Sunday, February 07, 2010
Palin's speech at the Tea Party Convention
The transcript that I am working from is at Palin Transcript.
"It is just so inspiring to see real people." As usual she implies that people who have a difference of opinion with her are not 'real' people. I am really tired of this kind of bullshit. I as real of an American and as real of a person as any at the Tea Party, I just don't agree with Sarah's positions.
"So he stood up, and he decided that he was going to do his part to put our government back on the side of the people." This statement is about Scott Brown. I am not sure how the government is not on the side of the people now. Oh, right it is not being run by Republicans.
"... President Obama foundsome way to make this all about George Bush. You know, considering the recent conservative election sweep, it’s time that they stop blaming everyone else. When you’re O for three, you’d better stop lecturing and start listening." I am not sure what she is referring to about blaming George Bush, unless it was when the President made the statement that the same anger that swept him into office also swept Scott Brown into office. And the 0 for 3 suspiciously overlooks the Tea Party backed candidate in NY that lost his race and swept a Democrat into office for the first time in over 100 years in that district.
"Because from Virginia to New Jersey to Massachusetts, voters are sending a message up and down the East Coast and in good places like Nevada and Connecticutt and Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, they got the liberal left—that establishment running scared." Yes, because the fact that more Republicans are not running for re-election in the fall really has the 'establishment' running scared. It once again overlooks the NY situation, and that her good friend John McCain is in trouble with his own re-election.
"And it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter." Nice swipe, to bad it was from notes in front of her, and was made just a week after she tore the House Republicans apart with out notes or a Teleprompter. I doubt Ms. Palin could do the same if challenged.
"New terms used like “overseas contingency operation” instead of the word “war.” " Yes, because the Administration has never used the word war. Come on, let's at least be intellectually honest in the discussion. Well I guess I can't expect intellectual honesty out of an intellectual void.
"What followed was equally disturbing. After he was captured, he was questioned for only fifty minutes. We had a choice in how to do this. The choice was only question him for fifty minutes and then read his Miranda Rights." Yes let's continue the bullshit spin. First off, perhaps Ms Palin need to go back and look up Richard Reed (The Shoe Bomber) and how he was treated by the Bush Administration. Second perhaps she need to put down her ghostwritten book and perhaps follow current events. There were reports for the last 2 weeks how the FBI have continued to interrogate Mutallub and have gotten huge amounts of intelligence, verified from other sources, and that can now be acted upon. Of course, no torture was involved so it wasn't good enough for Sarah.
"...there are questions we would have liked this foreign terrorist to answer because he lawyered up and invoked our U.S. Constitutional right to remain silent" Perhaps if she followed the news she would realize they have probably been answered.
"...we’re going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and wants to destroy our Constitution and our country? This makes no sense because we have a choice in how we’re going to deal with the terrorists. We don’t have to go down that road." Perhaps Sarah, as the Constitutional scholar that she is, could explain where the Constitution states that it would not apply in this situation. I think in my readings of the Constitution. I have missed that.
"The events surrounding the Christmas Day plot reflect the kind of thinking that led to September 11th." Like the actual Pre-911 attitude that lead to the Bush administration ignoring the warnings and allowing 9-11 to actually happen?
"They know we’re at war. And to win that war, we need a commander-in-chief, not a PROFESSOR OF LAW STANDING AT THE LECTURN!" You mean like the Commander-in-Chief who took several months to actual figure out the best way forward in Afghanistan with the military commanders, as opposed to fire anyone in the upper chain of command who didn't tell him exactly what he wanted to hear. Or the Commander-in-Chief who fulfilled a long standing request for additional troops in Afghanistan, instead of letting it languish on his desk for months without paying attention to it like GWB.
"It’s that same kind of misguided thinking that is seen throughout the administration’s foreign policy decisions. Our president spent a year reaching out to hostile regimes, writing personal letters to dangerous dictators, and APOLOGIZING FOR AMERICA! " Nice talking point about apologizing for America, to bad its pure bullshit and isn't supported by anything but Right Wing delusions.
"Here’s what we have to show. North Korea tested nuclear weapons and longer range ballistic missiles." This is very good point, to bad most of the development of those missiles were done under the Bush Administrations 8 year tenure running our foreign policy.
"Plans for a missile defense system in Europe . . . they’ve been scrapped." Mainly because the military didn't want the systems, they were years behind schedule, billions over budget, and no workable system in sight, but let's not let reality get in the way of a good talking point.
"And around the world, people who are seeking freedom from opressive regimes, wonder if Alaska is still that beacon of hope for their cause. " Alaska? WTF? Even with a pre-written speech she didn't get that one correct. I think I will leave to speak for itself.
"The administration cut support for democracy programs, and where the president has not been clear, I ask, “Where is his clear and where is his strong voice support for the Iranians who are risking all in their opposition to Ahmadinejad?”" I just don't know what she expects the President to say to support people in a country that we have no intention of 'invading.' He has stated that he feels the government needs to make reforms. There is not much more to be said.
"Foreign policy can’t be managed through the politics of personality. And our president would do well to take note of an observation John F. Kennedy had made once he was in office: that all the world’s problems are his predecessor’s fault. The problems that we face in the real world require real solutions, and we better get to it, because the risks that they pose are great, and they’re grave." Yes because it's clear that this Administration is trying to manage through the "politics of personality," as opposed to Sarah who is all substance. Please, she is the definition of "politics of personality." And she is right, we are facing grave problems that require real solutions, not the bullshit political nonsense she has spouted.
Well hopefully Sarah will get torn apart for her stupidity, but by all means I hope the Tea Party and the Republicans continue to back her, I don't think she is electable. But then again, I didn't support Barack at the beginning either, because I wasn't sure he was electable.
Labels: Commentary, Obama Admin, Politics
Friday, February 05, 2010
Flags and political protest
Looking back at the past, I have always found the burning of flags as a political protest a bit odd. I understand the symbolism, just never understood the reasoning for doing it in many of the domestic situations.
The new things seems to be flying the flag upside down in the symbol of distress. I understand the thinking, 'I disagree with the direction the country is going.' I suspect a lot of the people who are feeling this way, were supporters of GWB in all his glory, and don't like the fact that a non-Republican is in the White House.
When I was in college, there was a girl on campus, who was into the punk scene at the school, who war a military field jacket with the flag patch upside down. Even then I felt it was a stupid thing, apparently I haven't 'grown' on this issue.
I am not suggesting that what people are disgusted/angry/upset/worried about is bad. I think there are a lot of things to be worried about in this country, but I am not really sure that these types of protests are going to really accomplish.
I do know one thing, we won't see anyone advocating a Constitutional amendment outlawing flying your flag in that position.
Labels: Commentary
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Spree Killings
I just felt a need to discuss this for a moment since we had a spree killing yesterday, an attempted spree killing on Sunday, and the 17 year-old going on a spree in Germany today.
I find these very disturbing. Yes, I sure most people do. The main reason that I feel the need to get this off my chest today, is that I suspect we will see more of this kind of thing. I don't think that this is an isolated set of incidents, but something symptomatic of the economic circumstances that we find ourselves in at this point in history.
There are always the occasionally spree killing, but I can't remember see so many in unrelated 'venues' in a short period of time. If the world economy doesn't begin to show signs of improvement soon, we will probably see more of these sorts of things. I really hope that I am wrong, but I just see the trend toward a violent outburst as getting worse as the economy gets worse.
I find these very disturbing. Yes, I sure most people do. The main reason that I feel the need to get this off my chest today, is that I suspect we will see more of this kind of thing. I don't think that this is an isolated set of incidents, but something symptomatic of the economic circumstances that we find ourselves in at this point in history.
There are always the occasionally spree killing, but I can't remember see so many in unrelated 'venues' in a short period of time. If the world economy doesn't begin to show signs of improvement soon, we will probably see more of these sorts of things. I really hope that I am wrong, but I just see the trend toward a violent outburst as getting worse as the economy gets worse.
Labels: Commentary
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Is the Far-Right going completely off the reservation?
I know it has been some time since I have been here to express my self by something that I just read is really disturbing me.
Chuck Norris: I may run for president of Texas
This article/post of Mr. Norris at World Net Daily, greatly disturbs me. Not because it is being said by Chuck, after all he showed that he is a bit nutty during the last election cycle, but because I do not believe Chuck is the only one who is 'thinking' this way.
I have been telling my wife for more than two years that I see signs that this country is moving toward a second civil war. I do not believe it is inevitable but I do think that it becomes hard to avoid when you have people at the extremes of the political spectrum who are so locked in to a set view point that they are unable to compromise.
The problem here is that both sides are becoming set in the 'it's my way or the highway' mind set, but that is not were we need to get to. The Republicans and others on the Far-Right are always talking about our Founding Fathers and their religious beliefs. Very few of them would be in line with the religious view that are prevalent today. Most of them were deists and not Christians in the modern usage.
I am really getting tired of the situation. The same loons who were saying while GWB was President that speaking against the policies of the President during a time of war were committing treason, are doing the same thing with Barack as President. The President has changed, and the party of the President, and the tune has changed. They have no problem talking about other people being treasonous for disagreeing with a President, but when they talk open sedition, apparently that is okay.
This is really frustrating.
Chuck Norris: I may run for president of Texas
This article/post of Mr. Norris at World Net Daily, greatly disturbs me. Not because it is being said by Chuck, after all he showed that he is a bit nutty during the last election cycle, but because I do not believe Chuck is the only one who is 'thinking' this way.
I have been telling my wife for more than two years that I see signs that this country is moving toward a second civil war. I do not believe it is inevitable but I do think that it becomes hard to avoid when you have people at the extremes of the political spectrum who are so locked in to a set view point that they are unable to compromise.
The problem here is that both sides are becoming set in the 'it's my way or the highway' mind set, but that is not were we need to get to. The Republicans and others on the Far-Right are always talking about our Founding Fathers and their religious beliefs. Very few of them would be in line with the religious view that are prevalent today. Most of them were deists and not Christians in the modern usage.
I am really getting tired of the situation. The same loons who were saying while GWB was President that speaking against the policies of the President during a time of war were committing treason, are doing the same thing with Barack as President. The President has changed, and the party of the President, and the tune has changed. They have no problem talking about other people being treasonous for disagreeing with a President, but when they talk open sedition, apparently that is okay.
This is really frustrating.
Labels: Commentary
Monday, September 01, 2008
John McCain's World
I am not completely sure what John McCain was thinking when he picked Ms Palin. (Several people I have talked to had an initial reaction of "did he just say he picked Michael Palin of Monty Python?"
She gave a terrible, very unorganized speech on Friday, and I found her voice to be annoying and screechy.
I found it rather funny that her 17 year old daughter was pregnant when it was released today. Wife kept trying to tell me that she wasn't 17 and that the baby was her's. (I guess from the rumors on the internet, my wife isn't the only one.) I also think that it was interesting, that the press release was all candy and flowers about the issue. I have a feeling that the news wasn't received at home quite that well.
They said that she is going to be marrying the father of the baby so I just was hoping to get several questions off my mind:
She gave a terrible, very unorganized speech on Friday, and I found her voice to be annoying and screechy.
I found it rather funny that her 17 year old daughter was pregnant when it was released today. Wife kept trying to tell me that she wasn't 17 and that the baby was her's. (I guess from the rumors on the internet, my wife isn't the only one.) I also think that it was interesting, that the press release was all candy and flowers about the issue. I have a feeling that the news wasn't received at home quite that well.
They said that she is going to be marrying the father of the baby so I just was hoping to get several questions off my mind:
- Where did the girl and the father of the baby meet?
- How old is the father?
- When is the wedding?
- As she is a big supporter of home schooling, are their children home schooled and if so by who? After all she has been a mayor and is now governor, and hubby is busy commercial fishing.
- If they are paying for someone else to educate their kids at home does that qualify as home schooling?
- How did someone who is as shrill as she is get elected to any kind of public office?
- For a family that is as evangelical as they are reported to be, why do I get the feeling that she runs the family with an iron fist?
- Does anyone else get the impression that she is a closet bitch?
- Am I the only one who thinks she appears to have moments of the eyes of a psychotic person?
- What did this woman do to convince John McCain that she was the first best choice for VP?
- Why does Cindy McCain appear to have inhuman eyes, and does this worry anyone but me?
- Aside from his VP choice, does anyone else think that John may be getting a wee bit senile? After all he seems to be forgetting some important things recently.
- Wife and I seem to think that there is something physically wrong with John. He doesn't seem to move very well any more. Anyone else feel this way?
- I realize that the good Senator's mother is still going strong, but is anyone else worried that a 72 year old former POW and torture victim is going to put himself under the stress of 'running the free world' is may not make if 4 years.' (This, I might add seems to be made all the worse by his VP choice.
Labels: Commentary, Politics
DNC Days 2-4
I enjoyed the rest of the convention last week.
I though Hillary and Bill did what they had to, and hope that her voters will listen and move to support Barack for the general election.
Joe Biden's speech really impressed me, I don't remember him giving that good of a speech in quite some time. (I also felt that if Hillary had spoke as well as she did at the convention through out the campaign, the out come might have been very different.)
The Speech that Barack gave was outstanding. My first comment to my wife was that he was quite as dynamic as he usually is, but he was much more presidential than usual.
I have comments on John McCain, but will do those separately.
As PS on the Day one comments: I thought Nancy Pelosi look very good, but was very dull on the speech front. (She doesn't always look all that good to me.
I though Hillary and Bill did what they had to, and hope that her voters will listen and move to support Barack for the general election.
Joe Biden's speech really impressed me, I don't remember him giving that good of a speech in quite some time. (I also felt that if Hillary had spoke as well as she did at the convention through out the campaign, the out come might have been very different.)
The Speech that Barack gave was outstanding. My first comment to my wife was that he was quite as dynamic as he usually is, but he was much more presidential than usual.
I have comments on John McCain, but will do those separately.
As PS on the Day one comments: I thought Nancy Pelosi look very good, but was very dull on the speech front. (She doesn't always look all that good to me.
Labels: Commentary, Politics
Monday, August 25, 2008
DNC Day 1
I watch most of the first night of the convention this evening.
Some initial thoughts.
The tribute to and speech by Senator Edward Kennedy, had me in tears. Both were very moving and I was glad to be able to see it live. (I did record it, as my wife starts year two of Grad school tomorrow at 7:45 am and she was not able to stay up to see the entire first night.)
Michelle Obama, was very grounded in her speech. I was glad that I was able to see that also, because I got a great deal of information about her, and Barack, that I didn't know.
I did get a smile out of the 'appearance' by Barack at the end of the speech by Michelle.
I was glad that Michelle mentioned Hillary by name and gave her credit for what she was able to accomplish. I think the healing was intended to begin there.
Well, it's late I have a couple of things to take care of and a short night of sleep ahead of me, as I am taking my wife to school in the morning.
I will return tomorrow night.
Some initial thoughts.
The tribute to and speech by Senator Edward Kennedy, had me in tears. Both were very moving and I was glad to be able to see it live. (I did record it, as my wife starts year two of Grad school tomorrow at 7:45 am and she was not able to stay up to see the entire first night.)
Michelle Obama, was very grounded in her speech. I was glad that I was able to see that also, because I got a great deal of information about her, and Barack, that I didn't know.
I did get a smile out of the 'appearance' by Barack at the end of the speech by Michelle.
I was glad that Michelle mentioned Hillary by name and gave her credit for what she was able to accomplish. I think the healing was intended to begin there.
Well, it's late I have a couple of things to take care of and a short night of sleep ahead of me, as I am taking my wife to school in the morning.
I will return tomorrow night.
Labels: Commentary
I am confused.
To be honest, the title is only partially accurate, I am confused, but bewildered may be a better term.
While watching CNN this afternoon and early evening, they were discussing a number of issues surrounding how some of Hillary's supporters feel that their candidate has been slighted, and that Barack and his campaign are not respecting her.
This conversation was 'enhanced' by James Carville, in both recorded clips and a live segment, stating that one of the things that he is upset about is that Mr. Obama didn't get the input of either Senator Clinton or President Clinton in the choice of the Vice-President.
My question for Mr. Carville is did President Clinton consult with President Carter before he made a decision to name VP Gore as his VP. I am guessing the answer is no, but as I am not an insider I don't know for sure. (I would like to know that though, because I think it would reveal what a fool Carville can be.)
The other thing that was driving me nuts is that they had various supporters of Hillary say things about how they aren't going to give up the fight. The other one is those supporters who say that if Hillary isn't the nominee that they are going to vote for John McCain. This tells me one of two things, these people ONLY supported Hillary because she was a woman/former first lady, and didn't care for her policies. Or they are so afraid of Barack Obama, for some reason, that they are throwing all reason out the door. It also tells me that they are likely not 'real' Democrats, at there core. (For anyone who is offended by that, I will state that I did make the mistake of voting for the Chimp in Chief for re-election. I am still regretting that decision now.)
While watching CNN this afternoon and early evening, they were discussing a number of issues surrounding how some of Hillary's supporters feel that their candidate has been slighted, and that Barack and his campaign are not respecting her.
This conversation was 'enhanced' by James Carville, in both recorded clips and a live segment, stating that one of the things that he is upset about is that Mr. Obama didn't get the input of either Senator Clinton or President Clinton in the choice of the Vice-President.
My question for Mr. Carville is did President Clinton consult with President Carter before he made a decision to name VP Gore as his VP. I am guessing the answer is no, but as I am not an insider I don't know for sure. (I would like to know that though, because I think it would reveal what a fool Carville can be.)
The other thing that was driving me nuts is that they had various supporters of Hillary say things about how they aren't going to give up the fight. The other one is those supporters who say that if Hillary isn't the nominee that they are going to vote for John McCain. This tells me one of two things, these people ONLY supported Hillary because she was a woman/former first lady, and didn't care for her policies. Or they are so afraid of Barack Obama, for some reason, that they are throwing all reason out the door. It also tells me that they are likely not 'real' Democrats, at there core. (For anyone who is offended by that, I will state that I did make the mistake of voting for the Chimp in Chief for re-election. I am still regretting that decision now.)
Labels: Commentary, Politics
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Modern Clintonian Politics or How to Throw a Kitchen Sink
To start with I am sorry for not having posted in such a long time. I have been very busy with my wife's graduate school, working my full-time job, working a part-time job, and in the last few months doing tax returns for my clients. With tax season ending and with the school year ending I am hoping to get the time to do more posting.
To preface these comments, I have not heard the initial comments, but I am not quite sure what was said that is causing the number of comments that are being made over Mr. Obama's comments about small town people in the Mid-West being bitter about the situation in this country.
It seems that Hillary and her campaign is taking the position that if they don't get the nomination then the destruction of the Democratic Party's chances of winning the White House in November is the only other option. This view is not based on the way the current situation is being handled, but on the entire approach to the campaign.
I am not anti-Hillary, but I can tell you that a lot of people are. There are people who will not vote for Hillary; and I have heard more and more people say that if the nominees are McCain, which it is going to be for the Republicans, and Hillary, they will stay home in November.
If the nominee is Hillary, I will vote for her, or more precisely I will vote against McCain. I strongly believe that a McCain Presidency will be a disaster for this country. My problem with Hillary is I just don't feel she is electable. She will turn off the potential 'Obama' Republicans, and will activate a demoralized right-wing base who isn't enthusiastic about McCain. The election in the fall will have large turn-outs for the Republicans if Hillary gets the nomination.
But back to what I was intending to talk about. Hillary has tried repeatedly to throw anything she can at Obama. I think a number of these things have back fired because many people are tired of these types of politics. But as we saw in Texas and Ohio, if she get the right item to throw, legitimate or not, as the time to vote in Pennsylvania and Indiana arrives, she can sway people. This has been her tactic several times through the winter and spring. I expect it will be in the late spring and into the summer. The reason I really dislike this, she is not picking up votes for her, but winning by scaring off some of the new voters. She better watch what she does, because if she is the nominee, she is going to get the same to a much higher level in the fall from the Republicans, and she doesn't have the same grace of response that Obama does.
To preface these comments, I have not heard the initial comments, but I am not quite sure what was said that is causing the number of comments that are being made over Mr. Obama's comments about small town people in the Mid-West being bitter about the situation in this country.
It seems that Hillary and her campaign is taking the position that if they don't get the nomination then the destruction of the Democratic Party's chances of winning the White House in November is the only other option. This view is not based on the way the current situation is being handled, but on the entire approach to the campaign.
I am not anti-Hillary, but I can tell you that a lot of people are. There are people who will not vote for Hillary; and I have heard more and more people say that if the nominees are McCain, which it is going to be for the Republicans, and Hillary, they will stay home in November.
If the nominee is Hillary, I will vote for her, or more precisely I will vote against McCain. I strongly believe that a McCain Presidency will be a disaster for this country. My problem with Hillary is I just don't feel she is electable. She will turn off the potential 'Obama' Republicans, and will activate a demoralized right-wing base who isn't enthusiastic about McCain. The election in the fall will have large turn-outs for the Republicans if Hillary gets the nomination.
But back to what I was intending to talk about. Hillary has tried repeatedly to throw anything she can at Obama. I think a number of these things have back fired because many people are tired of these types of politics. But as we saw in Texas and Ohio, if she get the right item to throw, legitimate or not, as the time to vote in Pennsylvania and Indiana arrives, she can sway people. This has been her tactic several times through the winter and spring. I expect it will be in the late spring and into the summer. The reason I really dislike this, she is not picking up votes for her, but winning by scaring off some of the new voters. She better watch what she does, because if she is the nominee, she is going to get the same to a much higher level in the fall from the Republicans, and she doesn't have the same grace of response that Obama does.
Labels: Commentary, Politics
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Global Warming
I have been sort of thinking about this post for some time. Actually since the time of my last post. It seems that my posting has become so few and far between that I am missing lots of opportunities to post items of interest to me.
Anyway.
Global warming or global climate change.
The basis of my comments here are from a conversation some weeks back with a young man that I am friends with at my job. He is . . . a right-winger. He is a devoted listener of Rush and Glenn Beck.
I try not to be a knee-jerk party line towing anything. (I am a registered Democrat, but I tend to be a moderate on most issues.)
My friend sat down at lunch one day and asked my opinion on 'global warming.' I wasn't sure from his comments whether he believes it is happening and not man-made, or doesn't believe it is happening. (Actually based on the weather in Cleveland this week, I am expecting talk of an ice age any minute.) He quoted some things that I know he heard on Rush's show. One they were spun, and second at least one of the things I have heard come out of Rush's mouth when I have been listening to see what he has to say. (Listening to Rush generally gives me a headache if I listen for more than a few minutes at a time.)
After the discussion, it made me realize several things:
1. Apparently while science is open for discussion, the preponderance of current evidence seem to no longer hold any water if you subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh/George W. Bush/NeoCon agenda party line. ( I sort of knew this from listening to the President on the occasions that I can actually take listening to him for longer than 10 minutes. He's another one that gives me a headache, and I, regretfully, voted for the moron the second time.)
2. Disagreement with anything this Administration espouses is deemed to make you at least moderately un-American.
What the conversation really got me thinking about was not my feelings on the current environmental situation. I have a pretty clear understanding on this, which I don't feel the need to discuss at this exact moment. But how we reached a point where science, or the discounting of science, has become a political issue. I would think that we can show what happens every time we throw a segment of the ecological balance out. As an example: In Ohio over the last 220-230 years we have hunted the majority of the predators out of the state. Actually hunted is probably not really all encompassing, after all we have developed the land that they lived on, and we have driven them before us. The results of removing the predatory portion of the ecological chain has caused a huge increase in the number of deer. In fact the deer are so prevalent that the Ohio, like Pennsylvania and other states, is in danger of becoming overcrowded with deer. (Actually some parts of the state are over populated as it is .)
Okay, I feel a need to address my opinion on Global Climate Change. I really don't want to, but for where this is going I feel it is necessary. I believe that the climate of the planet is changing. I believe that to a certain extent this is a natural process. The planet heats up and cools down as it wobbles it's way through axial adjustments. I also believe, unlike Rush and my I think my friend, that the planet is warming at an unnatural rapid pace. I have heard Rush say he doesn't believe that man has the ability to affect the climate on the planet because G-d created the planet and he controls it. I will agree with this statement. I do believe that if Hashem decided today that global warming was not going to be possible, then the planet would not get any warmer. I also believe that the planet was left in our care by Hashem, and at a very least, as a species we have done nothing but destroy the planet. (This is to a large extent getting away from what I wanted to talk about but there it is.) During the conversation, I told my friend that with the speed with which we are destroying the amazon, and old growth forest in North American that we are creating a measurable increase in carbon emitted gases. (This also doesn't include the fact that by increasing the number of cows, we have increased the number of cow flatulence and there by the amount of methane. Sorry but that was one of the stranger 'global warming' stories I have heard recently.) As such, getting back on the deforestation that is occurring, I believe we are not only capable of increasing the amount of carbon gases that are not being processed through the ecological system, we have thrown the entire system out of balance.
I really don't think that is that hard to comprehend. I also think that by actively denying what is obvious isn't the answer. We, as a species, have proved to be rather rotten stewards of the planet and I am not surprised that it is coming back to bit us on the posterior.
In my mind, the question isn't if global warming is happening, we have been having an effect on our environment for at least a couple of hundred years, so it is entirely likely global warming is not only happening, but why is it happening and what can we do to stop or reverse the process. I would say that stopping or for that matter reversing the process may be to much to ask of ourselves at this moment, I would settle for trying to slow the process. After all, the process is a natural one at it's basic level, and despite our arrogance as a species, we are just one more species on the planet. The dinosaurs disappeared from the planet when they had overstayed their welcome and a global climate change occurred that they could not adapt to, it is entirely possible that we will do the same. The only difference is, is that as a species we are very adaptable. (I on the other hand am probably not very adaptable.)
Sorry for the length, but as I said this 'rant' was rumbling around in my head for quite sometime.
Have a Happy Hanukah, and a wonderful Shabbat. I will be back next week for sure as Wife's schooling for the semester is coming to an end and she will not be needing me as much in the future.
Anyway.
Global warming or global climate change.
The basis of my comments here are from a conversation some weeks back with a young man that I am friends with at my job. He is . . . a right-winger. He is a devoted listener of Rush and Glenn Beck.
I try not to be a knee-jerk party line towing anything. (I am a registered Democrat, but I tend to be a moderate on most issues.)
My friend sat down at lunch one day and asked my opinion on 'global warming.' I wasn't sure from his comments whether he believes it is happening and not man-made, or doesn't believe it is happening. (Actually based on the weather in Cleveland this week, I am expecting talk of an ice age any minute.) He quoted some things that I know he heard on Rush's show. One they were spun, and second at least one of the things I have heard come out of Rush's mouth when I have been listening to see what he has to say. (Listening to Rush generally gives me a headache if I listen for more than a few minutes at a time.)
After the discussion, it made me realize several things:
1. Apparently while science is open for discussion, the preponderance of current evidence seem to no longer hold any water if you subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh/George W. Bush/NeoCon agenda party line. ( I sort of knew this from listening to the President on the occasions that I can actually take listening to him for longer than 10 minutes. He's another one that gives me a headache, and I, regretfully, voted for the moron the second time.)
2. Disagreement with anything this Administration espouses is deemed to make you at least moderately un-American.
What the conversation really got me thinking about was not my feelings on the current environmental situation. I have a pretty clear understanding on this, which I don't feel the need to discuss at this exact moment. But how we reached a point where science, or the discounting of science, has become a political issue. I would think that we can show what happens every time we throw a segment of the ecological balance out. As an example: In Ohio over the last 220-230 years we have hunted the majority of the predators out of the state. Actually hunted is probably not really all encompassing, after all we have developed the land that they lived on, and we have driven them before us. The results of removing the predatory portion of the ecological chain has caused a huge increase in the number of deer. In fact the deer are so prevalent that the Ohio, like Pennsylvania and other states, is in danger of becoming overcrowded with deer. (Actually some parts of the state are over populated as it is .)
Okay, I feel a need to address my opinion on Global Climate Change. I really don't want to, but for where this is going I feel it is necessary. I believe that the climate of the planet is changing. I believe that to a certain extent this is a natural process. The planet heats up and cools down as it wobbles it's way through axial adjustments. I also believe, unlike Rush and my I think my friend, that the planet is warming at an unnatural rapid pace. I have heard Rush say he doesn't believe that man has the ability to affect the climate on the planet because G-d created the planet and he controls it. I will agree with this statement. I do believe that if Hashem decided today that global warming was not going to be possible, then the planet would not get any warmer. I also believe that the planet was left in our care by Hashem, and at a very least, as a species we have done nothing but destroy the planet. (This is to a large extent getting away from what I wanted to talk about but there it is.) During the conversation, I told my friend that with the speed with which we are destroying the amazon, and old growth forest in North American that we are creating a measurable increase in carbon emitted gases. (This also doesn't include the fact that by increasing the number of cows, we have increased the number of cow flatulence and there by the amount of methane. Sorry but that was one of the stranger 'global warming' stories I have heard recently.) As such, getting back on the deforestation that is occurring, I believe we are not only capable of increasing the amount of carbon gases that are not being processed through the ecological system, we have thrown the entire system out of balance.
I really don't think that is that hard to comprehend. I also think that by actively denying what is obvious isn't the answer. We, as a species, have proved to be rather rotten stewards of the planet and I am not surprised that it is coming back to bit us on the posterior.
In my mind, the question isn't if global warming is happening, we have been having an effect on our environment for at least a couple of hundred years, so it is entirely likely global warming is not only happening, but why is it happening and what can we do to stop or reverse the process. I would say that stopping or for that matter reversing the process may be to much to ask of ourselves at this moment, I would settle for trying to slow the process. After all, the process is a natural one at it's basic level, and despite our arrogance as a species, we are just one more species on the planet. The dinosaurs disappeared from the planet when they had overstayed their welcome and a global climate change occurred that they could not adapt to, it is entirely possible that we will do the same. The only difference is, is that as a species we are very adaptable. (I on the other hand am probably not very adaptable.)
Sorry for the length, but as I said this 'rant' was rumbling around in my head for quite sometime.
Have a Happy Hanukah, and a wonderful Shabbat. I will be back next week for sure as Wife's schooling for the semester is coming to an end and she will not be needing me as much in the future.
Labels: Commentary, Festival Wishes
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Ann Coulter
In a recent interview Ms. Coulter claimed that Jews need to be 'perfected.' Many people found this offensive. I did, but not because it is anything that Ann is original in. The 'Messianic Jewish' movement (that is such a big oxymoron I wont even attempt to go into it in this discussion) has been using that term for years. They always refer to themselves as prefected Jews. (This is one of the reasons they 'observe' Jewish holidays.
In addition to the Messianic movements, a number 'mainstream' Christian Movements are 'in-step' with this idea. My wife has stated on a number of occasions she is 'worried about' my immortal soul if I don't accept Jesus. My response is, it is a little hard to accept something that is not theologically in line with my own beliefs. And I find the concept of saying 'you have to believe in ________'in order to go to Heaven a little bit odd. HaShem has never said that, and that is where I come from. It makes little sense to believe that HaShem is merciful and then will send non-Christians to Hell if they don't accept one item of faith. Judaism seems that it is more realistic. Do you follow the rules? HaShem is going to give you the benefit of the doubt if you do. Also Judaism is a little less 'theologically organized' when it comes to what happens after one dies. There is some indication that there is a continuation after death, but no realy theologically concept, at least until one is initiated in to the 'mysteries' of Kabbalah.
I don't know what happens after death. Frankly I don't think I am smart enough to figure out what HaShem wants, I am sure that HaShem doesn't want me to be a Christian because that isn't what He taught my ancestors. As a family, I think that we need to address the Christian world about what it the problem is with their approach and why Chistianity isn't, in any form, related to Judaism as Jews understand it. The fact that a majority of the Hebrews alive at the time of Jesus, didn't accept that he was "the Son of G-D" or the "Messiah" should tell Christians what they need to know about the majority of Jews of the time. (I am leaving the aestetic Ascenes out of the discussion because much of their doctrine became the basis of early Christian Theology.)
To sort of wrap this up: Ann Coulter wasn't saying things that others don't already say, the only reason most people aren't aware of it is because they aren't dumb enough to go on television and say it. Ann Coulter has made a good living playing the Banshee-voiced Harpy of the lunatic-fringe Right-Wing. She has played the lightening rod so long she actually can not say what ever she wants, whether it makes sense or not, and have some other lunatic-fringe right-wing goofballs defending her. They all need to get a grip and stop attacking people who believe differently and start a civil discourse. It isn't going to happen, but then that is good for the Democrats; as everytime some goofball opens their marginally civil oral flapping whole, they are pushing more people to the middle who are going to be likely to vote Democratic in the next election.
In addition to the Messianic movements, a number 'mainstream' Christian Movements are 'in-step' with this idea. My wife has stated on a number of occasions she is 'worried about' my immortal soul if I don't accept Jesus. My response is, it is a little hard to accept something that is not theologically in line with my own beliefs. And I find the concept of saying 'you have to believe in ________'in order to go to Heaven a little bit odd. HaShem has never said that, and that is where I come from. It makes little sense to believe that HaShem is merciful and then will send non-Christians to Hell if they don't accept one item of faith. Judaism seems that it is more realistic. Do you follow the rules? HaShem is going to give you the benefit of the doubt if you do. Also Judaism is a little less 'theologically organized' when it comes to what happens after one dies. There is some indication that there is a continuation after death, but no realy theologically concept, at least until one is initiated in to the 'mysteries' of Kabbalah.
I don't know what happens after death. Frankly I don't think I am smart enough to figure out what HaShem wants, I am sure that HaShem doesn't want me to be a Christian because that isn't what He taught my ancestors. As a family, I think that we need to address the Christian world about what it the problem is with their approach and why Chistianity isn't, in any form, related to Judaism as Jews understand it. The fact that a majority of the Hebrews alive at the time of Jesus, didn't accept that he was "the Son of G-D" or the "Messiah" should tell Christians what they need to know about the majority of Jews of the time. (I am leaving the aestetic Ascenes out of the discussion because much of their doctrine became the basis of early Christian Theology.)
To sort of wrap this up: Ann Coulter wasn't saying things that others don't already say, the only reason most people aren't aware of it is because they aren't dumb enough to go on television and say it. Ann Coulter has made a good living playing the Banshee-voiced Harpy of the lunatic-fringe Right-Wing. She has played the lightening rod so long she actually can not say what ever she wants, whether it makes sense or not, and have some other lunatic-fringe right-wing goofballs defending her. They all need to get a grip and stop attacking people who believe differently and start a civil discourse. It isn't going to happen, but then that is good for the Democrats; as everytime some goofball opens their marginally civil oral flapping whole, they are pushing more people to the middle who are going to be likely to vote Democratic in the next election.
Labels: Commentary
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Cindy Sheehan and Newt Gingrich
I am posting the link to Ms. Sheehan's letter at the Daily Kos.
Though I will admit that I was not a 'huge' support of Ms. Sheehan, I also never felt any of the ridiculous attacks on her were proper. (My lack of support has nothing to do with politics, it has everything to do with not being a politically motivated as I probably should be/should have been.)
I am sadden that this country has become so unhealthy, so unlike what it was intended to be by our Founding Fathers. It seems that many of us, and I have moments of being guilty of this as well, are so wrapped up in our ideology that we are incapable of tolerating the view of others who have a different perspective. Why? I think we have become very comfortable in our 'freedom' that we feel the need to take that freedom from anyone who disagrees with our point of view. More specifically, it seems that the Republican talking heads believe if you don't agree with the President than your not Patriotic. Why? Is this administration so strained to support it's ideas that any thing that defending them against a different viewpoint is not possible. If that is the case, then perhaps it is time that we examine what 'Freedom of Speech really means. I have posted previously the 'rant' from near the end of Aaron Sorkin's 'The American President.' I am not going to quote it but directly but it deals with Freedom of speech being the toleration of someone who is yelling at the top of their lungs that which we find repugnant, and yelling at the top of our lungs why we feel they are wrong. (I don't believe that includes call the person on the other side an attention whore.)
I have attacked the Republican talking heads hear, Ms. Sheehan mentions in the herein attached link that the blogs on the left began to attach her when she began to speak out about the Democratic members of Congress that weren't doing their jobs, that weren't actively seeking to end the situation in Iraq in a timely matter. To those people who did attack Ms. Sheehan who claim to be either Democrats or Progressives (or what ever they want to call themselves on the left) YOU are as much at fault for your behavior as those who attached Ms. Sheehan on the right. Go look in the mirror and see what is looking back, it isn't what you have thought all along.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/12530/1525
On the other side of the coin, Newt Gingrich is attacking the Republicans and the Congressional leadership. From at least one thing I read today on the subject this is partially a response by Newt to things he disagrees with. I am not sure that what this isn't in reality is a cynical, politically motivated attempt to distance himself from the Old Republican Guard in the anticipation of running for President. (I am beginning to believe Newt may be the only Republican who wasn't left behind as a child, he can read polls and understand them. AMAZING.)
Oh well, time to go. Work day is almost over and I will be heading to the home front shortly.
Though I will admit that I was not a 'huge' support of Ms. Sheehan, I also never felt any of the ridiculous attacks on her were proper. (My lack of support has nothing to do with politics, it has everything to do with not being a politically motivated as I probably should be/should have been.)
I am sadden that this country has become so unhealthy, so unlike what it was intended to be by our Founding Fathers. It seems that many of us, and I have moments of being guilty of this as well, are so wrapped up in our ideology that we are incapable of tolerating the view of others who have a different perspective. Why? I think we have become very comfortable in our 'freedom' that we feel the need to take that freedom from anyone who disagrees with our point of view. More specifically, it seems that the Republican talking heads believe if you don't agree with the President than your not Patriotic. Why? Is this administration so strained to support it's ideas that any thing that defending them against a different viewpoint is not possible. If that is the case, then perhaps it is time that we examine what 'Freedom of Speech really means. I have posted previously the 'rant' from near the end of Aaron Sorkin's 'The American President.' I am not going to quote it but directly but it deals with Freedom of speech being the toleration of someone who is yelling at the top of their lungs that which we find repugnant, and yelling at the top of our lungs why we feel they are wrong. (I don't believe that includes call the person on the other side an attention whore.)
I have attacked the Republican talking heads hear, Ms. Sheehan mentions in the herein attached link that the blogs on the left began to attach her when she began to speak out about the Democratic members of Congress that weren't doing their jobs, that weren't actively seeking to end the situation in Iraq in a timely matter. To those people who did attack Ms. Sheehan who claim to be either Democrats or Progressives (or what ever they want to call themselves on the left) YOU are as much at fault for your behavior as those who attached Ms. Sheehan on the right. Go look in the mirror and see what is looking back, it isn't what you have thought all along.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/12530/1525
On the other side of the coin, Newt Gingrich is attacking the Republicans and the Congressional leadership. From at least one thing I read today on the subject this is partially a response by Newt to things he disagrees with. I am not sure that what this isn't in reality is a cynical, politically motivated attempt to distance himself from the Old Republican Guard in the anticipation of running for President. (I am beginning to believe Newt may be the only Republican who wasn't left behind as a child, he can read polls and understand them. AMAZING.)
Oh well, time to go. Work day is almost over and I will be heading to the home front shortly.
Labels: Commentary
Monday, April 30, 2007
Mr. Tenet goes to TV and a Book Store Near You
George Tenet has a book coming out. While I am sure this is almost shocking to most people I find what is going around the TV interviews to be the funniest part of all of this.
Mr. Tenet, in an what appears to me to be an attempt to 'rehabilitate' his image, has written a book that returns fire at a number of members of the Bush Administration. What I found to be the most interesting is how the political talking heads are responding.
For whatever reason I decided today to listen to Rush Limbaugh as I ran errands around noon. While the regular blowhard was 'absent from school' today, the subsitute blowhard was actually funny, and the callers were actually scary. What I gleaned from the substitute blowhard was that Mr. Tenet is NOW the darling of the Left. (You know those crazy liberals.) He was also, along with the callers, blaming everything on one William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton. So let me see if I understand. 6+ years after the man left office, and everything is Bill's fault. The fact that the Bush Administration did everything it could to find a way to bring Iraq into the argument didn't really seem to register. A couple of things that really got me laughing. First was the person who seemed to think that Al Qa'eda was in Iraq (other in the Kurdish areas, where Saddam was not able to operate militarily) and that we 'need to fight them there in order to not fight them here.' (Does anyone actually believe that?) The second was a person who seemed convinced that Bill had done everything in is power to set up the Imperial Executive. (Perhaps we should call him, He-who-should-not-have-reigned.)
What was really stunning to me about all the ranting by the substitute Blowhard today was that, having listened to a number of the 'liberal' talkshows, they were harder on Mr. Tenet than the Blowhard and his listeners.
What does this teach us? I don't know, but I am really hoping that the morons that I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show were not representative of the entirety of the listenership, but I figure it probably was.
Mr. Tenet, in an what appears to me to be an attempt to 'rehabilitate' his image, has written a book that returns fire at a number of members of the Bush Administration. What I found to be the most interesting is how the political talking heads are responding.
For whatever reason I decided today to listen to Rush Limbaugh as I ran errands around noon. While the regular blowhard was 'absent from school' today, the subsitute blowhard was actually funny, and the callers were actually scary. What I gleaned from the substitute blowhard was that Mr. Tenet is NOW the darling of the Left. (You know those crazy liberals.) He was also, along with the callers, blaming everything on one William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton. So let me see if I understand. 6+ years after the man left office, and everything is Bill's fault. The fact that the Bush Administration did everything it could to find a way to bring Iraq into the argument didn't really seem to register. A couple of things that really got me laughing. First was the person who seemed to think that Al Qa'eda was in Iraq (other in the Kurdish areas, where Saddam was not able to operate militarily) and that we 'need to fight them there in order to not fight them here.' (Does anyone actually believe that?) The second was a person who seemed convinced that Bill had done everything in is power to set up the Imperial Executive. (Perhaps we should call him, He-who-should-not-have-reigned.)
What was really stunning to me about all the ranting by the substitute Blowhard today was that, having listened to a number of the 'liberal' talkshows, they were harder on Mr. Tenet than the Blowhard and his listeners.
What does this teach us? I don't know, but I am really hoping that the morons that I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show were not representative of the entirety of the listenership, but I figure it probably was.
Labels: Commentary
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Congress
It is nice to see that Congress may finally be remembering that they are, Constititutionally at least, a 'co-equal' branch of the Federal Government.
I know that a large part of what has been happening the last several years has been political, but I really have a major problem with any branch of the government not respecting itself or the rolls of the other branches.
The Congress, while under the Republican control the last several years, really was not doing it's part of the process. It just was an extension of the White House. This is not the first time that this has happened, probably will not be the last time that it happens, we just have to hope that the Government will not fall under sway of someone who wants to so take advange of this type of situation as to change this coumty in a fundamental way.
I just keeping watching situation, and hoping for someone to get a grip and make a change.
I will probably keep hoping for some time to come.
I know that a large part of what has been happening the last several years has been political, but I really have a major problem with any branch of the government not respecting itself or the rolls of the other branches.
The Congress, while under the Republican control the last several years, really was not doing it's part of the process. It just was an extension of the White House. This is not the first time that this has happened, probably will not be the last time that it happens, we just have to hope that the Government will not fall under sway of someone who wants to so take advange of this type of situation as to change this coumty in a fundamental way.
I just keeping watching situation, and hoping for someone to get a grip and make a change.
I will probably keep hoping for some time to come.
Labels: Commentary
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
It's Not My Fault, It's Him. All Him.
Alberto Gonzalez, in what seems to be the standard operating procedures of the Administration, apparently is putting the blame for the firing of the 8 US Attorney's on his (now former) Chief of Staff.
Dispite what appears to be an increasing amount of information that the Attorney General and The White House (oh that is very general isn't it) were very involved in the preparation and execution (in more than one way) of the plan. It also appears that former Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers, who if I remember correctly thought Unitary Executive W was the smartest man she knew, was the one who 'proposed' this idea. (This may explain her leaving the administration when she did. She may very well saw this coming and jump while the jumping was good.
I find this situation very disturbing. Not because the firing of US Attorney's is a problem, but that this was obviously a reasoned political strategy that was designed to increase the power of the executive branch at the expense of the judiciary and to try and 'marginalize' the political process in this country.
In his press conference today, Alberto Gonzalez said basically said that the situation was under control and that he is refusing to resign. I wouldn't expect him to resign, after all he is having to much fun and being way to successful at taking away the civil liberties of the citizens in this country. (But at least we are bring Democracy to the Middle East.)
I think it's time for Congress to 'turn up the heat.' It appears that they may, but I have questions whether the Democrats in Congress have the balls to actually do anything, but getting rid of the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (The AG AG) would be a start to putting things back to normal in this country.
As a final note, I heard on the radio today that one of the articles of the Nixon Impeachment articles was interference in the judicial process by trying to manipulate the make up of the US Attorneys to facilitate using the judicial system to go after 'political enemies.' OOPPS.
Dispite what appears to be an increasing amount of information that the Attorney General and The White House (oh that is very general isn't it) were very involved in the preparation and execution (in more than one way) of the plan. It also appears that former Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers, who if I remember correctly thought Unitary Executive W was the smartest man she knew, was the one who 'proposed' this idea. (This may explain her leaving the administration when she did. She may very well saw this coming and jump while the jumping was good.
I find this situation very disturbing. Not because the firing of US Attorney's is a problem, but that this was obviously a reasoned political strategy that was designed to increase the power of the executive branch at the expense of the judiciary and to try and 'marginalize' the political process in this country.
In his press conference today, Alberto Gonzalez said basically said that the situation was under control and that he is refusing to resign. I wouldn't expect him to resign, after all he is having to much fun and being way to successful at taking away the civil liberties of the citizens in this country. (But at least we are bring Democracy to the Middle East.)
I think it's time for Congress to 'turn up the heat.' It appears that they may, but I have questions whether the Democrats in Congress have the balls to actually do anything, but getting rid of the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (The AG AG) would be a start to putting things back to normal in this country.
As a final note, I heard on the radio today that one of the articles of the Nixon Impeachment articles was interference in the judicial process by trying to manipulate the make up of the US Attorneys to facilitate using the judicial system to go after 'political enemies.' OOPPS.
Labels: Commentary
General Pace's Comments
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace was quoted as saying in the newspaper interview. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."
So General Pac has made the above comments. When I heard these statements first thing this morning on my way to work, only one thing occurred to me. That one thing, does General Pace feel that homosexual acts between more than 2 individuals are moral and that we should then condone them. I think that his specific language may imply that. I am just not sure why he would feel that the homosexual orgies are okay, but non-orgy homosexual sex would be immoral.
Link: General Pace's Comments
So General Pac has made the above comments. When I heard these statements first thing this morning on my way to work, only one thing occurred to me. That one thing, does General Pace feel that homosexual acts between more than 2 individuals are moral and that we should then condone them. I think that his specific language may imply that. I am just not sure why he would feel that the homosexual orgies are okay, but non-orgy homosexual sex would be immoral.
Link: General Pace's Comments
Labels: Commentary
Friday, March 09, 2007
Some thoughts on the news
1. I am not sure why, but the news about Newt Gingrich being involved in an infidelity during the time he was attacking President Clinton is actually about as Ironic as it could get. I don't really care about it, but I find him bringing it up when he is preparing to possibly run for President to be rather funny.
2. The President has gone to Brazil and discussed the dangers of being reliant on foreign oil sources. As part of this statement he has signed an agreement with Brazil that will increase the production in this hemisphere of alternative fuels. I find this to be a rather funny thing as well. A President that has us fighting a war that is 'allegedly' over oil, telling the world how dangerous it is. Does this fall under the NO Duh catagory? I think so.
3. The at Walter Reed Army Medical Center is just frightening. How does an administration that claims to support the troops allow something like this to happen? I would address this situation further, but I am not really sure what to say.
4. Does anyone think that it took Senator Obama an extended period of time to pay off the Harvard University parking tickets to be any more of a problem than his having attended an Muslim school while a child?
5. As one could expect the FBI was unable to restrain from abusing the Patriot Act provisions that allowed it to investigate 'terrorists?'
6. Is it me or is the fact that the President asked for a new plank in the Patriot Act renewal that allowed an Administration to fire Federal Prosecutors and replace them at will with out the normal vetting process in the Senate, and then abused the authority really all that suprising?
Well have a good Shabbot, and I hope every one had a safe Purim celebration.
Labels: Commentary
Friday, March 02, 2007
Family Update
A couple things I thought I would pass on:
1. The reason for the continuation of a lower number of posts is two-fold:
a. I have been working my full time job and then working as a tax-whale on several nights a week.
b. I was basically unable to post for a week due to a death in Wife's family.
2. The death in Wife's family was of her Grandmother. Grandmother was the one who slapped Father-in-Law last year. It was a sudden thing, though we found out latter that she had been suffering from the flu for about 8 days and hadn't gone for help when she died.
3. I was at work for the weekend that she died helping move our warehouse from location A to location B. As a company we moved over 4500 pallets from the old facility to the new facility from Friday at 6am and Sunday at 6pm. (Friday and Saturday were 2 10 hour shifts.) It was really a rather amazing thing to see happen. Unfortunately some of the pallets didn't make it to the correct location, but for the most part everything was fairly smoothly done.
4. Wife is not working currently and also is preparing to go back to school to get a graduate degree in Nursing. I will update this issue as time allows.
5. During the week of the funeral for Wife's Grandmother: Father-in-law had a stomach virus. He passed this to Mother-in-law, who was unable to attend Grandmother's funeral. Wife had Strep Throat and was unable to full-fill her 'assigned' duties for about a week of caring for her Grandfather.
Brother-in-law also got ill with the virus. (He also passed his CDL licensing, and will be going through a three week orientation program)
Labels: Commentary, Personal
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
I Don't Understand
I don't understand how the British forces pulling out of southern Iraq is proof of improved conditions in Iraq, and at the same time the US is surging the troop present in central Iraq.
Wouldn't it make more sense to shift the 'excess' British forces to central Iraq to help the US forces to improve the conditions there?
Also, why is the VP going around the 'Far East' making policy statements that seem to be at least moderately out of touch with reality?
Why does this Administration think that citizens of this country are going to fall for the exact same ploy from Iraq repackaged?
Why do people seem to believe that this Administration has the best interest of the country as a goal, when they are starting to push their own base away?
Why can someone who claims to be a liberal also hate both the troops and Jews and say that both are undermining the progressive movement?(This was a phone call I heard this evening on the radio)
I am currently out of things off the top of my mind that I don't understand. Please help.
Labels: Commentary
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Why Is It Important?
It seems to be important somehow that the Tomb of Jesus has been found. So I have been trying to decide why this is an important issue.
Okay, if Jesus was buried and did not 'rise from the grave' after three days, it sort of destroys the basic theological points of modern Christianity. But is this really an important thing, after all the concept of Jesus' divinity was in dispute by early Christians and was partially resolved the the historical occurance of the Rise of Islam.
All that aside, let's exam the issue at hand.
If this is the Tomb of Jesus, does it change the reality that Christianity will not accept it and it is difficult, if not impossible, confirm that is or isn't the real thing. Since faith is a major part of any religion, it will not 'shake the faith' of people who are 'true Christians.' If it isn't the Tomb of Jesus, nothing changes. As such no change in the situation so it really isn't an issue. (Unless of course you are a sociologist or archeologist.)
The biggest thing that bugged me about the whole report was something I saw on CNN at about 2:30am last night. It seem that they are partially basing the identification of the situation on one item, a name on one of the containers that had the words 'Jesus', 'Son of', and 'Joseph.' And they were reading these names (on the screen) from left to right. The only problem the way they were written (being in Hebrew) it should have been read Joseph son of Jesus.
OOPPSS!!
Labels: Commentary
