it. The press should report on it when they have new information about it, and stop trying to beat me over the head with it. I get it already. The Media doesn't like Karl Rove. I picked up on that one pretty quick...

By the way, anyone who doesn't believe that the mainstream press has a negative Bias against the Bush administration should listen to the press conference with Scott McClellan yesterday. The reporters screamed at him, yelled at him, did everything but throw feces and urine at the poor man, simply because he refused to comment on an ongoing investigation. (You never saw Janet Reno get thet treatment...)

When you couple a twenty-four hour news cycle with ten different cable news networks competing with each other, and then throw in a decidedly negative bias toward the President, you are bound to have situations like this, I guess.
I will be glad, though, when the news coverage returns to stories about people falling into wood chippers, and John McCain starring in "R" rated movies(!) and other trivia.

This other stuff just makes my head hurt...

Who Needs It?

The point was recently made by one of my blogger friends on my comments page (see my July 5th post "Stop This Immoral and Unwinnable War") that the top 1% of wealth holders in America own 38% of all wealth, and subsequently should pay 38% of the tax burden. He then proceeded to rail against inheritance, calling it "welfare" and saying it was "unfair". He contended that the only fair way to divide up the tax burden is for the people with the most money to bear the largest burden. After all, do we really believe that Bill Gates NEEDS all that money??

NEEDS??

I am not picking on him or trying to start a fight, he is entitled to his opinion. This is mine.

We must be very careful when we start deciding how much of their own money someone else NEEDS.
Sure Bill Gates wouldn't starve to death if he didn't have 28.41 billion dollars, but he made the money. It belongs to him. No one else has any legitimate claim to this money. Not the Government, not me, not you. Not the homeless, the poor, the disadvantaged, not even his children. This Fortune would not exist had Bill Gates not figured out how to amass it, and then amassed it. He could just as easily have shut down the whole company as soon as he got his first two million, and then I would be typing this on a green MSDOS screen.(By the way, did you know that there is a website devoted entirely to how much money Bill Gates has? It's The Bill Gates Net Worth Page.) ( Why is that any of MY business?)

Bill Gates is the ultimate "American Dream" story. He invented a product that nobody had, and a marketing strategy which ensured success and as a result, he and the people who invested in his business have become wildly rich. Along the way they have created thousands of high paying jobs and his business continues to grow.

I personally am happy for him. I wish I had thought of it.

And there it is right there.

If I had thought of it, and done it, it would be me who had 28.41 billion in the bank.
How we arrive at the question of whether he needs his money is beyond me. Even if he doesn't, who is to decide who DOES need it? Especially when he basically came from nothing himself?
Are we to leave this decision to the government? The same government who administers the Social security system? The same government that enacted NAFTA? The same government who invaded Iraq?

I hope not.

In my opinion, logic dictates that the only one who can make that decision is BILL GATES. If he wants to use his fortune to grow his business and create more jobs and make available more products to make my computer more user friendly (which he does), Then that's okay with me. If he wants to donate to a myriad of charities (which he does), that's okay as well. If he wants to invest it in other businesses (which he does), so be it. And if he wants to pile it up to the moon and then leave it all to his children (which he has said he will NOT do), then that's his business. It makes no difference to me whether Bill Gates is rich or not, or what he decides to do with his own money.

Let's take Bill Gates out of the equation for a minute...

Is there some homeless person in your town who needs money and food more than you need a new television? Would you die if you lived in a smaller house? Do you NEED all that space? Do you NEED a new car or could you get by with one that is ten years old? Do you really need a car at all?

Do you want anyone else making these decisions for you?

I don't...

Tag I'm It, Huh?

Okay, I'm not really sure how this is supposed to work, but here goes.


1. How many books do you own?

I have no Idea. It's gotta be a couple thousand, between my collection and my wife's. My place basically looks like a library with junked cars in the yard. My personal collection includes a lot of paperbacks, A lot of biographies, fantasy - science fiction, and murder mysteries. ( Whatever they had at the truck stop...)

2. What is the last book you read?

Let's see now...That would be "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. (By the way, Mark, thanks a pantload for making me answer THIS question NOW.) The book that I am currently reading (again) is "1984" by George Orwell.

3. What is the last book you purchased?

The last book that I purchased was "Chilton's Auto Repair Manual for the Pontiac Firebird -1982 to1994". (Once again, timing is everything... Thanks a lot!!)

4.Name 5 fiction books that mean a lot to you.

Like some other people that have answered these questions, I tend to read books in series. I have read the entire "Dune" series by Frank Herbert and Brian Herbert w/Kevin J. Anderson. I have also read all of the "Mayfair Witches" and "Vampire Chronicles" books by Anne Rice.
Another series of books that I love dearly and believe that everyone should read is "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis. Also the" Harry Potter" books are cool, as well as"The Hobbitt" and the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.


Now I am supposed to tag 5 other people, Right?
Okay toad, rich bachelor, o-likewhoa, justlikehim and Your yiddish bubby, you're up.

I must say, I am kinda curious...

This was fun!

Superpower?

I listened today with horror as the news media related the events in London this morning. It seems that Terrorism is alive and well in the World and innocent people are still dying and suffering because of it.

We don't know for sure who perpetrated this act of war against our most faithful ally, but a supposed spokesman for Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility. I can't understand why there is anyone alive in the World anymore who would say that they are associated in any way with Al Qaeda. By this point in time, America should have waged such a horrible war on everyone in the region that allowed Al Qaeda to fester that the very thought of engaging us in any kind of conflict would make people weak in the knees.

It occurs to me that maybe America no longer has the intestinal fortitude to win a war against anyone. We have become known around the world as the kid with the biggest stick on the whole playground, BUT EVERYONE KNOWS WE WOULD NEVER USE IT.

The only time in human history that nuclear or atomic weapons have ever been used during a time of war was in 1945, when we exploded atomic bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan ( the last entity to attack American soil until 9/11), and that use of them deterred attacks upon American soil for decades. During the Vietnam war, however, the World figured out that America would never again use nuclear weapons, no matter what happens, and if there were any doubts in the minds of the enemies of America, these were erased during the months and years following 9/11.
The people who are fighting us have no respect for cowards, and have labeled us as such PRECISELY because we WILL NOT use whatever weapons we have at our disposal to defeat them. They understand strength and power,but they have no use for appeasement and political correctness.
We have become Gulliver, tied down by a million tiny strings. The Lilliputians have tied us down with the strings of fear of world opinion, fear of the accusation of racism, the unfairness of our superpower status, and fear of our own media.
We absolutely have the strength to throw off these bonds and regain our worldwide respect, but we will never do it as long as we remain engaged in an internal struggle over whether or not to do it. Besides, I'm afraid that we have missed the window of opportunity. The time to display American might was immediately after 9/11. If we did it now, we would look like indecisive bullies.
I am not advocating the use of nuclear weapons at this time, but you can rest assured that our enemies would have no qualms about using them if they had them.
This is the very reason why Iraq must never be allowed to develop these weapons, why North Korea must be made to abandon their nuclear program, and why it is a complete disaster that China now has them and the means to deliver them to American soil. (Thank you, President Clinton.)
My fear is that the next time nuclear weapons are used in the world, that Los Angelas or San Francisco will be the target. Maybe when that happens, the American people will get behind the concept of victory instead of appeasement as the way to end wars.
Until then, we will just have to languish in our rhetoric and indecisiveness.

By the way, I would personally like to ask those of you who believe in God to keep the people of Florida and the rest of the Gulf Coast in your thoughts and prayers as we brace for the attack of Hurricane Dennis. Pray that God will steer it away from us if it is His will, and to give us the strength to endure it's onslaught if He decides we should.
Thank You...

Stop This Immoral and Un-Winnable War!

I have been thinking about the war, And I have decided that we need to pull out of it immediately. We are losing by anyone's standards, it is immoral and unjust, and the president lied about his reasons for engaging in it. It has hurt millions of innocent people, and has cost the taxpayers way too much money.

I am talking about the War on Poverty.(Which war did you think I was talking about?)

Since 1964, when president Lyndon Baynes Johnson declared War on Poverty, there has been enough money (Taxpayer money) spent fighting poverty to have handed every poor person in America at that time a Million dollars, but poverty still persists.

According to the Joint Economic Committee Study of May, 1996:


The burden of excessive federal spending and intervention on the economy is creating conditions in which one child out of ten is shifted into poverty.
Restraint of federal spending growth would boost economic and income growth, lowering the poverty rate.
Restraint of $100 billion in non-defense spending growth would lower the child poverty rate by 4.35 percentage points. This would reduce the number of children in poverty by 3 million.
For every $33,000 of federal spending restraint, one less child would grow up in poverty.
The excesses of the modern welfare state are one cause of the deterioration in a number of economic and social factors affecting children and families. The increases in family breakdown, illegitimacy, educational failure and other social pathologies are related to the perverse incentives of the excessive and impersonal welfare state, and its counterproductive effects on economic and income growth and poverty.
(http://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-3/vg-3.htm)

The top one percent of wage earners in America pay ten times more in income taxes that the bottom fifty percent. The top fifty percent pay roughly ninety-six percent of the tax burden. I think that it is high time that EVERYONE in America pay their fair share.

My wife and I don't have any children. We have chosen to wait until we feel that we are financially stable enough to provide for a child. We are not there yet.
She had a fifteen year old girl in one of her classes this past school year who talked things over with her boyfriend (of about two months) and decided to get pregnant. They went to the library, checked out books on the subject of conception, studied up and then went and practiced what they had learned. Sure enough, she got pregnant.
This young girl has no means by which to raise and care for a child. Her family doesn't really have it either. Where will the money to care for this child come from?
The government, that's where. It will be with held from my paycheck, my wife's, my brother's, my sisters, and your's.
She made the concious choice to put herself into a situation in which society will have to care for her and her child. Because of her, and thousands more like her, people like my wife and myself, who are trying to be responsible, will have to wait a little longer.
To some, the logical solution would be to try to talk her into having an abortion, but she doesn't want that. (At least she made ONE good choice...) Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a baby, but the time to make that choice is before she takes off her pants. I also firmly believe that parents should be allowed to kill their children, however, they should wait until the child is about twelve years old. That way the parents would know whether the child has any promise of becoming a productive citizen, or be an idiot all his life and a burden to society. (I am being absurd to make a point. Killing innocent children seems wrong to me whether they are twelve years old or twelve weeks in utero. If you disagree, I am never going to be able to convince you, and you are never going to be able to convince me. Just let it go.)

We have set up a situation in America in which irresponsibility is rewarded, and responsibility is punnished. People scream about tax cuts for the rich, when the rich are the creators of jobs. They scream about how much money the stockholders of companies like G.M. are making, when some of MY 401K funds are invested in G.M. stock. (Some of your's probably are as well.) Without the stockholders who put their own money at risk, there would be no G.M. to complain about.

Like it or not, we live within a capitolist economic system. To punish achievement and reward irresponsibility in a capitolist system supresses growth and job creation. It is time for this trend to stop.

The Activist Supreme Court...

Well, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made history on friday by becoming the first woman in history to resign from the supreme court.
Now the battle over her replacement can begin. I can hardly wait.
The pundits that I have heard have all been talking about how moderate she was, and now (if the president is smart) he will try to replace her with another moderate, so as to not upset the delicate balance of the court.
The die-hard conservatives want him to appoint a die-hard conservative. The Libs want him to appoint a revolutionary liberal.
I don't want him to appoint any of these. I would be happy if he would just appoint someone who can READ. It would even be okay with me if his appointee had never even been to law school, Just as long as they can pass a reading comprehension test.
The job of the supreme court is to look over the cases which are presented to them, read the constitution, and then decide how the constitution applies to that case. Their job is not to right the wrongs of society, not to over-rule unjust laws enacted by the legislature, or to FIX ANYTHING. It is simply to read what is already written in our constitution (Nowhere else), and decide how it applies on a case by case basis.
This requires complete objectivity, which is extremely difficult for human beings to achieve. This is why news is biased one way or the other, no matter what source you get it from. Any time anyone relates a story to you, whether it is about world events, or what they had for lunch, that person relates the details which are important to THEM. You, in turn, will retain the details which are important to YOU, and pass those details on to the next person you talk with about it. It's almost unavoidable.
When supreme court justices hear cases, they must try really hard not to inject their particular political leanings into the debate, but when they fail to resist that urge, they cross the line between judge and legislator. They cease being judges and become rulers, a situation which the founding fathers tried very hard to protect us from. When this happens, the power in America is taken out of the hands of the people, and placed into the hands of a very few lawyers, who then rule by, for lack of a better term, Emperial Decree.
Our current supreme court seems to me lately to have lost the ability to understand exactly what the constitution says.
For example, how did the phrase "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" come to mean that private property can be transfered from one private citizen to another private citizen, whether they want to sell it or not? How is "just compensation" to be calculated in this situation? Are we going to figure out how long the current owner would have kept the property, and then pay him the value of the property at that point in time? Are we going to determine what improvements or development the current owner would eventually have made, had he been allowed to keep his property, and then pay him according to the value of it then?
No. What we are going to do is confiscate whatever piece of property seems juiciest to what ever local politician sees it, and transfer it to whoever will promise to pay the most property tax on it. This is wrong, and as long as this recent ruling is allowed to stand, no one's home or investment property is safe from seizure, not even if you happen to be a supreme court justice.
(See http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html )
Another example..." Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression thereof." Does that say anything about a seperation of church and state?
To me, that says that the congress cannot make a law which forces me to become a Bhudist, or a Muslim,Or to force YOU to become a Christian, but it also means that no one can make me pretend to be an Athiest either. ( and now, here come the wise and enlightened Athiests, to equate my belief in God with a belief in Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny...Whatever. The truth about this is that personally, I have just as much evidence in the existence of God as I have in the existence of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I've never seen either one, however, I know they both exist.) This phrase also says to me that no one can make a law which restricts me from posting the Ten Commandments anywhere I think they should be.( as long as I don't violate any anti-littering laws or anything like that.)
Does that mean that if the local City Council in the town where I live decided to post a plaque displaying the Ten Pillars of Islam on the courthouse lawn, that I would have to like it? No, but if I opposed it, I would be on the wrong side of the issue, constitutionally.
The Freedom of Religion clause of the First Ammendment does not give anyone the right to be insulated from any mention of God. It just gives you the right to accept, or reject whatever beliefs make sense to you personally. And before you start up about taxpayer money being used for monuments on public land, remember that Christians pay taxes too, and about 77 percent of Americans believe in God, in one form or another. The Ten Commandments issue is one that would go in favor of Christians every time if it was put to a public vote. Like it or not.
Enough on that.
What I am getting at is, I don't want a Conservative to take Justice O'Connor's place. I don't want a Liberal either, nor do I want a moderate. What I would like to see is for her to be replaced with 192 justices from all stripes, so that no longer will the nation be subject to the rule of a body so small, that a single justice's opinion can sway the laws of the entire government. I would also like for there to be an even number of justices, so that we have the occasional tie.
The way I see it, The supreme court justices individually have way too much power, and as long as this is the case, We The People are going to always come out on the short end of the stick.

The Blogosphere, Talk Radio, and FOX News...

In my recent post about the Downing Street Memo, I expressed concern over what the Mainstream (Leftist) Press would do with it. I was convinced that they would give this memo the "Dan Rather" treatment, focusing on a couple of distortable sentences, starting them spinning, and then beating us over the head with it until we collapsed into a persistant, vegetative state.
What I didn't take into consideration was you good people...The Bloggers.
You are the reason that stories like that cannot get any traction anymore.The Press floats these spinning trial balloons, and the bloggers Google them, learn the details, and shoot them down, one right after the other. We aren't listening to the Press anymore for our opinions, we listen to the press for ideas on subjects for discussions among ourselves. We then form our opinions based on whatever information we have gathered from all of our sources.Their spinners stop spinning, and the truth comes out.
The same thing happens with Talk Radio. The reason that Talk Radio is predominantly conservative is that the hosts and the callers discuss all aspects of any subject they settle upon, and logic usually leads to a conservative conclusion. It has nothing to do with marketing, indoctrination, or spin.
We in America have the most informed and educated population in the history of the world, and we are starting to pay attention. We are beginning to demand that our leaders pay attention to us as well. If a politician makes a campaign promise in today's America, he had better be prepared to keep it. If he doesn't, he will be confronted with never-ending soundbites of his own voice making ,and then breaking it. ("Read my lips... no new taxes!")
FOX news is another enigma that the left cannot seem to wrap their collective brain around. FOX's commentary is decidedly conservative (a fact which they make no attempt to hide, by the way), but their news coverage is just news.They just put the information out there without shading, without spin, without agenda, and because of this, Fox News has become wildly popular.
Knowledge is power, and the left has lost their decades long monopoly of the information stream. As a result, they now are getting louder, more outrageous, more ridiculous. They can't understand why more people don't accept their indoctrination anymore. The reason is that we are talking to each other. About EVERYTHING.
So, keep reading, keep writing, keep listening, keep talking. Never let up in your pursuit of the truth. If you have something to say ,set up your own blog, and say it. If you agree or disagree with anything you read on someone's blog, leave a comment and say so. Heaven knows, if I can do it, ANYONE can.
And finally, thanks for restoring my faith.



P.S. Just an observation, totally off the subject...
Take a look at recent photos of former president Slick Willie Clinton...
Doesn't he kinda look like the Emperor from the Star Wars movies??

Bush And The War With Iraq

Have you heard of the Downing Street Memo?
Basically, the Downing Street Memo is a top secret document, published internally within the British government, which says that the evidence against Saddam Hussein was completely trumped up, thus proving the illegitimacy of the war in Iraq. Proving that the facts were manipulated to fit the situation, and proving the war-mongering tendencies of president Bush. It says that President Bush had already decided to invade Iraq long before 9/11. If you haven't heard about it yet, you soon will.
The Main Stream (Leftist) Media considers this to be THE smoking gun that they have been looking for.
THEY knew all along that the war against Iraq was wrong. THEY knew it was immoral. THEY knew that they were right, and the illegitamate, selected/not elected President Bush and all his minions were wrong, and you can believe that they will take up this drum and beat it ad-nauseum. (Remember the Bush-National Guard memo story??)
Here's the thing though - real or not, true or not, I don't care.
The truth is that we had unfinished business in Iraq. Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power during the FIRST Gulf War. The only reason he wasn't removed then was that the United Nations begged us not to do it. They wanted to be the ones who got the credit for riegning him in. "Let the sanctions work!!" they cried. Meanwhile, he got to continue to build multi-million dollar palaces, dig bunker complexes and pursue various weapons systems for eleven more years, while the people of Iraq starved and suffered. He ignored SEVENTEEN specific U.N. resolutions against him, while he sold oil vouchers to the leaders of all the U.N nations which opposed us during the run-up to the current action in Iraq. He continued to drop people into plastic shredders, chop off limbs, rape, torture and kill his own people.
The U.N did nothing about any of this except talk about it.
"Stop it, or we will be forced to tell you to stop it again!"
Why is the U.S. still in the U.N. anyway? What have they done for us lately? Am I wrong to assume that with any partnership, there should be some mutual benefit for both parties? They do nothing but soak up money, and continuously attack our national sovreignty. Every last nation in the U.N. (with the possible exception of Great Britain) is jealous of our power, our success, our affluence. France is trying desperately to prove that they are still relevant and still important, Russia is still upset about the whole "cold war" thing, and China is actively ramping up to engage us in open warfare. Why continue to associate with an organization that has such distaste for us? I'm all for taking our football and going home. Enough of this stupidity.
I will never believe that Iraq had absolutely no weapons of mass destruction. If we haven't found them yet, it is only because the U.N. stalled long enough for Hussein to hide them, destroy them, and/or move them out of the country (to Syria?) Who knows, if they could only have stalled a couple more years, maybe Iraq could have developed a nuclear weapon, and then things would have been a lot more interesting.
North Korea already has tested their nuke, and China can now orbit an ICBM with enough range to target the U.S. homeland ( Thank you president Slick Willie.)
Make no mistake. This is not a war about oil. If it was, we would have nuked Bhagdad on the first day and enslaved the Iraqi people immediately. If Bush wanted to lie about WMD's, he would have shipped containers of them over with the first round of troops, and littered the Iraqi countryside with them for all of the reporters to photograph. The fact that Michael Moore is still alive is proof that President Bush is an honest and moral man.(Have you seen the Clinton Death List??)
So publish whatever little piece of paper you happen to find lying around. As long as it makes logical sense to do so, I will continue to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt.

No Apologies Here...

Well, the results of Terry Schaivo's autopsy were released today, and on the behalf of the conservative community, let me say, we were wrong.
Terry WAS in a persistant vegitative state, she WAS brain dead, she WAS totally dependant upon her feeding tube, she COULDN'T swallow anything, and her husband DIDN'T beat the living snot out of her.We were all wrong about all of it.
By some strange twist of fate, in 1991 she just, for no apparent reason, fell over and landed on the floor, and slipped into a coma, and there remained until the benevolent courts, along with her loving husband, released her from her ongoing misery once and for all. How could we have been so heartless and cruel as to insist that this poor woman remain in that pitiful state for all those years. I am sure that there is an especially hot corner of Hell reserved for those of us who wanted to inflict such torture on such a poor, helpless victim, who, by the way, made her final wishes so abundantly clear to her devoted and doting husband, who stayed faithfully by her side until the very end.
Well then, screw you all.
I refuse to apologize for my opinions about this case. She may have been in a vegetative state. She may never have recovered, but if I made a mistake in my thinking on this one, at least I erred on the side of innocent life.
I don't care what the medical examiner's conclusions were, Michael Schaivo KILLED his wife. If her best interests were what he was after, he wouldn't have raised a family with another woman while he was still married to her. He would have let her family take over her care and the rehabilitation attempts. He would have released her from the sham marriage he clung to for the sole purpose of killing her. He's dirty. I don't care what anybody says.
When you think about it, this case opens the door for us to get rid of a lot of helpless people. We could empty out the nursing homes of America. Think of the time that could be freed up for doctors and nurses to help people who might eventually return to the workforce and pay taxes. Think of the money that the insurance companies will save, now that the only criteria we have to follow is that the patient be dependant on a feeding tube, be unresponsive, and have at least one family member who will swear in court that the patient wouldn't want to live this way. We can now trim out the dead wood and make the world a better place.
Again, screw you.
I can't understand why the left in this country will fight to the death for the rights of the detainees at Git'mo to not have to listen to rap music, and then call me stupid for believing that we shouldn't starve a defensless woman to death. A woman who, by the way, wasn't bothering anyone, and who at least brought some joy and purpose to the lives of her mother, father, brothers and sisters.
A goldfish in a bowl is unable to feed itself, and barely able to think, but we don't starve them to death (at least not on purpose.)
So to all you self-righteous democrats out there, you just continue to champion the rights of murderers, rapists, terrorists and thugs, and I will continue to stand up for innocent unborn babies, comatose hospice residents, those who do not have a voice of their own. We will see at the end who has lays up the most treasures in Heaven.

innocent?? not guilty??

I am so glad that justice has finally been done in the Michael Jackson case.
This poor innocent man has finally been vindicated. I mean, all he really wants to do is show his love for the children. Especially the BOY children. I don't know about you, but I personally LIVE for the day that a rich pop star shows up at my doorstep, wanting to show his love by sleeping in the bed with MY ten year old son. It's a beautiful thing!! Thats what the world really needs anyway, isn't it? More beautiful man-boy love??
Okay, I can't do this anymore. What kind of country do we live in when we can't convict a pedophile who owns his own amusement park, and said on television that he SLEEPS WITH LITTLE BOYS??!!
The only way that justice was done here is that the decision today kept the case out of the hands of the ninth circus court of appeals. (We all know what would have happened if it had gone before that bunch. THEY want to make it LEGAL to rape little boys...)
Well, though, when I think about it, I'm not really surprised. In America, if you have enough money, power, and name recognition, you can dazzle your way out of just about anything, and when a case goes to court, the fate of the defendant is in the hands of twelve people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty. It doesn't bode well, really...
Anyway, I will be curious to know how many of the Michael Jackson jurors are bringing their own children (especially the boys) to the "Neverland Ranch Overnight Victory Sleepover Party" which is sure to ensue, now that MJ has been declared innocent. Nothing to worry about, right?? I mean, a jury of his peers found him innocent, right??
WRONG. What the jury found is that Tom Sneddon did not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Big difference. What they found was that the accuser's mother tried to sue a couple too many people before she let this monster molest her son for a solid year.
By the way, this boy's parents are just as guilty as Jackson is. How many of you out there would let your pre-teen son sleep alone in a bed with a forty-four old un-married man who has had ninety-seven plastic surgeries, and in the past had been charged with child molestation??(Regardless of what the outcome was, if you get charged with child molestation, You don't get to EVER spend time with MY children, I don't care WHO you are.)
The only bright side to this whole mess is that now maybe the Media will shut up about it, and maybe now we can all focus on something important. Like Southpark, which is coming on now.
Gotta go...

If A Man Will Not Work, Neither Let Him Eat...

Well general Motors has announced that they will lay off 25,000 workers by 2008, and that they will close an unspecified number of their plants in order to avoid going bankrupt. Does anyone out there think that this will improve the quality or availability of GM vehicles?
One of the main reasons GM is giving for the current mess that they are in is the skyrocketing cost of healthcare and pensions.GM said that healthcare costs for their retired workers add $1500 to the price of every new GM vehicle. Basically, they can no longer afford to keep paying benefits to people who no longer generate any money for the company.
It has occured to me that we spend an awful lot of time in America talking about ways to give money and services to people who don't produce anything. We worry about the poor, the homeless, retirees, Socialist Security recipients, the unemployed, etc, etc, etc... All of these people (with some exceptions) have one thing in common. They don't produce anything. They make no contribution to society.(I am in no way trying to slam the people who recieve pensions from GM. The only thing they are guilty of is buying into a bad deal.)
We live in a society where, for some reason, uselessness and worthlessness must be protected and preserved at all costs.
We abort innocent babies in wholesale numbers (one of which, by the way,could have grown up to figure out the solutions to these very problems) and at the same time support convicted murderers for years and years before we put them to death.(tangient...this is a subject for another posting. Stay tuned...)
Socialist Security is one of my biggest gripes. There is no constitutional provision for it. I never voted for such a thing. I don't want it, I never plan to need it, and if i could opt completely out of it, they could keep the money that I have already paid in to it. It won't be there for me anyway.
President Bush has proposed a plan to privatize a portion of the Socialist Security program. The private accounts would be totally voluntary, and would not affect anyone over 55 years old. Do you know who the loudest opponents of this plan are? They are people over 55, who don't even have a dog in this fight.
They won't be affected in any way, they just don't want ME to have a choice in the matter. Some of them are the very people who voted the stupid thing in to begin with. It drives me crazy. These are the same people who took GI bill money and built their houses, then took the money they should have saved for their retirement and bought land for nearly nothing, so that later they could sell it to one another's grandchildren for ten times (or more) what they paid for it.
Conduct a little experiment on your own. Ask any Socialist Security recipient that you know if they get enough money to live on. Ask them if they would be any better off if they had the money they paid in to the system in a money market account, or stocks and bonds, or ANYWHERE ELSE besides the Socialist Security system. Every last one of them will tell you that it's a bad deal. For some reason though, we can't get rid of it, or improve it, or change it in any way, because all the people on "fixed incomes" will suffer.
The real kicker is that for the most part, it is a REGRESSIVE transfer of wealth. They take money directly from the paychecks of young working people who are trying to get started in life, and give it to retirees who have already made their fortunes (big or small.) Think about the retired people you know. Are they destitute, or do they have savings, land, houses, investment properties, things like that? At the very least, they have children who would not let them starve to death. Would they still take their check if they realized that they are using the power of government to steal it from their grandchildren?
"But they paid that money in for years!!" you scream."They are just getting their own money back!!" you cry. Well, not exactly. Most Socialist Security recipients draw out the money that they paid in within the first five years. After that it's welfare. Plain and simple. I know it's harsh, but it's true.
If something isn't done about this trend, Hillary-care, welfare, Socialist security, et al, will eat up the entire domestic gross product before it is over. The fate of GM will befall the federal government, but not before every working American runs completely out of money. We can't afford any more help from the government.
It's time for EVERYONE to start taking responsibility for their own butt. Save for your own retirement. Provide your own healthcare insurance. Pay your own way. Don't depend on anyone or anything besides yourself for your subsistence. Stop looking for the easy way out. There ain't one.

My Bad...

I'm afraid that my family and I commited a horrible social faux pas this past weekend, And I feel that I must now make it right.
I wish to extend my most sincere apology to the gay community for visiting the Universal Studios and Islands of Adventure theme parks In Orlando, Florida during "Gay Days." Please know that we were unaware that the time periods of our visits coincided, otherwise we would have certainly made other arrangements.I am aware of the importance of this celebration to the gay community, and i deeply regret spending the money we spent, thereby corrupting the data relating to the impact that gays have upon the local economy of Orlando during this time. I promise that this will never happen again.
I promise to never again get in your way while you are waiting in the lines,and for any sideways glances, shocked behavior, or open staring, I am truly sorry.
I hope that you all will accept my humble apology, and be assured that i will make it my goal to persuade all other heterosexual people to avoid Orlando altogether during "Gay Days" from now on.
PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!
Thanks! TBC

The De-generation gap.

Here is a brief recap of recent American history as it pertains to the subject of our discussion tonight.
The World War Two generation raised the Baby Boom generation. The Baby Boomers raised the Me generation, who then raised Generation X. After the Gen-X'ers came Generation Y (or Generation Why??), and the latest group of kids, The Nothing Generation.(More on this in a future blog. This is a great launching pad for a lot of subjects that I like to complain about. Stay tuned...)
Each generation has a more pronounced sense of entitlement than the one which preceded them, and each generation has, in large part, been less productive than the last.
I totally understand how we got here. Everyone wants their kids to have things easier than they had it, and everyone works very hard to that end. The ultimate result is that the kids from each generation get a little bit softer, a little bit fatter, a little bit slower, a little more helpless.
The group of kids my wife teaches, for the most part, dont want to exert any effort for any reason. If it isn't handed to them, they don't want it. Doesn't matter what it is. They toss aside without a backward glance the education that previous generations tried so hard to make available to them. They don't believe that they have to do anything that they don't want to do. They don't respect themselves, the police, teachers, parents, other people's property, other people' personal space, or anything else. There is the occasional kid who stands out from the rest,but those are rare.
The only things that seem to matter to them is entertainment, and sex. Which is funny, because the entertainment that they like is for the most part ridiculous, and they know about as much about sex as a suicide bomber knows about explosives.(Just enough to blow themselves up.)
I want to tell them that they need to get a grip. I wish that I could explain to them that the reason that I have to work sixty-five hours a week in the Florida heat is that when I was their age, I DIDN'T GET IT. I goofed off, didn't pay attention, and I blew it. So now I pay the price. I firmly believe I could have been a rocket surgeon if I had done my best when it counted.
Don't get me wrong, I make decent money. When you look at my paycheck, it would probably seem like an awful lot of money to a high school kid, but when I think about what I have to do every day to get it, I wish I had done things differently.
The reason that they are the way they are is that they have had it too easy. My parents had chores. I had television. The generation today has video games. They don't have time to help with the dishes, they have to beat level 60 on the PS2 version of "Heaven v/s Hell." Good luck getting a 14 year old today to milk a cow. No one ever told them that milk even comes out of a cow. If they saw that happen, they would never touch a glass of milk again.
So they have no character. No work ethic. No sense of responsibility.They are the janitors, fast food workers, convenience store clerks and laborers of the future.(No offense to the people in these fine professions intended.)
Their problems will be further intensified by the fact that our wise and forward-looking government is about to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants who will gladly do these jobs for a fraction of the money the jobs pay now, and THEY WANT to work.
The cold, hard fact is that parents, if they really want their kids to have things easier, are going to have to start letting their kids experience a little bit of adversity. Make them work up a sweat occasionally. Make them do without things sometimes, so that they learn when they are young how to set priorities, they learn how to do things for themselves.
We somehow have to figure out how to raise some responsible adults, or we will all be in trouble.

husbands and wives

Well, my wife left me yesterday. Don't panic though, she's coming back. She has family about eight hours away, and she had to attend a graduation there. She should be back on thursday night.
I am amazed at how helpless I have become in only nineteen months. I stopped on the way home from work and picked up some chinese food. If I hadn't done that, I would probably have eaten potato chips for dinner, or Slim Jims, or something equally as disgusting. I used to be able to cook for myself, but now I have gotten too lazy.
I did sew a button on my shorts last night, after I looked for a needle and thread for two hours,and then spent another hour trying to thread the hateful needle[ which meant looking for the needle again, after i threw it across the room...] and then I had to look another half hour for a band-aid for my finger.
The whole episode could have been accomplished simply by uttering the phrase "Honey, there's a button missing from my shorts" had she been here, and it would have taken two and a half minutes.
I have also discovered that my lunch box doesn't pack it's self in the morning, neither does my cooler. The coffee does, incidentally, make it's self, but i think that I still have to investigate that, or it won't happen again tomorrow.
I was thirty-seven years old when we got married, she was twenty-seven. I have no idea how I got that old without her.
The real mystery, though, is why she married me in the first place. She's waaaaaayyyy smarter than me. An algebra and geometry teacher married to a toothless, balding, latterally expanding steering wheel holder. She would have been well on her way to becoming a doctor by now if she hadn't met me, but she did. And I'm glad. 'Cause I dread to think what I would be on my way to becoming if I hadn't met her.
Or maybe I'm smarter than she is because I married her, and she married me. I have no question in my mind who got the better end of that deal!
Hurry home, Baby!!
I love you!