Isn't it about time we voted for a lazy President?

Posted by: Rusty at 08:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

People who need to STFU:

Pat Robertson. Every time you open your mouth, you score one for Satan. Shut up and quit telling everyone they deserve what they got you idiot.

Ted Kennedy. I could expound on this one for a while, but I'm just sick of his fat, pompus ass.

Lindsey GrahamNearly everyone on the judicial committee. If you're being mean enough to make a woman cry, and you aren't eve talking TO that woman, then you need to reconsider what you're saying.

Ray Nagin. You're an idiot. You've been an idiot forever, but Katrina really brought it out in you. You've got a snowball's chance in hell of getting reelected because the people that didn't hate you before certainly do now. Shut up and go out with a little dignity already.

Chuck Schumer. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you weren't the Terminator, no one would even notice the fact that you're Governor. I thought you ran as a Republican?

Judge Edward Cashman. The problem, you idiot, is that if you let him go, he's NOT going to get help, he's going to go rape more children. If that doesn't bother you, maybe we should lock the two of you up together and he can rape you for four years. Maybe then you'll have a different outlook on your sentencing.

I'm sure there are more, but I have to get back to work.

Update: OK. Thanks for the update on Graham. I'll admit I got hasty on that one.

Posted by: Drew at 11:19 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to read much of the news coming out of the Alito hearings. I did hear where Kennedy attempted to lecture on morals. I don't even think the pot calling the kettle black euphamism is strong enough for that. When you leave a woman to drown just to save your political career, you lose all rights to speak to anyone about morals.

What I have heard, though, is this. The Democrats are beginning to sound like a one-trick pony.

"Alito will do away with abortion."
"What's going to happen to abortion under Alito?"
"How will Alito vote on abortion cases?"
"Alito is going to take away womens' rights."

Are the Democrats being alamrists? Are they just trying to keep from getting another Conservative on the bench? Are they trying to push their agenda? Let's take a look at the facts. Most of the historical abortion cases that I have heard of have been decided 6 - 3. With the death of Chief Justice Rhenquest and the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice, nothing changes. We lost a consistantly constitional vote and gained another. Even if Judge Alito were confirmed and voted consistantly conservative on every issue, it would only bring most abortion votes to a 5-4 decision. Now, to be fair, there are some issues that were voted 5-4 that would now change. And there are some that we are completly unsure about such as upholding the partial birth abortion ban. But is that enough to stop Alito? Is that even why we are here?

The purpose of the Senate confirmation hearings, according to the Constitution, is simply to provide advice and consent to the President. It doesn't say that he has to follow their advice, or that their consent is completly necessary for a judge to be confirmed. Only that they provide it to the President. And historically, the Senate confirmation hearings have not been used as a formum for a partisan witch-hunt. This practice started in earnest with Justice Clarance Thomas. If you want proof of how the confirmation hearings should be conducted, take a look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I don't agree with anything that she does politically and neither do most of the Conservatives who confirmed her. Yet she received 99% of the vote during her hearings. This is because instead of asking her how she was going to vote on certain issues, the Senators at that time stuck what they were supposed to cover. Does she know the law? Is she an honest person? Can she judge impartially? How highly is she rated by her peers? Covering the confirmation hearings with all the propaganda about how a judge is going to vote or what his politics are based on is simply a waste of our time and money. And even more so when a windbag like Kennedy takes time to bluster and lecture.

And if the Senators do their job correctly and Alito is confirmed (which is the only logical outcome at this time), what then? Will abortion be overturned? Not likely. The first thing that you have to keep in mind is that these justices can't just get into office and start overturning any law that doesn't suit them. Someone would first have to bring forth a case challenging the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. And in this case, it would probably have to be something that has not yet been tried. Most tactics (for lack of a better word) that have already been ruled on are either not going to be accepted by the court for a second look or ruled on in the same way. However, I'm certain that there are enough bright lawyers out there looking to make a name for themselves that someone can find a novel approach to this issue. So, assuming that Alito gets nominated, some hotshot young lawyer finds a new way to say Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and manages to get heard, AND one of the historical "swing vote" judges decides that he agrees with the argument AND both Roberts and Alito agree with the argument....Roe v. Wade could potentially be overturned. Woe and betide us! Women will have to move back into caves! All their human rights will be taken away! They'll become a subclass of people and even lose their right to vote!

Or maybe not. You see, all Roe v. Wade has ever done is move the decisions about abortion to a federal level and take it out of the hands of the states. And with this, out of the hands of voters. Which is EXACTLY where abortion proponents want it. They're terrified of letting the people speak on this issue, so they have hidden behind the judicial nonsense perpetrated by the original Roe ruling. Whether or not you believe in abortion, you should be completly appalled at the way this has been handled. To allow a judge to add (or take away) rights that do not appear in the Constitution allows for the complete bypass of our entire system of checks and balances. The liberals have been up in arms lately over President Bush's alleged "power grab" with the entire wiretap story. Yet they refuse to acknowledge the same type of situation when it happens with our court system.

The nomination of Samuel Alito to our highest court can be used for two things. It can be used by the partisan hacks to divide our great country further in their effort to dismantle the constitution through judicial activism or it can be used to get us back on track. As voters, the choice is ours. Contact your senator and let him know how you feel on this and every issue that means something to you. And if they don't listen, then send them a clear message at election time.

Posted by: Drew at 02:23 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 990 words, total size 6 kb.

So today I started off already in a pissy mood from the drive home Friday because I had to listen to this and this, but then there was this and I felt better. No wait a minute, OK. I at once realized that this is not about the USA “Security Act for Dealing with Terrorism Extension Bill of 2005”. Now I have a good idea. Add a three to five year extension to the current bill on Monday and leave the sundown dates in and get to leave town. Cool with me. The deal is we are sitting on a big string of success. Don't blink it’s just them trying to hold back the sea. Iraqi Success is just too much. Got to fight against the success of the Good old USA of A because were The NY Times, it's what we do!

Then today Condi was on TV and all was good(transcript eventually it's Fox they are slow to post this one for some stupid reason. Then Harry “what a punk” Reid. And then it was a good day off to the mall to pig and buy stuff. Not to bad really till I stopped to get milk at Wally World. Some group in from of me with lobotomies all the around. Each of them with his/her own pile of envelopes, cards and change. The one took at least two minutes with her Signature. Ok if you are not in a hurry the WTF are you doing in the “Quick Checkout Lane”, Ehem, The President is giving a speech in like two hours lady. Then at the gas station a DJ on the Radio just blanked old Harry out of the local newscast. I was standing there, and it says, ”House Minority Leader Harry……….. ……………..”. Then the news just continued on. I felt better and I hope you do to. Then I read this and felt even better. Double death for Zaqueery am I not correct he is already wanted dead there? I wonder how Jordan works that out? Read the related links as well, all good. I have to go now. President you know. Yes it all works out one way you can tell it's working is all the ruckess!!

Updated : link to transcript and what I thought was the chincher in the speech.

FOXNEWS:It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word.

See the terrorists first of all doubted our government had the gumption to act. Now they count on our people to falter. They believe "We the People" are soft and will loose heart and fail. That we can be easily waited out because as a society they are stronger than we. I'm willing to bet there is still some fight left in this dog. Don't let me and the rest fo the Nation down.

So while I'm at it Caption This pic of old Harry.

Updated : So now I have to pick winners. I hate that part. Due to some urgent stuff that must me done yesterday I'll be scarce for a few days. Not to worry the other bloggers are kickinig ass and taking names.

Winner Carter for : "Harry Reid fails a basic sobriety test, missing his nose and putting out a reporters eye"

Runners up Carlos for "Here, sniff my finger." Filthy for: "In my line of work I seldom need more than this".

Honorable mention Vinnie and traderrob although they post here so they can't win. And also Agent Smith's poem was good. See I would make you all winners if I could.

Posted by: Howie at 07:46 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 633 words, total size 4 kb.

The other day, I asked my readers to share their views on the death penalty and why they believed what they believed. It is no surprise that most of the answers are divided down party lines with the more liberal readers being against the death penalty and the more conservative ones for. Even if it doesn't drive elections, this is probably one of the most contentious issues before us today. Most of the contention comes from the fact that there is no real factual basis for belief either way. There is nothing to point to on your side to say "I'm definately right and you're definately wrong." And when we try to assign factual basis to our arguments, then we sometimes end up a lot further off base than we'd like. For example: some conservatives argue that the death penalty is necessary because it costs too much to feed and house a criminal for the rest of his life. Personally, the idea of putting a dollar value on a human life, even the life of a serial killer, bothers me. If we allow it to be done in the case of a criminal, how long will it take to do it in other cases too? How long will it take to determine that keeping grandma alive simply costs too much? We're already headed in that direction due to other arguments and I'd like to aviod it as much as possible.

In order to understand the death penalty, we must understand the reasons behind the death penalty. And in order to understand that, we must first understand the proper reason for crime and punishment to begin with. Most people in the US believe that jail is (or should be) for the purpose of rehabilitation. Thus, we have introduced numerous social programs, projects and experiments aimed at turning the criminal into a useful member of society. This process fails for a number of reasons.

For the most part, a criminal has already been taught (or has been born with) a certain mindset. This mindset can be caused by any number of factors, but the largest factor is simply not being taught any differently at home. Does that mean that someone who grows up in a good home with loving parents and is taught right from wrong will never do anything bad? No, but the odds of them becoming a career criminal are far smaller than someone who grows up in a single parent home or with parents who disregard him and is not taught right from wrong.

A child, growing up and being taught, will absorb just about anything you give him at the time. They are constantly learning and emulating everything that they see and hear. They are eager to learn. However, once a person gets out of that child stage, learning becomes a matter of choice. They will not learn anything that they don't wish to learn. And when a person is being punished, they are nowhere near as likely to want to learn. So, when rehabilitation is combined with punishment, the likelihood of its success is dropped dramatically.

In order to simplify matters, I equate the treatment of criminals to raising children. In both cases, they need constant reminders of what is acceptable and what is not. And when they know the rules and break them intentionally, then they are swiftly punished for that violation. The punishment has nothing to do with rehabilitation and is used simply to make them scared enough of the punishment that they do not wish to repeat it.

Of course, this assumes that all criminals have "normal" minds. There will always be serial criminals or people who commit crimes of such horrific proportion that they must be treated differently. When such a person is identified, it is obvious that they it will never be safe to allow them to interact with other people. No amount of rehabilitation will change them and no social program will "reeducate" them. For this type of person, there are only two solutions. Leave them in jail for the rest of their natural lives or kill them. I propose that if this is the choice, it is more humane to kill someone rather than keep them locked up for the rest of their lives with no chance of ever seeing the outside again.

It has been suggested that if we are to supply such a horrific choice, the criminal himself should be given the choice to either live in prison or die. I'm afraid, though, that this approach would open the door to cries of "state assisted suicide." And that would be a reasonable claim. It would be somewhat of a catch-22 if someone knew that just by committing a horrendous crime that they would be allowed to die and they wouldn't have to do anything themselves. Would we still be able to put that person to death? Of course it's possible for that to happen even now, but the odds are much smaller when the decision is in the hands of a judge and jury.

Although our current death penalty system is not perfect, I haven't been presented with any reason yet to do away with it. In a just system, some people simply cannot be allowed to live. It's not pretty, it's certainly not nice, but it's the truth.

Posted by: Drew at 11:12 AM | Comments (41) | Add Comment
Post contains 897 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, you can tell that an election year is coming up. The Democrats are trying to indict Tom Delay for anything that they can possibly scrape up. Democratic mouthpieces are coming out of the woodwork to talk about how corrupt this administration is and attempting to tie them to every wrongdoer being indicted, investigated, charged or on trial. They've even trying to use the 9/11 comission in their desperate grab for power. It seems to me that when the original 9/11 report came out, they went to great lengths not to blame anyone for that horrible act of terrorism. Yes, Clinton could have done things differently. So could most Presidents before him. Of course that doesn't keep the Democrats from taking that report and attempting to point fingers.

It seems that the one thing they want to harp on most is the lack of a unified communication system for all police, fire, emergency and other first responders. The 9/11 comission had recommended this as a suggestion in their report. Now Democrats are saying that this "Republican stranglehold" on Congress is preventing anyone from doing anything to implement it. A number of Democratic congressmen are attempting to place the blame solely at the feet of the Republicans for this not happening yet. Now, I can't seem to find a straight story on the whole thing, but it looks to me as if Congress has been attempting to free up some spectrum for this for some time. There is currently a law that requires TV broadcasters to give up analog spectrum in favor of digital by December 31, 2006. Unfortunately, there was also a huge loophole left in that law. TV broadcasters only have to give up the spectrum in areas where 85% of the TV sets are digital capable. By those standards, it could take quite some time to clear that spectrum. Senator McCain (a Republican of all things) and Conrad Burns (another Republican) are attempting to change this by setting a hard date of January 1, 2009 for release of the disputed spectrum. This bill was amended in comittee (by another Republican!) to set the deadline at 2008 instead of 2009. It has currently been introduced to the Senate, but I can't find the status of it from there.

Now, there were a number of Democrats on TV last night at a press conference taking every possible shot at their Republican counterparts, and of course the emergency spectrum was something they harped on quite a bit. I don't seem to recall, however, any of them mentioning McCain's actions. But hey, maybe they just forgot. No, that couldn't be, because they actually did mention one part of McCain's bill. They mentioned the fact that the original estimate for getting the needed spectrum was $15 Billion, but the Republicans were only willing to spend $500 million on it. Their conclusion, of course, was that the Republicans wanted to put a cheap price tag on the safety of American citizens. Of course the actual truth of the matter is that passing McCain's bill will only cost a small fraction of what they started out wanting to spend. I can only see saving $14.5 million as a Good Thing.

The yammering went on for quite a while after that, but to be honest I lost interest in listening to how Evil Bush and his Republican Cronies are responsible for all the woes in our society. One of the reporters at that press conference must have gotten a little tired of it as well. He asked them why, if these issues were so important, the Democrats hadn't done anything about them. That was when the whole "Republican stranglehold" was mentioned.

So I just want to make sure that I have this straight. A conservative judge on the Supreme Court is such a horrendous threat to our American way of life that the Democrats are willing to stop the entire government from moving forward by filibuster simply to prevent him from being appointed. But when it comes to potentially saving the lives of thousands, or even millions of Americans, you are completly powerless? Something about that doesn't sound right. I'm pretty sure that any Senator or Congressman can introduce a bill. And I'm pretty sure that there are enough Democrats still in both houses that it would at least stand some reasonable chance of getting through. So take a good, hard look at yourself and give us a real answer. If this issue is as important as you say it is, are you REALLY doing everything you can to make sure it is taken care of?

Posted by: Drew at 08:14 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 776 words, total size 4 kb.

In reading my morning news, I came across this article about the most recent abortion/parental notification debate in the supreme court. While reading this article, I was totally stunned by the twisting of facts going on and the lack of understanding shown by even the judges in the case. One of the biggest reasons we have not progressed further in this debate is because we let complete fallacies stand as fact. The first and foremost falsehood is the so-called "health of the mother" exception in every abortion law. This is what stands at the center of the current debate and what has stood in the way of many other debates in the past. Abortion proponents insist that every law even being attempted contain broad exceptions for the "health of the mother." What they don't want you to hear, however, is that:

1. The "health" of the mother is a judgement call based upon each individual doctor's interpretation. It doesn't mean that she's going to die if she doesn't have an abortion. It could mean something as trivial as her body won't be in as good a shape as it was before she had the baby.

2. Health exceptions always include mental health. If a doctor determines that a woman may be mentally unstable because she's pregnant, he can use the health exception to perform an abortion. This has included cases where the woman was simply "unhappy" with her pregnancy.

And yet these are the types of things that don't get talked about during the debate. Instead, we get this "inspired" line of questioning from Justices Souter and Bryer: more...

Posted by: Drew at 08:47 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1580 words, total size 9 kb.

A revalation came to me this morning in the form of an email from Amawalk John. I have finally figured out what the Democrats mean by "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." But before we get to that, let's play a game. I'm going to give you a list of quotes and you see if you can tell me who they belong to. The answers will be in the additional section of this article.

1. He will rebuild his arsenel of weapons of mass destruction. Some day, somewhere, I am certain, he will use that arsenel again as he has ten times since 1983.


2. Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that.


3. There's unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons in the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.


4. He continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability including nuclear capability. There is a real debate on how far off that is. Whether it is a matter of years or whether it is a matter of less than that.


5. Good Evening. Earliear today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.


6. Other countries posess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there's one big difference. He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. And I have no doubt today that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.


7. Inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.


8. The hard fact is that as long as Saddam is in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government willing to live in peace with its neighbors. A government that respects the lives of its people.


9. The decision to use force is never cost free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.


10. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.


11. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. Mark my words. He will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them. And he will use them.

Posted by: Drew at 08:16 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 674 words, total size 4 kb.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Generals know how to fight wars. That's how they get to be Generals. It's not something that's just handed out. So when the General you put in charge of something starts telling you things, it's probably wise to listen. We didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam and it looks like we still haven't learned it.

Lt. General John R. Vines, commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq, disagrees with Congressman Murtha on the pullout of our troops from Iraq. Considering he is the one on the ground and in charge of making things happen, I think it would behoove our leadership to listen to what he has to say.

Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the Multinational Corps Iraq, said that 36 Iraqi battalions, about one-third of the total force, are now responsible for their own security sectors and can fight the insurgency. But they are not yet ready to operate totally independent of U.S. supply lines and tactical advice.

Because of that, he said, now is not the time for an American withdrawal.

"Iraqi security forces are able to conduct operations in a large portion of their area with only limited coalition support," Gen. Vines told Pentagon reporters via a teleconference from Baghdad. "They do require our support at this time. That support will be increasingly less over a period of time, but a precipitous pullout, I believe, would be destabilizing."

That, to me, sounds like good news. We've got a lot of troops trained and we're gradually moving things over to the Iraqis as they can handle them. Imagine for a moment that you would like to be a pilot. You go to the airport, sign up for lessons and get started. The instructor teaches you the basics of flying and how to take off, then takes you up for your first flight. Halfway through the flight, the instructor simply bails out. He hasn't taught you to land yet, but suddenly you're on your own. Sounds like a pretty messed up situation, doesn't it? And yet that's exactly what Congressman Murtha and his Democratic compadres propose doing to the Iraqis. And the exact same thing they forced us to do to the Vietnamese. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

The mistakes that the politicians made in Vietnam were fatal and avoidable. Certainly it was a brutal war, but does that make it not worth fighting? Wasn't our own Revolutionary war quite bloody? Did that keep the French from coming to our aid? Without them, we might still be paying taxes to Britan. Our future certainly would have come out very differently. Now it's time to give other people in the world the same chance. It's time to stop all the political bickering and get the job done right. Stop worrying about trying to score political points and listen to what your commanders are telling you. We've started a job. Let's finish it and prove to the world that we CAN learn from the mistakes we've made in the past.

Posted by: Drew at 07:20 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 3 kb.

Just so you know how I end up where I end up despite being frightfully human and imperfect. I read lots of stuff and post lots too. I've not read anything better than this all week.

Ecc Chap 9 start vs 9:Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them. This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me: There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard. The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.

No one knows what tomorrow will be for any of us. Today I will drink the wine of my labor and see and visit with the family. It is the labors of life and the time spent laughing with friends and family, these are the true gifts of life that have been given to us. Tomorrow any man including myself may find himself as a blade of grass or he may be allowed to take joy in the vanity of his labor and see the sun once more. Be both confident and humble, live for today and do the best you can. You will succeed and fail both equal gifts in the long road to wisdom.

Chap 3 11 – 15 :He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God. I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

Updated: In other words I have no idea. Chance most likely.

Posted by: Howie at 12:29 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 591 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, 2005 is nearly over. And with 2006 comes thoughts of midterm elections. I'm sure it won't take very long for the airwaves to become polluted with commercials for your (most or least) favorite representative to Washington. But before we begin this propaganda cycle, I think we need to take a good hard look at what has been going on. No, I'm not going to sit here and lay the ills of the world at this administration's feet. There are plenty of liberals to do that. Besides that, I'd like to focus on reality. And the reality is that our representatives, by and large, have been paying us a lot of lip service without really doing anything. Except for the bill that they just passed to relax restrictions on refinery building, I can't think of much of anything Congress has managed to get done recently. Oh, I'm sure there have been hundreds of little "pet project" bills that they have managed to get through, but there are some major issues that are being swept under the rug here and need to be addressed. I think that we need to use these midterm elections to send a message to our representatives. We need to let them know that they no longer control the issues. These are the things that we are concerned about and they have two more years to start doing something about them before we start voting them out of office.

With that in mind, I have come up with a small list of issues that I believe need attention. These are mainly issues that have been brought up, talked about and raised as standards by many representatives, then quickly hidden before any real action has had to be taken.

1. What ever happened to Social Security reform? Of course we all realize that the Democrats don't even want to talk about this, but hey, we're the majority party. It's time to do something before the whole thing collapses like the house of cards that it is. We have already forced the Democrats to admit there is a problem, but then we didn't do anything about it. Why haven't we pressed that advantage to actually get something done?

2. School Vouchers have been a hot topic for politicians to run on for quite some time now. Let's do something besides pay them lip service.

3. All (or most) of our Republicans have been spending like Democrats for the past several years. The last highway bill is a travesty that should never have been allowed to pass through a Republican congress. If they're afraid of holding up an important bill just because it's stuffed full of pork, we need to let them know that we will fully support their decision. If it's just because they want to spend like everyone else, then they need to know that we will no longer support that. Either way, they need to get the message loud and clear that it well beyond time to get government spending under control.

4. When trying to find the money for Hurricane Katrina relief, several Republicans stood up to say that it was time to take control of government spending. There were several good proposals on the table at the time. After their initial press coverage, these things seem to have disappeared. Is that from lack of support? If so, why are our Republican representatives showing so much fiscal irresponsibility? Let's get these proposals back out and start slashing at some fat.

5. When are we going to show that we value human life? I'm not talking about outlawing abortion tomorrow. I'm too much of a realist to think that's going to happen soon (if at all). But there were so many representatives ready to jump on the bandwagon when it looked politically expedient for them during the Terri Schiavo issue. Now we don't hear a peep out of them. If you were so concerned about protecting the Terri Schiavos of this nation, why aren't you doing something about it. If you don't feel that it's the federal government's place to do anything about it, why aren't you urging states to take action?

Overall, I have been quite disappointed in the actions taken by our supposed majority. With elections just around the corner, we need to make it more than clear that we can and will rally around someone who will give us more than talking points. After all, if I wanted all my money stolen and to be lied to constantly, I'd vote Democrat.

Posted by: Drew at 09:57 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 765 words, total size 4 kb.

On the drive home yesterday, I happened to catch a portion of the Sean Hannity show that got me thinking. His guest was a woman who had been kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight because of her shirt. The shirt in question had a picture of the Bush cabinet and the caption "Meet The F*ckers." Hannity, while berating the woman for wearing such a shirt, said that he would fully defend her right to be able to wear it.

Of course that brings up the question of where do we draw the line? This isn't a new question by any means. In the Fifties, parents wanted Rock & Roll banned for its "evil influence" on kids (and nowadays I'm beginning to think they may have been right!). And for as long as most of us can remember, the courts have been struggling to define pornography. And I think most of the answers end up being "if it pleases me, then it's not pornography." But in our culturally diverse society, that can leave a lot open to interpretation. The sight of a woman's leg could be offensive to a Muslim, while some perverted individuals might not be offended by women having sex with animals. Certainly the reaction to Janet Jackson's breast, even amongst Conservatives, ran the entire spectrum. So, defining what is offensive and what is not in a court is going to be next to impossible. more...

Posted by: Drew at 07:51 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 909 words, total size 5 kb.

Connecticut sets itself square into the middle of one of the stickiest battles our country has ever faced by granting Civil Unions to homosexual couples.

The whole time that this has been a fight, I have felt that it is wrong, but wasn't sture why. Now I think I've figured it out, at least for me. Procreation. Heterosexual relationships are the only relationships that offer the ability to procreate and continue the survival of the human species. That's not to say that every human couple is able to procreate, but there is at least an underlying reason for the attraction. Other forms of sexual perversion don't even have this to fall back on.

Now, with that being said, if a state wishes to recognize two people, regardless of gender and cohabitating as a couple for all legal purposes such as medical treatment, living wills, etc. Then so be it. But you better be careful when you word the statute because you could be leaving the door open for your state to provide a civil union between he and his sixteen wives. Or a man and his dog. Think it won't happen? It's already happening in some of the same-sex marriage states. A woman is sueing the state to get a marriage license issued between her and her dog. All I'm saying is that if you want to grant special priviliges to one sexual deviation while leaving others out, you had better be prepared for the firestorm that will percipitate.

Posted by: Drew at 05:28 AM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

In catching up with the mail and stories that I've missed over the past week or so, I noticed one that seems to not be getting the full attention that it deserves. After Bush's whopping federal aid comittment to the people affected by Hurricane Katrina, and what is sure to be matching funds for Hurricane Rita, some people are beginning to ask where the money is going to come from. Of course when you ask the liberal side of the goverment that question, you get your stock answer. "We'll just tax the rich more." And if they were in control, I'm sure that's exactly what they would do. Of course with the state of our economy right now (high gas prices, other prices rising to compensate, distribution problems due to the hurricanes, etc), that reaction could very well send the US into a downward spiral from which we might never recover.

Instead, a small group of House Republicans have come up with a plan. It is being hailed as genius in some corners and most everyone agrees that it is a good idea. Of course I don't read liberal publications very much, but I have yet to read anything bad about it (and again, I'm not going to pay $50 just to hear Krugman talk about how it sucks). Everyone seems to be amazed at the ingenuity of the plan. So what is this plan? Act like a conservative. That's right, go back to the original conservative values of not spending more money than you have. These House Republicans want to start bringing government spending under control. And they want to start by reopening the atrocious highway bill that was just passed and removing 6,000 pork projects from it. There are many other changes involving cutting out excessive spending in many other areas as well, but this one stands out because most people are familiar with it.

But I have a problem with this plan. My problem is that we haven't been screaming for it from day one. How long now have we had a Republican controlled Senate, Congress and White House? Where was this group of brave Republicans when this highway bill was first passed? Honestly, some of them may have voted against it. But certainly not all Republicans did. If that were the case, it never would have passed. And our Republican President certainly didn't veto it. We would have heard about that. And what about all the other pork projects? Proponents of this plan are saying that we could save $1 Trillion dollars over ten years. Wow. That kind of money could sure go a long way toward making Social Security solvent. Or paying off our national debt. Or make one hell of a lot of tax return checks for us poor working stiffs.

So I'm asking you, is your Republican Senator or Congressman acting like a Conservatve? If not, maybe he needs a small reminder that elections are coming up very soon. And even if they aren't up for reelection this time, they are sometime. We've got Republicans back in office. Let's make sure now that we've got Conservatives.

Posted by: Drew at 09:00 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm feeling sorry today. I'm feeling sorry for the families of everyone they are finding dead. I'm feeling sorry for those poor older folks who were left to die in a nursing home. I'm feeling sorry for everyone who has to stare at a ruin where their house used to be and wonder what they're going to do next. I'm feeling sorry for Bush. Before he stood up and took responsibility for any wrongdoing (he's a better man than I ever could be), he knew that he would get nothing but grief over it from both sides of the asile.

But mainly I'm feeling sorry for the country. New Orleans has shown us a lot about ourselves and the direction in which we are headed. During 9/11, we saw firefighters and policemen running INTO harm's way. Now, we see them turning in their badges and joining with the criminals. During 9/11, we all came together. Democrats and Republicans, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Irish, English, it didn't matter. We were all in this together until it was over. But now, as soon as the hurricane hit, we had politicians and politician-wanna-bes stepping up to play politics and see how they could play this natural disaster to their favor. Some, such as Hillary Clinton, were doing it to promote their agenda and attempt to smear any Republican that they could. Others, such as the mayor and governor were attempting to save face in light of horrendous errors on their part. Still others, such as Jesse Jackson and the others who started crying "race" were simply trying to keep their sway over the masses. more...

Posted by: Drew at 09:36 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 1191 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Amen Brother Rusty.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 14, 2005 09:40 AM (5ceWd)

2 "In New Orleans, the liberals house of cards has come crashing down around their ears. Their bastion of nanny statism is no longer." Its not that nanny state to expect that 4 years after 9/11 we can deal with disasters. And that's not a liberal house of cards either.

Posted by: actus at September 14, 2005 09:41 AM (CqheE)

3 I think I'm going to start putting "I'M NOT RUSTY" at the beginning of all my posts

Posted by: Drew at September 14, 2005 09:41 AM (Ml8z/)

4 Now see, actus, there you go thinking again. What is the one difference between New York and New Orleans? New York had a competent mayor who took charge and helped his people out rather than letting half his police force run off and telling everyone that they were on their own.

Posted by: Drew at September 14, 2005 09:44 AM (Ml8z/)

5 I just heard an urban planning specialist on NPR say that federal subsidized housing policies over the last 40 years (i.e., the "war on poverty") was the reason the poor in New Orleans were concentrated in all the low-lying areas of the city. In the meantime the bushitler haters are blaming Bush for poverty and now natural disasters even though New Orleans has been a Democrat city for generations. How typical. Both at the federal and local level New Orleans exposes the failed social policies of the Left. Their greatest victims are the poor themselves. That's what I'm sorry about.

Posted by: Carlos at September 14, 2005 09:48 AM (8e/V4)

6 We said drew. The gov't can help but people hold so much more power and no forms are required for yer nightbor to fire up that chainsaw or boat or generator. Fed Gov't can help States states can help parishes or counties but in the end everyting is done by people. Private companies and individuals can do so much more so much faster. The state can never replace loving your neighbor.

Posted by: Howie at September 14, 2005 09:50 AM (D3+20)

7 Just what I have been thinking. I have donated liberally to the Red Cross and also through my church. However, I will be donating no more; not one more red cent to those lazy, whinning ingrates. My money will be going to the Humane Society or the SPCA. Now, there are creatures that will be truly grateful, and feel no entitlement for what they receive. (I found it humorous that when they were loading up a plane to go to Utah, nobody wanted to go. Could it be that they knew those Mormans would expect them to actually work and pull their own weight? Good, hardworking folks, those Mormans.) This whole thing has been a hugh eye-opener for this country. Maybe just a dress rehearsal for what is to come.

Posted by: Razorgirl at September 14, 2005 10:13 AM (H+tJ8)

8 Rusty, I'm not feeling sorry. The scum have floated to the top and we can now see who they are. That in itself will be important down the road because we now know who all our enemies are, including those like Hilary who were trying to put a moderate mask on. I feel pretty good about the people in my community who have come together and fed, housed, and entertained over 1,000 refuges without the help of the Red Cross, Salvation Army or federal or state government. You see, we don't have a Red Cross or Salvation Army contingent here. What we do have is a number of churches and individuals who got together and solved a problem without any help from the government. You see, our city has only 11,000 people yet we handled a refugee population that was almost 10 per cent of our total population. That would be like San Francisco taking in about 50,000 refuges. That won't happen and it couldn't happen because the citizens of SF would say they couldn't handle that many. As for the refuges themselves, I can say I've met a great bunch of people who are ready to go home and get to work. As a matter of fact, a group of men bought 18 generators, roofing materials, gasoline, food, water, and other provisions and left for the NO area Monday. They are already back home working to set their communities right. That is what makes America great, not a bunch of lefty cry babies who want the government to do every little thing for them. That's the reason you had people stealing, killing, and raping in NO. That's all they know how to do. They have been on the government tit for so long that they only have their base instincts left. They have no self-respect and gain their self-worth through brutality. The Islamists are exactly like that also, although they use radical Islam to justity their brutality. Sometimes I do despair, Rusty, but when I talk to the average man on the street, I really feel pretty good. You need to stop listening to those goofy MSM reporters, Rusty. You'll be a lot happier.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 14, 2005 10:40 AM (q9AWQ)

9 "Otherwise healthy adults continue their lethargic existence without actually doing anything," but you don't want to slam them? Are you serious? While I agree that the system offers certain incentives against working once on welfare, there is nothing about the system that prohibits people from getting off their asses and doing something with their lives - permitting does not equal requiring. The responsibility for their condition lies first and foremost with them. As an anaolgy, while conditions ni the Middle East, U.S. foregin policy, soldiers in Saudi Arabia/Iraq, etc., may foster anger and resentment against the United States and/or England, those most responsible for the 9/11 attacks or the subway bombings are THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES - not GWB, not Tony Blair, not they system, not the oppression, but the individuals who chose to take that course of action. (And no, I am not comparing being on welfare with being a terrorist, I am merely stating that both should be held accountable for their actions, and suggesting that in the setting of terrorism, you would agree with me, Drew (not Rusty)).

Posted by: tk at September 14, 2005 10:43 AM (5HwRu)

10 Better to say that I'm trying not to lump everyone together. Some (very few, I know) people are drawing welfare because they've hit bottom, haven't been able to find another job yet and simply need a way to feed their family for a time until they can get it back together. But yes, the ones who are just sitting on their asses and drawing a check need a good dose of reality. And they need their comfortable little world jerked right out from under them.

Posted by: Drew at September 14, 2005 10:47 AM (Ml8z/)

11 If it is a "dress rehearsal", then it was a big price to pay for a trial run, but I understand what you mean, Razorgirl. And many have not even thought about all the pets. I'll give you a great big blue ribbon for that. Atta girl. I think Drew hit on all the points that have been bothering me and just didn't take the time to write. For one point, in particular, the entitlements (or welfare programs, if you will) that were so predominant in New Orleans played a huge role in how these people either reacted to an evacuation or how they were actually unable to react appropriately. It created a mindset that they need help when they may not, when they may be completely capable of providing for themselves. Put in a more basic sense - it would be like the "teach a man to fish" parable and which side of that story their local government came down on. Teaching or providing.

Posted by: Oyster at September 14, 2005 11:08 AM (fl6E1)

12 "What is the one difference between New York and New Orleans? New York had a competent mayor who took charge and helped his people out rather than letting half his police force run off and telling everyone that they were on their own." New york's disaster lasted 2 hours. then it was all over when the dust settled. New Orleans' is still ongoing. Its a big difference. Like I said. Not very nanny state to expect disaster relief.

Posted by: actus at September 14, 2005 04:37 PM (CqheE)

13 "New York's disaster lasted 2 hours, then it was all over when the dust settled." That has got to be the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard anyone say. And I dare you to go up to anyone in New York and tell them that.

Posted by: Drew at September 14, 2005 04:39 PM (t6bdo)

14 Drew, I think what Actus was trying to convey was the sheer magnitude difference between NY and NO. The zone of destruction in NY covered about 16 acres while about 90,000 square miles was affected on the Gulf Coast. I don't think he meant any disrespect toward NY, he was just trying to compare the magnitude of the two disasters.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 14, 2005 04:57 PM (q9AWQ)

15 Yeah! Damn Hillary and all of the others who bashed Bush over his laxxed response to Katrina. And while we're at it... Let's damn the 67% of Americans who polled as not being satisfied with Bush's overall performance. Fuc*ing liberals! *lol* Just face it, doodie. You're in the minority. It's just to my amusement that you're too much of a Dubya fanboy to handle when you're 'homeboy' gets his just deserts. Just because he took responsibility doesn't mean that he's freed himself of the consequences. Stop crying.

Posted by: madmagickdotnet at September 14, 2005 05:00 PM (D7Fw/)

16 "That has got to be the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard anyone say. And I dare you to go up to anyone in New York and tell them that." Whats so wrong? the disaster is over, not the cleanup or grief. In new orleans, the disaster continues, requiring continuing policing. Also, there was much vaster victimization. You didn't see NYC's government destroyed. NO's? most of their cops are homeless and officeless.

Posted by: actus at September 14, 2005 05:32 PM (CqheE)

17 Show me one photo of a dead white guy from New Orleans.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 15, 2005 08:25 AM (VhNDM)

18 Don't be so sad. I'm in Alabama. The wonderful stories aren't being told. There is much goodwil and much concern, care and help here and on its way for the long term. The media has focused solely on the negative, and there's always negative because we aren't perfect. Even those saying thank you aren't being heard out there. But they are here. So I'll pass it on. Thanks to ones who care and who will still care months/weeks from now if necessary.

Posted by: terri at September 15, 2005 12:12 PM (5F0BI)

19 "Show me one photo of a dead white guy from New Orleans." I'll go ya one better; tell me where you live and I'll show you one dead liberal moron from your neighborhood.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 15, 2005 12:28 PM (0yYS2)

20 "I'll go ya one better; tell me where you live and I'll show you one dead liberal moron from your neighborhood." Shaw, DC.

Posted by: actus at September 15, 2005 06:01 PM (y/f3P)

Hide Comments | Add Comment