JeffPo's In the News Page
Last update: 03/30/17
This webpage is similar to my Soapbox page. But instead of long articles, it will be quick opinions on current events. Basically, if I read or hear something in the news that I want to quickly comment on, I'll do it here. This gives me a quick outlet to express my opinion (something I apparently have a need for) and also might spark some debate from those that disagree (or even agree) with me.
Given the emails I've received from people on some of these old articles, I
decided to add this note/disclaimer. From what I've seen, there are two
clear points: 1) It's pretty obvious that we need to mandate logic and
reason courses in our public schools. It seems the average American has
trouble constructing a rational, logical argument that flows with supporting,
unambiguous, accurate data, and 2) Some people get their entire world view from
watching political commentary on FOX News. For the record, I am not a
Democrat. I am an Independent. I support and criticize both
political parties/politicians as the need/desire arises. To sum up my
philosophy, I’m pro-gun, pro-military, pro-Constitution, and pro-death penalty.
Also, these articles are dated, and written with the information I had at the
time. While I might update some, I generally just leave them in place,
even if my philosophy might change a bit (and it does). For example, I
might support one politician during one election, but then be against him during
the next as things have changed. I generally do respond to people
that email me regarding these articles, but have recently taken to not
responding to those that are clearly partisan or inspired by FOX News. I
don't seem to get emails inspired by liberal stations. The reason I don't
respond is that I've gotten pretty good at recognizing a fruitless exchange.
I don't have a problem debating with people that disagree with me, because I
like seeing how people think and form their conclusions. You can disagree
with me all you want as long as you're logical and civil. I'm talking
about wasting time on people that obviously didn't apply any scientific or
logical thought to what they are saying. Or those that jump to conclusions
or make grand statements about what they think I'm saying, when in reality they
are just reacting badly because they disagree. That's all I've got to say
about this .... unless I think of something else to say later on .....
Given the emails I've received from people on some of these old articles, I decided to add this note/disclaimer. From what I've seen, there are two clear points: 1) It's pretty obvious that we need to mandate logic and reason courses in our public schools. It seems the average American has trouble constructing a rational, logical argument that flows with supporting, unambiguous, accurate data, and 2) Some people get their entire world view from watching political commentary on FOX News. For the record, I am not a Democrat. I am an Independent. I support and criticize both political parties/politicians as the need/desire arises. To sum up my philosophy, I’m pro-gun, pro-military, pro-Constitution, and pro-death penalty. Also, these articles are dated, and written with the information I had at the time. While I might update some, I generally just leave them in place, even if my philosophy might change a bit (and it does). For example, I might support one politician during one election, but then be against him during the next as things have changed. I generally do respond to people that email me regarding these articles, but have recently taken to not responding to those that are clearly partisan or inspired by FOX News. I don't seem to get emails inspired by liberal stations. The reason I don't respond is that I've gotten pretty good at recognizing a fruitless exchange. I don't have a problem debating with people that disagree with me, because I like seeing how people think and form their conclusions. You can disagree with me all you want as long as you're logical and civil. I'm talking about wasting time on people that obviously didn't apply any scientific or logical thought to what they are saying. Or those that jump to conclusions or make grand statements about what they think I'm saying, when in reality they are just reacting badly because they disagree. That's all I've got to say about this .... unless I think of something else to say later on .....
Nancy Grace: Still clueless as ever - 03/30/17If you’ve ever listened to Nancy Grace, you know that she often wades into controversies without knowing the facts, and makes patently false statements based on her ignorance. I just can’t stomach to listen to her given she doesn’t really seem to have the intelligence to be discussing the issues she talks about. A recent shooting in Oklahoma, where the son of a homeowner shot three masked teens, dressed in black, armed with a knife and brass knuckles, has Nancy Grace once again demonstrating that she is clueless as ever. Good Morning American did themselves a disservice by having her make commentary. First she claims it’s a stand your ground case. Wrong! This is castle doctrine case. There was nowhere the shooter could retreat to. He was already in his home. She then claimed that George Zimmerman used a stand your ground defense. Wrong! Zimmerman specifically did NOT seek a stand your ground ruling. His assailant, Trayvon Martin, had him on the ground, was on top of him, and beating him. Retreat wasn’t even an option for Zimmerman. She then claimed the shooter’s rifle, an AR-15, was just like the military’s M-16. Wrong! While she did correctly identify it as a semi-automatic, it is not capable of fully automatic fire like a M-16 is. But she goes on and on like a semi-automatic is a bad thing, not realizing that it is a very common, and probably dominant firing mechanism. Every sidearm on a cop’s hip is a semi-automatic weapon. The military has fully automatic weapons. Nancy Grace is as clueless as ever.
George Zimmerman revisited - 02/08/17
I was cruising the Internet when I came upon an article on George Zimmerman in which those that support George Zimmerman were just as confused and telling non-truths as those that criticize George Zimmerman
George Zimmerman revisited
Presidential Election of 2016 - 01/17/17
George Washington. Thomas Jefferson. Abraham Lincoln. Franklin D. Roosevelt. John F. Kennedy. Donald Trump.
One of these is different from the others. Despite voting Americans choosing the other candidate by OVER 2.8 MILLIONS votes, the broken Electoral College system has put the most corrupt, most unethical, most immoral, most ungodly, and most unfit person to ever run for the presidency into the White House. America has fallen.
NOTE: The animated gif is Donald Trump mocking a disabled person.
Supreme Court’s wrong decision against Confederate plates – 06/24/15
The Supreme Court recently ruled, in a divided decision of 5 to 4, that the state of Texas can refuse to offer license plates that feature the Confederate battle flag. The license plate design was submitted by a group called the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). Other states have allowed the design from the group. The court said that the license plates were government speech, therefore the government can control what they say, and it’s not a violation of the group’s free speech rights. They likened an approval of the plate to forcing Texas to endorse the Confederate flag. They were very wrong. This is a free speech issue because Texas allows other groups to have their message, while not allowing the SCV to have theirs. No one assumes a State endorses the various groups and organizations that we see on license plates. And they certainly don’t endorse the individual messages people can write with letters. When a State decides to offer a canvas for free expression, they shouldn’t be allowed to limit that expression based on the group, and whether or not they agree with it. If the State thinks personalized tags are state speech, then it needs to eliminate ALL personalized tags. If they don’t like the message on the canvas, then don’t offer the canvas.
Killing of John Crawford - 10/01/14
A 911 caller reports that John Crawford is walking around an Ohio Walmart with a gun, pointing it at people and children. The police respond and said after Crawford didn't drop the weapon at their command, they had to shoot him. Turns out that the surveillance video shows that both the 911 caller and the police were lying, but no charges have been filed and the police have been cleared of wrong doing. Read my full article on the unlawful Killing of John Crawford.
Condemn Bad Behavior People!!! - 02/21/14
Although I have a longer article on the Loud Music Shooting trial, I can't believe what I'm seeing in the news.
Or I should say, what I'm NOT seeing. No one is criticizing or addressing the bad actions of Jordan Davis. Davis’ big mouth (the Assistant District Attorney’s words) and bad attitude is what got him shot. This doesn’t mean that Michael Dunn was justified in shooting Davis, but failure to address and correct the behavior of those like Davis will mean this type of scenario will be repeated. Chad Oulson getting an attitude and arguing after being asked not to text in the theater by Curtis Reeves got him shot. Trayvon Martin attacking George Zimmerman for following him got him shot. In today’s society, you never know what you might be dealing with so the best course of action is to be courteous and respectful. Davis, Oulson, and Martin didn’t live to learn from their mistakes. But if people don’t criticize their mistakes, that’s sending a false message that they didn’t do ANYTHING wrong, and we’ll just see more and more shootings that could have been avoided.
Loud Music Shooting - 02/19/14
The trial of Michael Dunn in the shooting death of Jordan Davis, in an argument that stemmed from loud music has been in all the news this week. I created a separate article on it:
Loud Music Shooting
With gun “friends” like this…- 01/07/13
CNN prime-time host Piers Morgan (a British citizen) has called for tighter gun regulations in response to the school shootings in Newtown, Conn. This prompted the right wing Republican talk show host Alex Jones (whom I’ve never heard of before this) to create a petition to deport Morgan because of his anti-gun views. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, and given the melt-down Jones had on Morgan’s show, you do NOT want him representing your gun rights. If you signed his petition, you might should give second thoughts as to whether you want to be associated with him.
I support the 2nd amendment. But I also support the amendment that precedes it. You know, the one that gives us FREE SPEECH? Apparently Jones is picky when it comes to which parts of the United States Constitution he wants to support. I support ALL of it, but then again, I’m a true patriot.
If his anti-constitutional stance isn’t enough to convince you, perhaps some of his commentary might show you that you don’t want to be associated with Jones. He said, "1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!" What’s he proposing? Anarchy? Civil war? He said to Morgan, “You're a redcoat. You're telling us what to do." Jones seems ignorant that the Revolutionary War is long past, England is now our strongest ally, and Morgan was exercising a right given by the American Constitution to all that come here. Jones continued, "You're a hatchet man of a New World Order." Uh, oh, conspiracy theory time. Phrases like this are warning signs of someone not quite on stable ground. When referring to daily life in England, Jones said, “You have hordes of people burning down cities and beating old women’s brains out every day.” The color of the sky in Jones’ world is certainly different than ours, in the real world.
The Ignorance of some Anti-Gunners – 07/24/12
Thanks to the Internet, more and more ignorant people are given the voice and power to pretend they have a clue about matters in which they most certainly do not. CNN contributor David Frum is on of those types when it comes to the subject of guns and gun control. According to Frum, “fear drives opposition to gun control”. It is fear, but it’s not fear of the criminal, but rather fears of slippery slope legislation that only punishes those that follow the law, not the criminals that ignore it.
Frum notes that in Georgia, Arizona, Tennessee and Virginia, it is legal to carry a firearm in a place that serves alcohol. He meant it as a negative, saying, “Guns and booze: What could go wrong?”, but in reality it’s a good thing. In North Carolina, we can’t carry firearms in those types of places, like Olive Garden, Applebee’s, Red Lobster, etc. Yet we’ve had those types of places experience armed robberies. Frum also neglects to tell readers that when people do carry their firearms in those places, they are forbidden to consume alcohol by law. Wonder why he left that out? Might he have an anti-gun agenda?
Frum says that, “Americans support gun rights because they believe guns are necessary for self-protection.” That’s true. But Americans also enjoy target shooting, competition shooting, and hunting. Some also collect firearms because they appreciate the machinery and beauty of them.
Frum cites flawed statistics on the alleged dangers of having a gun in the home. What he and others don’t want you to know is that those statistics are purposely skewed to be negative on gun ownership. They ignore thousands upon thousands of cases of where firearms saved the day. For example, in one “study” I saw, the only time a gun was credited with a positive use was if the assailant was actually killed. It didn’t count if the assailant was stopped by wounding. It didn’t count if the assailant was stopped because he was shot at. It didn’t count if the assailant was stopped by the mere sight of an armed citizen. It didn’t count if the assailant was stopped by the mere warning that a gun was readily available to be used. And it completely ignores the fact that there are thousands of cases of where a firearm stopped a criminal, but the potential victim didn’t file a police report.
Frum says that, “proponents of gun control are baffled that horrific massacres such as the one in Aurora, Colorado, do not lead to stricter gun control”, claiming “they have their causation backward.” I don’t know his age, but he seems unaware and ignorant of past history and precedence. The school shooting at Stockholm, the law office shooting in San Francisco, the shooting of Press Secretary Brady, are examples of events that went on to negatively affect guns. Does he not remember the Brady Bill? It is true that America has relaxed some gun laws in recent years, but those of us that aren’t as wet behind the ears remember when that wasn’t the case.
I’m not a gun nut that thinks there should be a gun in every hand. I do believe in sensible, logical gun laws. But I want them to be based on reality and facts, not anti-gun fears and fantasy.
Aurora, Colorado Theater Shooting and gun control – 07/23/12
Early Friday morning, July 20, 2012, at a midnight Thursday night showing of a new Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado, a man entered the theater, tossed in some smoke or tear gas grenades, and started shooting. He used a shotgun, a semi-auto rifle, and a semi-auto handgun. He left 12 dead and 58 wounded. The rifle was an AR style “assault rifle”.
While this might be considered controversial, I think this illustrates why trained and licensed concealed firearm carriers should be allowed to have their firearms in such venues. I’m not sure about Colorado, but in North Carolina you are not allowed to conceal carry a firearm in a place that charges an admission fee, like a theater. You are also barred from carrying in a place that serves alcohol, such as Applebees, Ruby Tuesdays, or Olive Garden. Carrying a firearm on school grounds is also banned. Such laws create “gun free” zones for the criminals. The bad guys know that citizens that follow the law will be unarmed and thus sitting ducks. As long as someone is properly trained and licensed, I think they should be allowed to have a firearm to protect themselves and others. If just one person could have returned fire, in this shooting and others, the death toll probably would have been much, much less. The Virginia Tech students could only huddle and hope they weren’t next as they gunman went from class to class. Just one person with a firearm could have stopped that shooter.
Secondly, I caution a rush to call for new gun bans. Criminals do not follow the law so as long as they can get a gun somewhere, even illegally, they will get it. There have been plenty of other shootings with a variety of weapons, though I do acknowledge that more damage can be done with the larger capacity weapons. While I don’t personally own an “assault rifle”, I do understand why some people like to shoot them. What kind of ban or gun law will stop a criminal, or a mentally disturbed person? While I understand the need for reasonable gun laws, it has to be done in such a way as to not affect the rights of law abiding citizens, nor hinder their ability to enjoy firearms and use them for recreation, hunting, and self-defense.
Prosecutorial misconduct – 07/23/12
Every time I turn around I’m hearing a story about someone that spent YEARS of their life in prison for a crime they didn’t commit. The latest was a Texas man that spent TWENTY-FIVE years behind bars on the false charge that he murdered his wife. What makes this and other cases particularly troubling is that often law enforcement and even the district attorney have a hand in hiding evidence that would prove these people innocent or at least help their defense. This is going to be blunt and brutal, but in my opinion, whenever the prosecution or law enforcement willingly suppresses evidence, or falsifies evidence, they should be held accountable with the same or worse punishment they are seeking for the defendant. In cases of gross misconduct, I believe the death penalty should be in play. I’m tough on crime, no matter which side of the fence it comes from. That’s right, if a DA breaks the law in seeking a murder charge or death penalty for someone, when they know that person is innocent, they should be marched to the gallows themselves.
George Zimmerman - Trayvon Martin shooting - 05/16/12
I've written an article on this shooting: Stand your ground: the Zimmerman-Martin shooting
“Let him lie!”, Does Mitt Romney have moral reigns? – 05/15/12
In a recent “debate” with extreme right wingers, the Mitt Romney supporters were beating their chests in anger over the revelation that in high school Romney attacked a perceived gay kid, held him down, and cut off his hair. No, they weren’t angry that Romney did it. They apparently find no fault in it. They were angry that the incident was brought to the light of day. I assume they are fearful such revelations will hurt his chances in the general election. For his part, Romney hasn’t denied the incident, but rather said he doesn’t remember it. Now I’ll admit, I don’t remember everything I did in high school. But I remember significant things. If I chased someone down, held them to the floor, and attacked them with scissors, I guarantee that would be a permanent memory seared into my mind. When I said my main beef with the old incident is that Romney is lying in denying he remembers the attack, I got this angry response: “Let him lie!” Apparently Romney supporters are willing to loosen the moral reigns if that’s what it takes to put him in the White House. Lying is one of the top ten no-nos from God. Sure, all politicians seem to do it. But willingly accepting and even seemingly to encourage a deceitful lie, seems to cross a decency line. Especially when the proponents of it are supposed to be Christian. People are selling their souls for politics. Look at their eyes. Listen to their words and tone. Observe their mannerisms. They are full of hatred and vile, it seethes within them. One doesn’t gain with a heart full of hate, it only displaces the good things.
Gunman in Mt. Rainier National Park - 01/02/12
A park ranger was shot and killed by a gunman on New Years Day as she attempted to stop him at a roadblock in Mt. Rainier National Park, in Washington state. The gunman is also wanted for questioning in party shooting that had occurred the day before in Seattle. The current theory is that gunman was headed to the park area to hide out after the party shooting, and encountered the park rangers after failing to stop for a routine snow tire and chain check. My wife and I have been to this park a few times when we lived in the area. Once you leave the road and trails, the terrain becomes very rugged and is covered in deep snow during the winter. The gunman apparently fled into the wilderness and there is currently a massive manhunt going on.
This is a prime example of why we do need to allow law abiding citizens to carry their firearms in national and state parks. Where ever you go, you might encounter the criminal element. Criminals have no regard for rules and laws. Time and time again we have seen crime strike at the various parks across our nation. Hopefully our lawmakers will realize that disarming the innocent and law abiding public only makes them vulnerable.
Do Right Wingers take Sean Hannity serious? – 11/11/11
Really, do any of you right wingers (i.e. Republicans) take Sean Hannity serious? As the dude said to Dirty Harry when Harry debated on whether he had fired 5 or 6 shots, “I gots to know!” I don’t normally listen to Hannity, but every now and then while channel surfing I’ll catch some snippets of his, uh, “wisdom”. Last night he was “interviewing” Gloria Allred (celebrity lawyer) about presidential hopeful Herman Cain. Cain is a black dude that was once head of Godfather’s Pizza, and he’s seeking the Republican nomination. He’s been accused of sexual harassment by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR women. Two of them resulted in financial settlements. Cain’s story changes daily on the matter. First he never heard of it. Then he remembered something, but no settlement. Then he remembered something about the settlement, but not the details. Then he remembered the details, but he claims it was something else. First he blamed fellow Republican hopeful Rick Perry, now he blames the Democrats for leaking the story. You get the picture. All but the most stupid believe he is guilty as sin.
Some of the bigger idiots in the Republican party are hitching their wagon to Cain. These include Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and it seems Sean Hannity. They seemed convinced of a left wing conspiracy targeting Cain. They’ve taken the familiar tack of attacking the victims (claims they’re lying, seeking money, fame, etc.). Anyway, in that brief snippet that I heard on Hannity last night, I was reminded of what a grade A class a-hole he really is. I’m no fan of Allred, really can't stand her, but he would ask a question and keep interrupting her because he didn’t like her answer. It seems to be his M.O. On the flip side, when he’s “interviewing” a Republican, all he does is coddle them and feed them sweet candy. It’s sickening. When I saw a portion of the “interview” with John McCain and Sarah Palin, I felt ashamed and embarrassed for McCain. First of all, he had to hand hold Palin to keep her from saying something stupid and revealing more of her ignorance. But for someone of McCain’s stature (and accomplishments) to be spoon fed praise and guided on what to say by the likes of Hannity was just too much to take. Is Hannity the Republican politician babysitter? Is he a revered interviewer? Do you right wingers REALLY take him serious? I gots to know!
Frivolous lawsuit over air turbulence – 10/13/11
Just went you think that the American civil law system can’t get any dumber, along comes another frivolous lawsuit (in my opinion) that makes your head spin. A Texas woman is suing Continental Airlines (and other carriers), claiming mental trauma and post traumatic stress syndrome because the plane ride was bumpy. Sometimes airplanes run into bad weather. Sometimes it can be scary. But the weather isn’t the fault of airlines, and neither is this woman’s alleged stress. Airline pilots make the best decision they can for the safety of the passengers and the plane. And weather can be unpredictable. In my opinion, the fact that lawsuits such as this even see the light of day demonstrates the greed of the some people, the greed of some lawyers, and the serious flaws our civil justice system has.
Beating victim finally speaks – 09/23/11
On March 31, 2011, a Giants baseball fan was attacked outside of Dodger Stadium by a couple of trouble makers. The fan was cowardly attacked from behind, knocked to the pavement unconscious, then kicked repeatedly in the head as he lay there defenseless. He suffered a severe skull fracture and brain bruising, and has been in the hospital and on the brink of death ever since. After almost SIX months, he spoke his first words this week, asking to see his kids. He’s still not out of the woods yet. Doctors are trying to keep deadly blood clots from entering his lungs.
The suspects in the case are charged with felony assault, battery and mayhem. The travesty of justice is that even if they are convicted on all counts, the maximum time in jail would only be eight to nine years. This is a case of pure evil and an example needs to be made. These type of people are worthless, a cancer upon civilized society. And like a disease, they need to culled and destroyed, permanently. When monsters do THIS much damage, which equates to attempted murder, they need to be completely erased from our world. A rope and a nearby tree is the only true justice for this case.
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell….anymore - 09/20/11
The policy to keep homosexuals in the military in the closest, known as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, officially ends today. Previous to this policy, enacted during President Clinton’s terms, there was an outright ban on gays serving their country in the military. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a lessening of that, basically saying if you can keep it a secret, you can stay in the military. But today brings a new chapter, saying no longer do homosexuals have to keep their sexuality a secret to serve their country in the military. It’s a good move, but there are some hurtles to cross. We all know that gays make just as good military personnel as straights. They have been doing it for years, though their sexuality remained a secret. They can do the job just as well and serve their country proud. In training, on the battlefield, or anything else for the daily military lifestyle, they are no different from others.
However, it would be foolish to think that this will not present a logistics problem when it comes to bunking, or the locker room, etc. Knowing that you are showering or sleeping next to a person that has the potential of being sexually attracted to you is an issue that needs to be addressed. That’s part of the reason why we don’t mix men and women together in those circumstances. Until we can actually have a fully coed military (think of the movie Starship Troopers), I think the logistics of housing openly homosexual military personnel will be the main problem that the military faces. I definitely think allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military is a good thing, but the logistics will take some time to sort themselves out.
NC to vote on Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage - 09/14/11
A Republican led North Carolina congress has approved a measure that will let voters decide whether or not to enact a constitutional ban against gays getting married. While I'm very much in favor of democracy, I'm also very much against this measure. I don't think we should be allowed to vote on the rights of others based on their sexuality and I don't think the government should be involved in such moral issues. Read my full article on why I say you should Vote NO on changing the NC Constitution to ban same sex marriage
Debt Ceiling - 08/04/11
Our government has a debt ceiling. We limit how much we can borrow and go in debt in order to pay our bills. If we hit that ceiling, we essentially have run out of money to pay all our bills, and must choose which ones to cover. Over the years congress has raised the debt ceiling many, many times to avoid defaulting on various debts and loans. If we did default, we risk higher interests rates, lower credit rating, an economic downturn, and other nations not investing in our treasuries. But for some reason, for the first time in history, congress was willing to risk the economic security of our country by not raising the debt ceiling without certain concessions. And by congress, I mean Republicans, especially the newly elected Tea Party Republicans. A lot of Republicans wanted to delay it enough to use as political fodder during next year’s elections and the ignorant Tea Party Republicans didn’t want it to happen at all in order to strike out at President Obama, and the fact that they don’t seem to understand the damage it could do. The Republicans are playing a dangerous game of risking our economic security for their own political gain, especially given we’re trying to claw our way out of a recession.
I do think it’s an artificial crisis, but it’s still a crisis that has to be dealt with. Ideally, we need to remove the debt ceiling entirely, AND cut spending, AND increase revenue (which can be accomplished by eliminating tax breaks for the gazillionaires like oil companies, or by cutting the benefits of wealthy congress members). Shame on any political party that puts their own political ambitions ahead of our nation’s economic health. I will say that if we ever did reach a point of where we have to decide which debt to pay, Congress and the President’s salary and benefits should be first on the chopping block.
The Tea Party - 04/15/10
Read my article on The Tea Party on my Soapbox page.
To prepare you, I consider the Tea Party as nothing more than a Republican political group.
Honoring Confederates and Roland S. Martin demonstrates more racism – 04/12/10
The Republican governor of Virginia was the target of negative comments this past week because he declared April to be Confederate History month without focusing on slavery. He said the initial purpose was to talk about the sacrifices Virginians made for the Confederacy and to promote tourism (i.e. museums, battlefields, etc.). After all the negative backlash (which I think was due to partisan politics coming from the Democrats), the governor issued another statement saying it was a mistake to not talk about slavery. For the record, I think the original statement was fine without mentioning slavery. The goal wasn’t to talk about the reasons for the war but to talk about what Virginia did and get people to visit.
However, what has really ticked me off about this whole episode is that people are coming out of the word work to criticize and vilify anyone who has something positive to say about the South or offers any honor toward the Confederates who fought and died for their states. CNN political analyst Roland S. Martin has said the worst that I’ve seen. He said “celebrating the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews”. He said Southerners who fought in the war are the same as “Muslim extremists”. He said they are just like “Osama bin Laden”. He has compared Confederates to “Muslim radicals” who are suicide bombers. He even compared them to the “9/11 hijackers”. Martin said they “sound exactly like the Taliban”. In the end he said the Southerners were nothing more than “domestic terrorists”.
Is he right? NO! Of course not! Martin is an idiot that doesn’t know his tail from a hole in the ground. If you don’t know, Martin is black. And his comments are TOTALLY based on his racial bias. In the past he has attacked white people for flying the Confederate flag, labeled Confederates as traitors (wonder how he feels about the founding fathers?), and thinks people exercising their free expression rights should be punished if they disrespect a black person (i.e. minority themed parties). But when it comes to the Hip Hop culture that portrays black women as sexual objects, as whores, as promiscuous, that promotes drugs and gang violence, Martin thinks that’s fine and dandy. He says that’s okay because it’s helped the black men become millionaires. I’m serious! He actually said this. Martin is nothing more than a black racist, a hypocrite, and is clueless about why Southerners fought in the Civil War.
Even though the majority did NOT own slaves, they fought anyway. It was out of loyalty to their state, and to fight against Northern aggression. That was the mindset of the time. They were not fighting because they were racist. Remember that Northerners were just racist as any Southerner. General Robert E. Lee was asked to fight for the Union but chose to give his loyalty to Virginia because that’s what people did back then (remember the country less than 100 years old at the time. It had nothing to do with hating blacks, or being a terrorist or a traitor. It was about honor and duty to ones birthplace. The Southern Confederates had more loyalty, honor, patriotism, and integrity in their little fingers that some racist like Roland S. Martin has in his whole body. People like Martin are clueless about real history of the people of the United States. When he glorifies violence in lyrics, treating women like trash, vulgar language, etc just because it benefits those of his own race, it shows you what kind of worthless person he is. Those that are proud of their Southern heritage should pay no attention to such idiots.
John Edwards confesses to being baby’s daddy – 01/22/10
One time senator, ambulance chasing lawyer, presidential wannabe, and known and proven liar John Edwards finally confessed that he is the daddy of his former (we assume he’s not still hitting it) mistress. He’s denied the affair and denied fathering the child for fears that it would hurt his political campaign. Of course we all remember what this blatant hypocrite said of President Bill Clinton when Clinton’s affair was revealed:
"I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen." – John Edwards
Even more remarkable is that Edwards was tapping his mistress at the height of the cancer news with his wife, Elizabeth. But oh, don’t shed any tears for her, she’s far from being an innocent victim. If you follow the timeline, Elizabeth Edwards KNEW of the affair during the last run for the presidency. It seems she helped conspire with him to keep it covered up, for fear of it impacting the campaign. That title of “First Lady” must be a strong motivator. I’ve never liked her since her snooty attitude toward her neighbor when she didn’t think his property looked good next to her new mega-mansion.
John Edwards' attorney, Wade Smith, claimed Edwards wanted to confess paternity earlier, but "he was waiting for the right time.". I guess the backdrop of hundreds of thousands dead in the Haitian earthquake was it. That’s where Edwards run off to after the announcement, feigning concern for their plight. Smith said there’s no logical explanation why Edwards denied being the baby’s daddy. Huh? He didn’t want his wife to find out and he didn’t want it to hurt his campaign! Can’t get more logical than that. Smith claims Edwards life "has totally fallen apart" in the last year. I guess he only has his millions to dry his tears.
Federal investigators are trying to determine if funds from Edwards' presidential campaign were illegally used to cover up the affair. It looks like hush money was paid, we just don’t know where it came from.
Health Care Reform – 10/15/09
Suppose a small fire started in the corner of your living room and you called the fire department. Upon arriving, instead of putting out the fire, the fire department brings some wood to help you maintain it. They give you subsidies so you can afford more wood to keep the fire going. They help you with masks to tolerate the smoke. Wouldn’t this sound ridiculous? Well that’s analogous to what the government is doing in regards to healthcare. Yes, there is a problem with expensive healthcare. People don’t have insurance, or enough insurance. But with the government trying to fund insurance and help people pay for it, they are treating it like the fire. They are trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause.
Bottom line is that citizens that live in a civilized society should have healthcare provided, regardless of their status or wealth in that society. Health is an equalizer. Rich and poor both need healthcare. We shouldn’t be trying to figure out ways to pay for the insurance and healthcare, but rather addressing why it’s so high to begin with. That’s the problem! Insurance companies, doctors, and other health institutions (like hospitals, drug companies, etc.) are raping the American public and extorting them by the extreme prices they charge. Doctors thinking they should be multi-millionaires is the problem. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be wealthy, but they are extreme in their wealth. As long as the government only keeps addressing how to pay for healthcare instead of knocking down the actual price, we will always have a problem. And the key players in the decision making process are also the beneficiaries of the high costs, so you know they are going to work to maintain the status quo.
President Obama receives Nobel Peace Prize – 10/15/09
Last week President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prize committee is composed of idiots and that the whole thing is a sham. This is NOT negative commentary on Obama, but rather the Nobel committee. Obama might eventually foster peace between peoples and nations but at the current time he hasn’t done anything to warrant receiving the prize. Not a single, solitary thing! There are people that are much, much more deserving of it, who have devoted their entire lives to pursuing peace. Who have RISKED their lives by working for peace! Giving the prize to Obama, or anyone that hasn’t done anything yet to deserve it, is an insult to those people and it cheapens what the prize is suppose to stand for. President Obama should have thanked the committee, but respectfully declined.
Republican hate and anti-American
rhetoric; the final straw –
Ever since President Obama became the presidential nominee, we’ve heard
nothing but hate and attacks from the Republicans/Conservatives.
And it was stepped up a notch when Obama became president.
The Republicans spread lies and disinformation daily.
They hate the President of the
Ever since President Obama became the presidential nominee, we’ve heard
nothing but hate and attacks from the Republicans/Conservatives.
And it was stepped up a notch when Obama became president.
The Republicans spread lies and disinformation daily.
They hate the President of the
The final straw for me was listening to a relative that has
drunk the Republican’s Kool-Aid of hate and bitterness express how she’s
worried about, and against the President of the
Hate monger Michael Savage banned from Britain - 05/07/09
Michael Savage, a right wing hate mongering talk show host
and Republican representative, is currently whining about the fact that
Savage is on the list because of his hate rhetoric. And the list has some people that are very similar to him, such as the Christian Baptist pastor Fred Phelps, known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals. Well, at lest Phelps thinks he’s doing what God wants. Savage is spreading his hate for his own pleasure and to earn money. Which is worst? Savage is also going on and on about his 1st amendment rights (sounds like a liberal, doesn’t he?). It’s almost as if this clown is clueless to the fact that the 1st Amendment is an AMERICAN right, not a BRITISH right. Savage, along with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are representative of what the Republican party has become. Pure un-American behavior. Recent elections have shown what kind of fruit that bears.
Senator Arlen Specter’s
Senator Arlen Specter went from being a Republican senator
to a Democratic senator. Make no
mistake, his driving force for changing parties was not a philosophical change,
but rather a desire to remain in office. He
thinks he can keep his senate seat by running as a Democrat in the next
election. For this he has come under
attack by the Republicans as a “traitor”.
But one should step back and see what this says about the Republican
party, of which Specter was a typical representative.
Despite their claims, I’ve always said that Republicans
do NOT put their country first. Specter’s
party changes shows what’s number one on their list, THEMSELVES!
Personal gain and power is always the top priority.
Number two would be power and wealth for their family or friends.
Number three would be the Republican party itself.
Any thoughts about what’s good for the
And if you want to know why there is such derision,
conflict, partisanship, and lack of compromise between the two political
parties, the fact that Republicans consider someone becoming a Democrat as a
“traitor” should give you a clue.
Where’s the ammo? –
There is a current shortage of ammunition for handguns. Everywhere you go, the shelves are empty. And when you do find it, the cost is much more than it should be. The blame for this can be laid squarely on the Republicans. They started and have continued a fear campaign against President Obama before he was even elected. They caused a panic by falsely telling people that Obama was coming for their guns. They said if Obama couldn’t get the guns, he would ban ammunition or tax it so high it wouldn’t be affordable. Just this week I got some spam email about some alleged bill Obama is trying to push through.
Of course none of this was true. But what it did was cause a run on ammunition as people bought everything they could get their hands on and horded it. The situation was made even worse by gun dealers putting their worship of the almighty dollar ahead of their fellow gun owners. Dealers have also been buying out supplies so they can jack up the prices on it for resale. If the gun dealers are going to price the common man out so they can line their pockets with cash, why fear any tax increase?
First the facts. A
question on such a controversial and divided topic should not have been asked.
Secondly, Perez Hilton should have never been a judge.
Plus he later revealed his bias in his vile attacks on Miss
“That’s a great question and
it shows how our country is growing and evolving.
It’s not up to one person to say whether same-sex marriage is right or
wrong. As a society, we will do
what’s best for our nation, to see that it grows and prospers.
We are a nation of laws and rights, and the recent changes made to
marriage laws shows that the will of the people is being heard.
Some will be pleased and some will be offended, but as a Democracy, we
will strike a balance.”
Or, she could have gave the answer she did, but expanded
and clarified it more to make it more palatable for public consumption.
“It’s great that Americans are
getting to choose in this debate over same-sex marriage.
For me personally, I feel that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But my personal feelings and beliefs should not be used in determining
the rights of others. That’s what
Of course the more likely scenario is that she really is
against gay marriage and also wants her government to reflect that, but that
kind of view isn’t going to win a beauty pageant with a whacko gay guy asking
Show ME the money! - 02/11/09
I think the current trend of bailing out incompetent businesses sends the wrong message, is wasting money, and in the long run may hurt us with inflation. President Bush and the Republicans started this practice in the waning days of his administration. They gave BILLIONS of dollars to investment firms, banks, insurance companies, etc., who promptly spent it on astronomically inflated salaries, undeserved bonuses, parties, and luxuries for their executives. Their incompetence and greed got them in trouble. Now that bad behavior is being rewarded by the federal government and our tax payer money.
Now it seems that President Obama and the Democrats are going to continue this policy. I think if we are going to give THAT kind of money to businesses, they need to be nationalized and we (i.e. the people) say HOW the money is spent. Exorbitant salaries need to be slashed (i.e. below $250K) and bonuses need to be entirely eliminated.
If we just give the money without having control, I think the money would be better spend giving it directly to the tax payers.
John Edwards: finally admits
extramarital affair - 08/11/08
Former Senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards has
finally confessed (after being exposed) to having an affair with a campaign
worker (Rielle Hunter) two years ago, despite previously lying about it and
denying it. When first confronted about the
affair, Edwards said, "The story is false, it's completely untrue, it's
Here’s what Edwards hypocritically said in 1999 about
President Bill Clinton’s affair:
"I think this president has shown a remarkable
disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his
friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the
level to which that disrespect has risen."
It’s time for this ambulance chasing lawyer to be totally
gone from the public and from politics. He
NEVER had an interest in serving the public, but rather serving himself.
He was a bad senator and he would be a bad president.
Always just say no to John Edwards.
John McCain will be the Republican nominee for president - 02/07/08
Mitt Romney is bowing out of the race for the Republican nomination which effectively means John McCain will be the guy. While I kind of like McCain for his military service and his bipartisan politics, I hadn't really thought that much about Romney. But his "concession" speech says having a Democrat in the White House is the same as surrendering to the terrorists. Not only is that a bald face lie and distortion, but it pretty much lets me know what a piece of garbage Romney is. Now I'm glad he's dropping out.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama remain. Another piece of garbage, John Edwards, has already dropped out. I prefer Hillary over Obama given she's better qualified and he's too anti-gun. Plus he has no experience, in anything. He's good at giving speeches, but that's all I know.
I still don't know if I'll be voting Republican or Democratic this year. I need to research McCain a bit more. He's been somewhat of an insider and elitist all his life, which I'm pretty much against. He has definitely used politics and money to get where he's at. But I like his more liberal stance of politics and willingness to compromise. His military credentials are above reproach. Now let's watch how the hate mongers such as Coulter and Limbaugh spin this. I think they WILL support McCain, despite their lies to the contrary.
Right wing hate mongers attack John
The king and queen of right wing hate mongering, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh,
have been making new headlines for themselves by attacking Republican
presidential candidate John McCain. McCain
has recently made a surprising comeback in the polls to challenge Mitt Romney
for the Republican nomination. Both
Coulter and Limbaugh have been constantly criticizing McCain saying he’s not
right for job, isn’t conservative enough, etc.
Coulter has even said she would campaign and vote for Hillary Clinton if
McCain gets the nomination. Why?
The answer is simple, they don’t think McCain can win.
Their bottom line is that they want a Republican in the White House, at
any cost, even if it means turning on their own party members.
Of course Coulter is lying when she says she’d vote for
The king and queen of right wing hate mongering, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh,
have been making new headlines for themselves by attacking Republican
presidential candidate John McCain. McCain
has recently made a surprising comeback in the polls to challenge Mitt Romney
for the Republican nomination. Both
Coulter and Limbaugh have been constantly criticizing McCain saying he’s not
right for job, isn’t conservative enough, etc.
Coulter has even said she would campaign and vote for Hillary Clinton if
McCain gets the nomination. Why?
The answer is simple, they don’t think McCain can win.
Their bottom line is that they want a Republican in the White House, at
any cost, even if it means turning on their own party members.
Of course Coulter is lying when she says she’d vote for
Rush Limbaugh on “Phony Soldiers”
Right wing hate monger and Republican party spokesman Rush
Limbaugh recently referred to soldiers that didn’t agree with supporting the
Is Bill O’Reilly a racist? -
Well, he could be. While
I can agree with him on some points, I generally consider him a right wing
hypocritical hate monger. He’s a
lighter version of Rush Limbaugh, though I think O’Reilly’s ego is much
larger. His recent comments after
eating at a
On the surface I agree that it appears that O’Reilly was expecting his dining experience to be different because the restaurant was staffed and frequented by black people. He seemed surprised that black people could actually behave in a restaurant. If he really believed this, at most you could say he believes in stereotypes, but you can’t make a case that he’s a racist. Oh, he might be one for all I know, but you can’t get that from his statements. In fact, I don’t even think he really believes in the stereotypes. I think he just stuck his foot in his mouth trying to make a point, but he inflated ego is keeping him from explaining himself because he wants to play up the “I’m a victim of the liberal media” angle. He’s a master spin doctor and is bringing the criticism upon himself. O’Reilly should just state what he meant, confess he messed up in his delivery, and be done with it. But like most right wingers, he thinks himself perfect so he’ll never own up to a mistake. In that case, he deserves any criticism he gets.
Say no to John Edwards - 08/08/07
Former single term US Senator and personal injury lawyer John Edwards is running for president (yes, again). He is a horrible choice!
Just SAY NO to John Edwards!
Republican strategy = al Qaeda just as strong - 07/18/07
When White House Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend was pressed to at least admit that not catching Osama bin Laden is a major failure she instead said it was a “success that hasn't happened yet." What?!!! You have a President and a political party that NEVER concedes a point, NEVER admits a mistake, NEVER thinks they ever do anything wrong. They stay the course no matter what the data or outcome. After “mission accomplished”, billions upon billions of tax payer money spent, instant Halliburton millionaires at tax payer expense, thousands of American military dead, tens of thousands of American military maimed and crippled for life, we learn that al Qaeda is just as strong as ever. Why would anyone in their right mind support George Bush and the Republican party? While the Democrats might not have a clue or even an answer, everyone (with common sense) at least knows the Republicans not only have it wrong, but they will continue along the same wrong path!
Earthlink: Worst Customer Service Ever! - 05/04/07
I have an article on my Soapbox page:
Earthlink: Worst Customer Service Ever!
Stopping the Virginia Tech gunman –
I’ve heard a few people ask why the students/teachers didn’t rise up and stop the Virginia Tech gunman during his shooting rampage. While on the surface it seems like a logical thing to do, that is, everyone rush him and take him down, then beat the snot out of him, if you actually consider the situation and circumstances you’ll realize it would be a difficult task without some serious sacrifice. First of all, if another student or teacher had possession of their own firearm, they could have easily brought down the shooter. But the laws and rules (that criminals don’t follow) have disarmed us in that on school grounds (and our jobs), we’re nothing but sheep for slaughter when a madman shows up.
So the next response is group attack. And that would work. If a group attacked the gunman, grabbing his gun and punching him, they would have stopped him. But there would have been a very heavy price to pay. The gunman had the upper hand in every conceivable way. First he had the element of surprise. No one could sneak up on him. Secondly, he had the firepower. A semi-automatic 9mm Glock pistol is a formidable weapon. It can unleash a deadly round as fast as you can pull the trigger. And it can be loaded with up to 16 rounds. Plus he had a second semi-automatic pistol. Thirdly, and in conjunction with the weapon, the gunman had the proverbial “high ground” in the form of position and distance. He was at the door, so he could survey the entire room, plus by being at the doorway he was far enough away so that no one could grab him. That means for people to get their hands on him, they have to cover a significant distance. Far enough that a person would be shot multiple times.
The bottom line is that even though a group of people charging the gunman could have probably stopped him, the first few people at the front would likely be shot multiple times. That’s a BIG sacrifice to make, knowing that you WILL get shot, and possibly/likely killed. That’s why the students and teachers did not, and could not stop this gunman.
Virginia Tech Massacre - 04/18/07
I have an article on my Soapbox page:
Virginia Tech Massacre
John Edwards wastes campaign money - 04/18/07
Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards is proving once again, that despite his false claims, he does NOT represent the middle class. He recently got two haircuts from a stylist in Beverly Hills, CA, for the price of $400 each! He also spent $250 at a trendy salon and spa in Iowa, and another $225 at a salon in New Hampshire. Did this slimy lawyer millionaire, who claims to represent the poor and middle class pay out of his own pocket? NO!!! He used donated money from the Democratic Campaign! Wake up people! This guy was a poor excuse as a senator and if given the chance, he'll be a poor excuse as president. He only represents his own goals and ambitions. Plus, he STILL hasn't paid some people that worked on his FIRST campaign. The amount is a few thousand dollars yet this MILLIONAIRE refuses to pay! Edwards should not be trusted. Don't be stupid and support him or his campaign in any way.
Ann Coulter: more right-wing hate - 03/07/07
Republican spokeswoman and representative, Ann Coulter, is once again spewing her nasty right-wing venom in her continual attacks on anyone representing the Democratic Party. In the latest episode, Coulter referred to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot", a slur commonly used by people in their denunciation of homosexuals. Does Ann Coulter really think Edwards is gay? No, I doubt it. More than likely she just wanted to say something very mean and hateful, her typical operating procedure. It also might demonstrate some underlying hatred of homosexuals, which is also representative of the political party she speaks for. But her Republican audience ate it up, and applauded in apparent agreement. Republican apologist David Horowitz tried to explain it as Coulter thinking "faggot" means "sissy". No, Coulter knows exactly what it means.
Interestingly, fellow Republican hate monger Glen Beck actually criticized Coulter for her comment. What?! A Republican realizing that hate speech can sometimes backfire? I guess Coulter went a little too far for him and he's worried about it affecting the next general election. Anyway, I commend him on speaking against Coulter, even with a transgression this obvious.
"Why I Hate Blacks" - 02/28/07
No, not me. That was the title of an article by Kenneth Eng in the San Francisco-based newspaper, AsianWeek. Eng, a science fiction writer, had a long list of the stereotypical reasons why he hated black people. And of course it has caused an uproar. Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to condemn him and the newspaper. And of course the newspaper has issued an apology and fired Eng. The newspaper editors/owners are gutless and wrong. This is the United States of America, where we have first amendment rights, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press. We should be allowed to hate, or love, anyone for any reason. Sure it's controversial. Sure some will be offended. But that's a very small price to pay for the freedoms we enjoy. Plus, it can actually be a positive thing by being a catalyst to start discussions on race relations. Some of these perceived stereotypes need to be exposed, explored, and debated. Even so, I have a sneaky feeling that we're not seeing the true heart of Kenneth Eng. He was an unknown, aspiring writer before this. Now the whole nation is talking about him. He's even on MY webpage! :) I wonder if this was just a publicity stunt.
Barack Obama - political speak 02/28/07
Black presidential candidate Barack Obama said during an interview that he doesn't think he has a black "monolithic" vote just because he happens to be black. He's either lying, or stupid. Of course he has a large monolithic slice of the black vote simply because of his skin color. That's just the reality of the situation. Whether they admit it or not, black people want a black president and many will vote for him solely on this issue, regardless of his political views or party.
Also, have you noticed all the right wing Republican hate mongers seem to have nothing but nice things to say about Obama? And they criticize anything his opponents say about him. We've got a word for people that do this in North Carolina: Jesse-crats. The term was coined for Republicans that registered as Democrats, so they could vote in the primary for what they perceived as the weakest Democratic candidate. That way when their god, Jesse Helms, ran for the senate, he would probably win. I believe the Republicans think that America will not vote a black candidate into the White House so they are hoping, and doing whatever they can, to bolster Obama in hopes that he will be on the Democratic ticket, thus ensuring the Republican candidate will win. I predict they will not get nasty on Obama until (and if) he's the official Democratic candidate.
John Edwards: hypocritical, self-serving piece of crap - 02/22/07
It seems that hypocrite and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is first in line to start attacking his fellow Democrats in his campaign to win the White House. Edwards is chastising fellow candidate Hillary Clinton for her vote on the war with Iraq. He negatively claims her vote is "between her and her conscience" and said, "It's not for me to judge". But this piece of crap Edwards actually voted for the Iraqi war himself!!! He has been running for the White House in some capacity for the last SEVEN years. He is driven by his own personal wants of power. Even as North Carolina's senator, he never served the people or even cared. He spent most of his time on the campaign trail. Now he has the nerve to cast stones at another candidate for doing the SAME EXACT THING that he did? Edwards was too much of a coward to vote against the war because he feared the political backlash in this Republican neo-McCarthyism era. He lacked backbone as a senator and he doesn't have the backbone to be president. Any Democrats voting for him just because he's a Democrat should be ashamed of themselves.
Roland Martin: black racist - 02/20/07
I was channel surfing when I landed on the Paula Zahn Now show on CNN. There were three people on there that I've never heard of. One was a black guy named Roland Martin. Apparently he has a radio show or something. There was also a black lady on there, and a white lady. The topics included flying the Confederate battle flag, parties in which people dress up as stereotypical minorities, and how women are portrayed in black Hip Hop videos/culture. According to Martin, Southerners are traditionally traitors to their country and that's what they represent when they flag the Confederate flag. This piece of crap doesn't understand anything about the southern culture or first amendment rights. When it comes to the minority themed parties, he thinks the students should be punished and blames the parents. He knows nothing about freedom of expression. Sure the parties might be offensive, but I don't think drunken college students set out with a plan to demean minorities. It's a joke, a tasteless, thoughtless joke, but it's still a joke. And what about the Hip Hop culture that portrays black women as sexual objects, as whores, as promiscuous, that promotes drugs and gang violence? Oh, he's okay with that because that's helped the black men become millionaires. I think Roland Martin is a racist piece of crap. Oh, the black lady on there is the same piece of crap as he is. She too had problems with southerners and the parties, but thought we should not be too judgmental of the hip hop videos.
Glen Beck: right wing hate monger - 02/20/07
Channel surfing again and came across Glen Beck, an extreme right wing hate monger. He was attacking Hillary Clinton for honoring her marriage to Bill Clinton. Apparently a recent poll of women thought Hillary was strong for working through her marriage and staying with her husband. Of course what he's really worried about is her gaining any points in the political arena. He's a typical, hate filled, hypocritical Republican. He couldn't even accept his two guests that agreed that the Clintons have a strong relationship and that working on a marriage is seen as strength. Apparently this loser is divorced so part of it might be his shame of being such a lousy piece of crap when it came to his own marriage. But more likely it's just the usual right wing attack plan. He finished the segment by picking on the clothes Hillary wears. Republicans have no shame or decency.
Barack Obama: the gutless wonder - 02/14/07
Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama apologized for saying the lives of the more than 3,000 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war were "wasted." Fearing the political backlash of the neo-McCarthyism that has been ushered in the by the Republicans, Obama said the remark was a "slip of the tongue". Shame on him for not having the guts to stand by his own words. Sometimes we do say things in a way that was not intended, but I don't think that is the case here. Lots of us feel our soldier's lives are being wasted in Iraq and I'm sure that's the true feelings of Obama. But I'm sure he's afraid that it will give Republicans (or even his Democratic opponents) ammunition to say he doesn't support the military. Not sticking to his guns is a mark against him in my book.
Forgiveness - 01/31/07
What does forgiveness mean? The church club social Christian will claim that we need to forgive sinners/criminals for what they do, but in the same breath they say the person still needs to be punished. Is that correct? Should a forgiven person still be punished? NO! To forgive means to absolve, to pardon, to grant relief from payment of, etc. Once a debt is forgiven, that debt is no longer owed. When Jesus forgave the adulterous woman, he didn't say, "Your sins are forgiven, but sorry, we've still got to stone you." Is God going to say at judgment day, "Your sins were forgiven, but you still have to pay by spending some time in the lake of fire"? Forgiveness means the debt is gone. So why are these Christians saying they forgive, but people still must be punished? It's because they are FAKE Christians. They don't read or understand the bible. They go to their church on Sunday, which is nothing more than a social club, and follow the secular, modernized teachings they hear. They want criminals punished, but they still want to shine their Christian halos and polish their Christian badges. So they falsely claim they have forgiven people. Being a true Christian is a tough road to follow. Being a fake Christian is as easy as attending the mega-church on Sundays.
Godless churches - 01/23/07
What's a Godless church? Drive around town and you'll find them about everywhere you look. See that behemoth of a church sitting on the corner? See the stained glass and manicured lawn? See the Mercedes, BMWs, and other luxury cars parked out front? That's probably a Godless church. Where you find a lot of money is where you'll find an absence of the presence of Jesus. One only needs to read the gospels to see that you can't love money and Jesus at the same time. These huge churches, with million dollar budgets, and their fancy buildings and organs and decorations are nothing but large secular businesses. They operate under the ruse of being Christian. They are nothing more than social clubs so that people can claim they are one with God, though by their actions through the week you wouldn't know they had even set foot in a church on Sunday. Have you seen how big the Colonial Baptist Church Corporation on Tryon road is getting? That is nothing but a big, social club business. I use to attend that church. Never, ever felt God's presence. It was no more religious than a music concert, or PTA meeting. It was just a place for the affluent to meet and greet and boost their holier than thou feelings.
Take the St. Michael the Archangel Catholic church for example. When a 75 year old usher, who had attended the church for 31 years, was suspected of taking money from the collection plate, what did the church do? Did they follow the teachings of Christ? Did they council the man? Did they take him under their wing, forgive him, and offer to help set him on the correct path? Nope! They called the police which setup a sting operation with the Cary Police, who installed 10 hidden cameras, planted marked money in the plate, and posed as worshippers. The old man was caught and the church is pressing charges. Do you feel the love? This is a Godless church.
Apple's fraudulent commercials - 01/18/07
I've never been one to pick sides when it comes to computers. While I exclusively use an IBM/Intel based computer (PC), it doesn't mean that I hate the Apple computer (Mac). In fact, I've used Macs in school and work. They seemed fine. I'm a PC man because that's what I'm use to. So why is it that so many Mac users not only exclusively use Macs, but also hate and denounce PCs? Not only that, they will purposely spread false information about the PC. Take the Mac commercials you see on TV. They paint the Mac as perfect, but the PC as boring and virus ridden, and not able to perform the same tasks. Nothing could be further from the truth. PCs can do all the things that a Mac can do. They can be powerful business machines AND entertainment machines. Just visit your local gaming store and see how many games there are for the PC versus the Mac. The current deceptive Mac commercial says how dangerous and scary it is to update a PC. Lies! I've been through several major operating system updates, and lots of software updates and it's always been pretty much a seamless operation.
Back in 2002, Apple ran commercials implying that you couldn't use your digital camera with a PC without searching for software drivers. Apple tried to scare people into believing they wouldn't be able to see their Christmas pictures. It was nothing but lies and fraud. As an experiment, I connected my digital camera to various machines with various Windows operating systems and every one of them displayed my pictures WITHOUT the need for extra drivers or software. If Apple has to stoop to lies and deception to sell their Macs, why trust anything they say and make?
Book of Faith? - 01/18/07
If I hear one more fake-Christian hypocrite claim the bible is a "book of faith" rather than a "book of facts", I think I'll puke. That's what you'll hear from these social club style Christians in response to complaints about biblical inconsistencies, or the fact that people often don't take some portions of the bible literally. It's what they are taught to say in their church club meetings on Sundays, and they just regurgitate the rhetoric without giving it any thought. But if the bible is not a book of facts, then by definition it is a book of fiction. That makes it no different that Huckleberry Finn, or Salem's Lot, or Catcher in the Rye. Time for these pretend Christians to actually read the bible they thump so much. They need to be able to give independent assessment and accounting of the bible rather than the hearsay of what some other fake Christian said during a church meeting. Either accept what the bible says, and deal with it, or take off the Christian costume. Otherwise you might as well be using a book from Oprah Winfrey's book club for a guide to your salvation.
Gods, spooks, and goblins - 01/03/07
Do you believe in spooks and goblins? Do you believe in Poseidon, Zeus, Jehovah, God, Allah, Vishnu, or any other god(s)? Do you pray or are you superstitious? Then do I have a website for you!:
But be warned, this site is NOT for the religious faint of heart. There are no punches pulled on this one. It's not nasty, but the author logically, intelligently, and concisely tells believers that they are delusional and their beliefs are nothing but fairy tales. Take a look.
Pat Robertson has been on the phone with God again - 01/03/07
God's right hand man, possibly ousting Jesus from the seat, Pat Robertson has claimed that God's been speaking to him again. Robertson said God told him that there would be a "mass killing" from a terrorist attack on the United States. The time frame is late 2007. God didn't give a specific date, apparently not wanting to spoil the surprise. Robertson also claimed that God told him a tsunami would hit America last year. That didn't happen. But Robertson thinks he has a pretty "good track record" though does admit, "Sometimes I miss." I guess God doesn't always get it right. I think it goes without saying, that Robertson (and everyone that follows or believes him) is a loon.
Don't trust John Edwards! - 01/01/07
Former personal injury lawyer and former North Carolina senator John Edwards is yet again running for president. Edwards announced his re-newed goal of becoming president while "volunteering" at a food bank in New Orleans. If you think he would have been there "helping" if not for his campaign ambitions, you are sadly mistaken. He has been running for president ever since being first elected for his single term as a senator. Instead of being here, or in Washington, representing the citizens of North Carolina, he was out on the campaign trail. Everything he does is orchestrated to help in his pursuit of his personal goals. He made his millions off the misery of others, by suing for big settlements. This multi-millionaire claims to represent the middle and lower class. He briefly became director of the Center on Poverty, Work & Opportunity. But just as he abandoned the people of North Carolina to campaign, he now has turned his back on the Center for his new campaign. He took that post only to add to his resume in his bid for the presidency. Don't trust him. He doesn't care about you. Don't vote for him. He sided with George Bush and voted to wage war against Iraq even though there was no proof of Bush's claims. Why? Because he was afraid he would lose votes in future elections if he didn't. Getting votes is more important to him than anything else. Now, thanks to his support of Bush, over 3000 American military have died in the Iraqi quagmire. He doesn't represent his fellow Americans, he only represents his own personal agenda and his pursuit of political power. Don't trust John Edwards!
Saddam Hussein executed! - 12/30/06
Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging on Saturday morning, Dec. 30, 2006. First let me state, that this was an evil, despicable man, who deserved death. He should have been doused with gasoline and set on fire. However, the new leaders of Iraq that try to claim Hussein went to the gallows as a "broken man" with "fear in his face" are liars. I've seen the video. While it is understandable that they would want him to fear his end, he did not. He was dignified and seemed brave to the very end. In fact, his executioners were taunting, hooded cowards. They hid their faces, shouted insults, and tried to provoke Hussein. This was NOT an official looking, government execution. It was a sectarian lynching. Because of President Bush, one evil dictator has been replaced by more evil. I have no sympathy for Hussein. But the new Iraqi government has no legitimacy. President Bush got Saddam Hussein, but in the process he started a civil war and has wasted over 3000 American lives. I sure hope Bush thinks it was worth it.
No Christmas for you! - 12/12/06
Well, no Christmas trees that is, for visitors traveling through the Seattle-Tacoma Airport (SEATAC). The airport had put up nine Christmas trees to decorate the airport and give it a festive look. But of course you know there's always a Grinch lurking somewhere. Jewish Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky complained about the display, saying he wanted a menorah displayed next to the trees. The Rabbi hired a lawyer and threatened to sue if he didn't get his way. Given how busy the airport staff is this time of year, and fearing the addition of a menorah would mean that even more symbols of the various other religions and cultures would have to be researched and added, the airport decided to do the most prudent thing and removed the Christmas trees. Of course even that didn't satisfy Bogomilsky and his lawyer. His lawyer, Harvey Grad, had the audacity to whine that he was concerned that the removal of the Christmas trees would portray the Jewish community as the Grinch. Given that this slime and his client threatened to sue if they didn't get their way, what did he expect?!
Given the negative backlash (rightfully so), the Rabbi Bogomilsky and counselor Grad have backed down on their threats of a lawsuit. The airport has decided to take time from their busy schedule, once again, and restore the Christmas trees that were taken down. But Grad couldn't let it go without more jabs at those that complained about the removal of the Christmas trees because of his actions. He had the nerve to question their "spirit of Christmas" and even tried to imply that the airport was holding "Christmas hostage". What gall! Bogomilsky and Grad are the ones that threatened to file a lawsuit because they didn't like the Christmas tree display the way it was. The airport and the local American public had the final say on these two Grinches.
"Protesting" funerals - 12/01/06
North Carolina approved a law that would ban people from trying to disrupt a funeral or memorial service. Anyone trying to do so could be charged with disorderly conduct. The law was passed in response to protests by a venom-filled church at funerals of slain American soldiers. The Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, led by hate-monger Fred Phelps, thinks God is the one killing our soldiers in Iraq, for punishment against America for allowing homosexuals to exist. And to express this perverted view, members of his church like to protest at the funerals of military personnel with signs saying things such as, "Thank God for 9/11," "God is U.S.A.s Terrorist," "God hates you," "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "America is Doomed."
I applaud the new North Carolina law and hope other states enact similar, and even more severe laws against the activities of hate groups such as this Baptist church. While I fully support the First Amendment and the freedom of expression (especially if it's a pretty girl on a silver pole at the strip club), they shouldn't be used to torment those that are grieving and want privacy. Lines have to be drawn somewhere and this is a clear example of where it should be drawn. There is a point where human decency overrides perceived civil liberties.
Take it up with God 11/29/06
A Memphis, TN church gave a New Orleans woman a $75,000 house after she told them that she had lost everything to Hurricane Katrina and wanted to settle in Memphis. The church agreed to give her a house, free and clear, if she and her family did settle in the area. Well the church gave her the house in February, and by September she had sold the house for a cool $88,000 (without ever moving in) and left town. There is also some doubt as to whether the woman actually did lose her possessions to the storm. Apparently the church members were too stupid to think about verifying the womans story before handing over a free house.
But the interesting part of this story isnt the scam they pulled on the church, but rather what the husband of the woman said to a reporter afterwards. He said that anyone having problems with their deception and scam could take it up with God. I almost fell out the chair laughing when I heard that. I bet he practiced saying that line over and over before the interview. It was classic! Even better was the reporter's reaction. You could tell the comment came out of left field and smacked her like a freight train. Totally unexpected. Her response? She could only repeat his comment. "Take it up with God??!!", she said with exasperated disbelief. You could hear her frustration. She didn't know what to say after that. Of course religious doctrine implies they could in fact take it up with God if they didnt like what happened. However the REALITY of the situation could be heard in the reporter's voice, because she KNOWS they might as well also take it up with Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster because the outcome will be the same.
Democratic Party takes the House! - 11/09/06
For the first time in about 12 years, the Democratic Party now holds a majority in the House of Representatives. And it's likely that they will also take the Senate once the count is settled in Virginia. Despite the low voter turnout, there were enough votes to remove incumbent Republicans throughout the land. Why was there such a backlash against the Republican Party and their politicians? Well the main reason was President George Bush himself. He has misled the American public time and time again. He has led us into an unnecessary war in Iraq and sacrificed the lives of thousands of American soldiers. He publicly claims he doesn't make mistakes and his "stay the course" mentality means he won't change, even if the path leads to ruin for our nation.
The second reason is the actions of the Republican members themselves. First they treat Bush as the second coming of Christ, and regard him as their Lord and Savior. They claim he can do no wrong. Then they go about their business as usual, which is directly opposed to the Constitution and the American way of life. And America finally said enough is enough! There were tired of the culture that Republican's nourish and represent. Americans were tired of the culture of corruption, the culture of deception, the culture of lies, the culture of greed, the culture of hate, the culture of intolerance, and the culture of neo-McCarthyism.
And let's not forget the right-wing hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Emmett Tyrrell Jr., Mike Savage, and others. I doubt there would have been a Democratic victory if they hadn't been there, spreading their vitrol across the airwaves, newspapers, and bookstores. They were the mouthpieces of the Republican Party and they helped bring the party down. Their unrelenting hate and intolerance, and their lies and deception, succeeded in turning mainstream Americans toward the Democratic party for relief. While the political candidates could only spend so much money on mud slinging advertisements, these hate mongers were out there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, sowing the seeds of destruction for the Republican Party.
Let's just hope the Democratic Party can figure a way out of the mess that the Republican Party got us into.
Republicans blame American military for mess in Iraq - 11/02/06
House Majority Leader John Boehner, speaking for his fellow Republicans, blamed the current political, social, and military mess in Iraq on our American military in a statement Wednesday. Following the Republican stay the course mentality of never accepting responsibility or admitting fault, Boehner and Republicans were trying to shield Defense Secretary Donalld Rumsfeld from any criticism. Boehner said, "Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld....the fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge". So the President and the Republicans sent our American soldiers into Iraq without a plan, on false claims, and without proper logistical backing, but when the inevitable quagmire of the situation becomes apparent, the Republicans want to lay the blame on our military leaders. They don't want to blame the Iraqi rebel fighters, the brewing civil war, or the international terrorists that have been pouring in since Bush helped open up the borders. And what about the Rumsfeld, since he's in charge of the military? No, Republicans can't blame other Republicans. So they blame our American military leaders, who are giving their lives daily in this screwed up war started by Bush and the Republicans.
John Kerry's foot-in-mouth disease - 11/01/06
Just when Democrats thought they saw a light at the end of the tunnel, along comes former presidential candidate Senator John Kerry with a botched joke that gives Republicans ammunition in their get-out-the-hate campaign. Kerry, while addressing students at Pasadena City College, said "study hard" and "do your homework" and "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." George Bush and other Republicans jumped all over this, claiming Kerry is calling American soldiers stupid, and he should apologize. Republican's have been given something they can run with, and get nasty. They know nasty. Democrats, who've been basking in the light that's been exposing the Republican culture of corruption, choked on their lunches.
Did Kerry call the troops stupid? Does he owe them an apology? The answer is no and yes. First of all Kerry did NOT call the troops stupid. While it may seem that way on the surface, the reality of the situation is that Kerry was trying to demean the president and messed up what he was suppose to say. It should have gone something like, "if you aren't smart .you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq". He was trying to insult the president's intelligence. While I suspect that Bush might be the least intelligent president we've ever had, Kerry shouldn't be stooping so low as to adopt Republican campaign tactics. He should apologize to the troops, but explain to them that he didn't intentionally mean to imply they were stupid.
And what have the Republicans done since learning that Kerry botched on low-blow joke on the president and really didn't call the troops stupid? Why they've continued to twist the facts, lie, and still say that he did call the troops stupid. They have learned that in America, lies and hate will get out the vote.
Hypocrite George Bush/Republicans on gay marriage - 10/31/06
George Bush is out campaigning for Republicans (at tax payers expense). Last week a New Jersey court sided with gay marriage advocates in ruling that they have been discriminated against. That's a no-brainer. But Bush and the Republicans are fearful that they won't be allowed to discriminate in order to gain political votes. Bush/Republicans are decrying gay marriage, and somehow see it as a reason to vote against the Democrats. But wait a minute, isn't it the REPUBLICAN party that seems to have all the homosexuals lately? Isn't Vice-President Dick Cheney the one with the gay daughter? Isn't the Vice-President's wife, Lynne Cheney, the one that write novels with lesbian love scenes? Wasn't recently disgraced gay congressman, Mark Foley, a Republican? And what about all the other gay Republicans? There you have it, typical hypocritical Republican policy.
Additionally, President Bush said, "I believe I should continue to appoint judges who strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench". Hmmm, previously a campaigning Bush said he would only "appoint federal judges that believe in God" (or something to that effect). By the way, that's a religious test, which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution. But given how the Republicans seem to daily wipe their butts with the Constitution, they're not going to let that stand in their way. It seems that George Bush's and the Republican's stance flips and flops more than pancakes.
George Bush and the Republicans only represent themselves and other Republicans. Our politicians should represent ALL AMERICANS, regardless of political party, race, creed, social standing, economic status, or sexual orientation.
Republican Spokesman Rush Limbaugh claims Parkinson's Disease effects are faked - 10/25/06
Hypocrite, liar, drug user, and all around nasty guy Rush Limbaugh, a Conservative talk show host and mouthpiece of the Republican party, has once again shown his ignorance and lack of any human compassion or decent morality. Limbaugh has denounced and criticized actor Michael J. Fox for having the audacity of letting the effects of his Parkinson's Disease be seen. Fox has done a political commercial for a Democratic candidate in favor of stem-cell research. You can see the full effects of the disease on Fox, by his shaking and rocking. Hate mongerer Rush Limbaugh claims that Fox is "acting". He says the shaking and moving is "purely an act" and that it is "shameless". Limbaugh claims that Fox is "exaggerating the effects of the disease". Remember that Limbaugh is the same guy that claims light pollution is fake (i.e. he effectively claims you can see as many stars from downtown as you can from the country) and that being hooked on drugs is a choice rather than an addiction (though he didn't make the same claim for his own drug usage).
The real facts of the matter are that Parkinson's Disease is real, and the effects are real. And they get progressively worse. Limbaugh is worried that this will cause Republicans to lose votes so he's willing to lie and assault Michael Fox's character in an attempt to keep that from happening. It's typical of Limbaugh and it's typical of Republicans. Remember during the last elections when the Republicans called people unpatriotic, even though they had lost legs and arms in various wars?! Limbaugh speaks for Republicans and their philosophy and they believe in and support what he says.
Michigan's Board of Education finally shows Intelligent Design - 10/11/06
The Michigan State Board of Education has approved a curriculum that supports the teaching of evolution in science classes, but NOT "intelligent design". The reasoning behind the idea of intelligent design is that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by a higher force (i.e. God). Ironically, this type of reasoning is how most gods were invented. Man couldn't explain things like wind, storms, lightning, the stars, etc. so they invented gods to explain them. I applaud the Michigan Board of Education for realizing that SCIENCE, not religion, should be taught in SCIENCE classes. While the theory of evolution might not yet be an absolute proven fact, it's the best theory going so far with tons and tons (both figuratively and literally) of evidence and TESTABLE science. Teachings about God, Vishnu, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Zeus, Apollo, Amon-Ra, etc. should be done in the churches, synagogues, temples, shrines, covenants, etc. Finally, an Education Board that shows some signs of intelligent design in their decisions.
Apex, NC chemical fire - 10/10/06
A hazardous waste disposal company, Environmental Quality Industrial Services, located in Apex, NC, had an explosion and fire on Thursday night. Some residents in the area were evacuated because of the fear of toxic fumes. The very NEXT day, the less desirables of our community (in my opinion) are already crawling out from under their rocks and filing lawsuits, trying to make money any way they can. This is a symbol of what's wrong with our society and what erodes the social values we use to have in the Southern states. We don't even know what caused the explosion and fire yet. We don't know if it was negligence from the company, or just an unforeseeable accident, or sabotage. The lawsuit claims that chlorine gas was released (among other things), then goes on to state how chlorine gas was a weapon during World War I. That's irrelevant to this case, but sounds good on a lawsuit when you're trying to get some stupid jury to give you some cash. However, the company has stated that chlorine gas was NOT stored at the facility . Furthermore, air samples taken by state monitors did NOT show any elevated levels of chlorine gas. So it appears that they are just making this up!!! THEY should be sued for making false claims! It's despicable what people and their lawyers will do in this day and time for a buck.
Nuclear North Korea - 10/09/06
North Korea claims to have tested a nuclear weapon. The test has been met with condemnation. However, North Korea developing nuclear weapons was an inevitable path given the policies of President Bush and the Republicans. Labeling them as evil, attacking another country that was labeled as evil, and refusing to sit down at the negotiation table does not make for good international diplomacy. Do you feel safer today than five years ago?
Here's my full article on the subject:
Nuclear North Korea (with thanks to President Bush & Republicans)
Man shoots fleeing criminal - 09/20/06
62-year-old Randle Holmes of Smithfield, NC fired shots into a car that was carrying 19-year-old Derrick Barnes. Holmes claims Barnes has just tried to burglarize his home and was fleeing. Holmes fired four times, striking Barnes once in the arm. Barnes is charged with burglary, but the District Attorney, Tom Lock, is looking into charging Holmes with felonious assault or shooting a gun into an occupied vehicle.
Sadly, the laws of man are probably against Holmes. In North Carolina, you can use lethal force to stop someone if you fear for your life or fear great bodily harm. But if the assault has stopped, the law doesn't allow you to shoot the fleeing criminal. It all comes down to the attitude of the local District Attorney, or the Grand Jury. I'm of the opinion that not only should you be allowed to use lethal force to stop an attack, but the laws of nature would say that you can use force to remove the threat. An escaping criminal is still a threat. They are a threat to you because they may return and they are a threat to the public because they will probably attack someone else. If a person is willing to break into a home, more than likely they are willing to do violence against anyone they find inside the home. The results are usually very bad. It should never be a crime to remove these bad people from society, whether they are coming into the home or running from it. The people that take out these criminals should be viewed as public servants.
NOTE: I do not condone shooting people just because they are annoying, or harassing, or trespassing, etc. You shoot when you fear for your life, or feared for your life. I'm talking about dealing with people that would do violence against you or your family. Nor would I ever actually shot a fleeing burglar. I'm just saying I wouldn't condemn those that do, and I think the laws should be changed so that they would not be in danger of prosecution.
Comair plane crash from wrong runway - 09/13/06
Comair Flight 5191 crashed on the morning of August 27, 2006, while attempting to take off from a Lexington, Kentucky airport. Forty nine people were killed, with only the co-pilot (who was piloting the plane when it crashed) surviving. Just five days later, on September 1, the first lawsuit against the airline was filed by the family members of a crash victim, in an attempt to make some money off of the tragedy. I'm sure there will be many more. Even before this suit was filed, a Texas law firm ran a full page newspaper ad, promising maximum damages payments. The lawyers eyes are lighting up with dollar signs. Seems like a day doesn't go by that we don't hear of some discrepancy or problem with the airport or the control tower. Given the common stupidity that runs rampant in most jury pools, the lawyers are overdosing on this "slam dunk" get rich case. Any more "good news" and the lawyers will blow a happy/greedy fuse in their brains.
Here are the true facts of the case as we know them. There was one controller in the tower, when FAA regulations said their should have been two. The controller instructed the plane to use Runway 22, a 7000 foot runway. The plane took Runway 26 instead, which was only half as long, which is why it crashed (i.e. never got enough speed to fully fly). The taxi routes at the airport had recently been changed. Comair had charts depicting the old taxi routes. The lights on the short Runway 26 were out. And controllers at the airport had complained about a hostile work environment and being understaffed in the months preceding the crash. Slam dunk case? Yes, given how stupid American juries are this is a lawyers wet dream. However the ONLY ones really responsible for this crash are the pilot and co-pilot.
First of all, the air traffic controllers are only responsible for giving the pilots clearance. Once that's done, their responsibility is over. Sure, a more alert, less busy, or even a second controller might have noticed the plane taking the wrong runway, but it's not their job to monitor the plane. The pilots have supreme authority on the plane. It's their responsibility to know the airport, the runways, and any changes that might have taken place. You're taught that during flight training. Even if the taxi routes changed, the runways did not. The pilot, who taxied the plane, made the mistake of turning onto the wrong runway. There should have been a sign indicating the runway number. He apparently didn't pay attention to that. His compass heading should match the runway number he had clearance for. He apparently didn't pay attention to that. The runway lights were out (and it was dark). They noted it, but still didn't give it the concern they should have. Both the pilot and co-pilot failed on these three key things, and that resulted in the crash. They bare the sole responsibility for it. Of course the lawyers are only going to sue whoever has money. They don't care about who's really responsible. Oh yeah, when the co-pilot woke up in the hospital, he said, "Why did God do this to me?" Maybe the families should sue God. Given how rich the churches and organized religions are in America, the Guy should be loaded!
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. shows ignorance once again - 08/25/06
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the extreme right wing columnist known for his hypocrisy and hate mongering, once again reaches out to spread mis-information and demonstrate his total lack of understanding of even the simplest of remarks. Given the incompetence of his lord and saviour, current president George Bush, and the extreme corruption now prevalent in the Republican party, Tyrrell often reaches back in history to bash Democratic Presidents of the past. He has to do something to deflect attention away from the GOP. So he bashes Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, etc. I think he secretly hopes a Democratic candidate takes the White House so he can once again bash a sitting president (given that his hypocrisy keeps him from bashing the current one).
His latest column attacks Clinton for celebrating his 60th birthday. Tyrrell just can't seem to stand how successful Clinton was and is. So Tyrrell attacks everything Clinton says, but in doing show he shows his own ignorance. When Clinton said he hated turning 60, referencing how he use to the young guy, Tyrrell twisted it to imply Clinton was in the minority, quoting that 77 percent of 60 year olds are satisfied to be where they were in life. But Clinton didn't say he wasn't satisfied with where he was in life, he just didn't want to be old!!! I bet if given a choice of being 60 or 35, that 77 percent would rather be 35! So either Tyrrell is an idiot, or he is purposely being deceptive. You choose. He also used this latest column to take yet another swipe at Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed looking for those weapons of mass destruction that Bush claimed to exist. This mother has EARNED the right to say anything she wants against Bush. People that vilify and denounce her are pieces of crap.
On a parting note, even Tyrrell's previous column demonstrated his ignorance. He claimed that "most Americans agree" with how Bush is "handling the war on terror", quoting it as 55 percent. Excuse me? 55 percent seems to almost cut it down the middle! With almost half of Americans in disagreement, I don't think this is something to stand on a stump and beat your chest over. Is Tyrrell bad at math or just stupid? But with all the lies, hypocrisy, corruption, and anti-American/Constitution activities we see from the Republicans these days, I guess Tyrrell is trying to turn lemons into lemonade.
The Sham Court for Saddam Hussein - 07/26/06
Saddam Hussein, former ruler of Iraq before the American invasion and occupation, is a very nasty person. I'm not talking personal hygiene here, but rather he was a murderous, viscous, dictator responsible the misery and deaths of many. However, his current trial is nothing more than a puppet show in a kangaroo court. First of all, the 148 people he is accused of killing came about after an assassination attempt. Former President Clinton even ordered a missile strike after a failed assassination attempt on Former President George Bush. A better case can be made for the multitude of other killings Hussein is responsible for. But the biggest sham is the conduct and lack of professionalism from the court officers.
The prosecutors and the judge frequently bicker back and forth with Hussein, to a degree that they are using the court as a stage to express their political and philosophical beliefs. In one exchange between the prosecutor and Hussein, they argued and argued over how Hussein referred to himself. He calls himself the president of Iraq, and rightfully so. The prosecutor, in a show of power and disgust for Hussein, didn't want to refer to him that way. So back and forth they went. It was very childish and causes one to really question the credentials of the prosecutor.
Just this week, the Chief Judge showed his incompetence and lack of impartiality by arguing with Hussein over how Hussein should resist the American occupation. The judge accused Hussein of "inciting the killing of Iraqis". Shouldn't the judge be judging the case, rather than making his own personal accusations? He even cited percentages of how many Americans are killed for every Iraqi. Then amazingly, he gave Hussein what he thought was a better tack at ousting the Americans. He instructed Hussein to tell people to "attack American bases, not the market places and cafes." He said to "let them go on and attack the Americans." Excuse me?! Not only is this sorry excuse for a judge sitting up there and bickering with Hussein on a daily basis, but he outlines a better solution in killing Americans and getting them out of the country? Is the goal to humiliate and convict Hussein at any cost, even at the expense of a legitimate and impartial trial? Given the silence from the US on the court proceedings, it's no wonder that America is seen as a hypocritical nation.
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., typical Republican hypocrite - 07/14/06
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is an extreme right wing collumnist (i.e. blame everything on Bill Clinton and the Democrats while Republicans can do no wrong). And like most far right Republicans, he exhibits classic hypocrisy. In a recent column, he complains about the attempted extradition of British bankers to face charges in the United States. That are suspected of being part of the Enron scandal that ruined so many lives. Tyrrell claims that without bail, they could remain in jail for "as much as two years". He claims that even if they are found innocent, because of those two years of lock-up, "their lives are ruined". Yet Tyrrell is just fine and dandy with people being locked up for FOUR YEARS in the Guantanamo Bay, never being charged with a crime, and with no end in sight to their incarceration. In fact, he complains about them getting lawyers. So, up to two years will "ruin" the lives of rich bankers, but FOUR YEARS and counting is okay for others? Typical right wing hypocrisy!
Bush, Cheney, Rove, & Libby: evil doers - 07/14/06
President Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove (White House political adviser), and Lewis Libby (Cheney's former chief of staff) treasonously conspired to leak classified information and exposed the identity of an undercover CIA agent (Valerie Plame Wilson). See my longer article concerning this subject. They did this for revenge and political gain, because her husband has written an article critical of the Bush administration's trumped up reasons for attacking, invading, and occupying Iraq. Well Valerie Plame Wilson has now filed a lawsuit against Cheney, Libby, and Rove, claiming they conspired to ruin her career. From the facts seen thus far, she is entirely correct and should win this case. Personally, I think she should also definitely sue columnist Robert Novak because he was part of the conspiracy and actually published the article that exposed Wilson. I also think she might out to sue Bush too, but I think he's probably set up enough scapegoats to take the fall for him.
Enron & Kenneth Lay - 07/13/06
Former Enron executive Kenneth Lay died of heart attack on July 5th while vacationing at one of his mansions. Lay was convicted of six federal counts of fraud and conspiracy concerning the collapse of Enron. Lay misled investors and employees (many lost their life savings), "cooked" the accounting books, cashed out his own stocks for hundreds of millions of dollars, while hiding the fact that the company was in a death spiral of economic failure. At his memorial service, Lay was described as a "good man", a "straight arrow", a "Boy Scout" who lived by "Christian-Judeo principles". What a warped joke! And a slap in the fact of those Lay defrauded and destroyed, and an insult to the Boy Scouts and Christians. I doubt they would want Lay representing them. Regarding the Boy Scouts, Lay fails because he lacks the traits of being trustworthy, loyal, and reverent. He wasn't morally straight. As for Christian principles, lying and stealing aren't part of them. In regards to money and greed, Jesus tells us in Matthew 19:24 " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Wonder where Lay went for his eternal reward?
Working for a living - 07/06/06
Republicans continue to push for a repeal of the estate tax, while at the same time leading an effort to NOT raise the minimum wage. Currently the minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Back when I worked for minimum wage, it was about $3.35 an hour. On this I managed to buy food (unhealthy diet of cheap meat and noodles), pay rent (had five roommates in a two bedroom apartment), and pay for school (and books). It was a struggle that I wouldn't care to repeat and I don't see how people actually support their families on it, especially with the daily trials of life (such as sickness, automotive repairs, and other bills). The last time the minimum wage was raised was in 1997. Since then, members of Congress (mostly millionaires) have raised THEIR OWN PAY by $31,000 a year! Let's see, poor people don't deserve an increase of a single penny yet these ALREADY filthy rich people think they deserve $31K MORE of taxpayer money per year. They're all hypocritical pieces of crap!
Attention!: Iraq ain't Japan or Germany! - 06/27/06
For the second time in recent days I've heard idiots compare our invasion and occupation of Iraq to our WWII war with Japan and Germany. Each was done to somehow justify the policies of George Bush. The latest idiot to do this R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., an extreme right wing columnist who in my opinion equates Republicans to all-knowing, all-righteous gods while Democrats are evil demons. What little I have read of his writings has displayed the usual, common partisan hypocrisy that has come to dominate the GOP.
What we are doing in Iraq cannot compare to our military actions in Japan and Germany, neither in the acts themselves or the reasons we did them. Japan and Germany of the 1930s and 1940s were huge conquering war machines, with world dominance as their goal. Nation after nation had fallen to them. And they directly assaulted the United States and its interests. Anyone who thinks the Iraq can be compared to Japan and Germany can either be classified as idiots, or purposely being deceitful to push a political agenda. You choose which is the case.
North Korea might test long range missile - 06/20/06
Remember North Korea? The one I said Bush should be paying attention to instead of creating a terrorist haven in Iraq? Well it seems that they might be on the verge of testing their long range missile. The US, and others, are all in a huff and talking about possible punishment and sanctions. No matter how evil North Korea might be, it's still a sovereign nation. If the US can test it's missiles without sanctions, why can't North Korea test theirs? That's their point of view and a valid one. Of course, sometimes sanctions work and it's a better diplomatic tool than bombing raids and military invasion. I just don't know how to deal with the hypocrisy of the situation. We've reached a point as a nation, that we are strong enough, and willing to demand that others not pursue the path that made us strong.
Democrats going too far with Iraq pullout requests - 06/20/06
This is a warning to the Democratic party....ease up on demanding immediate or very near future troop withdrawals! You are dealing with the Republican party, which as demonstrated that they are very effective in staging get-out-the-hate campaigns. Yes the president misrepresented the case for war. Yes American soldiers are dying daily in search of Bush's weapons of mass destruction. Yes there are terrorists in Iraq (NOW, since Bush has opened up the borders for them). Now that Bush has turned Iraq into a terrorist Disney World, we can't just leave without a good plan. It's a quagmire and I don't know what the solution is. Of course we all support our troops and want them to kick butt in every battle. But Republicans, and the mindless minion that support and vote for them, will twist your good intentions of bringing our troops home, into some sort of anti-patriotic support for the terrorists. It will cost you in the next elections.
PS If you voted to give Bush the power to wage war without going through congress, quit whining about being wrong and sorry for your vote. Let's face it, the Republicans were riding the wave of McCarthyism and labeling anyone who didn't side with them as unpatriotic. Just admit you lacked the political strength to stand up for what was right. Bush NEVER presented enough evidence that we should attack a sovereign nation. Every single one of you should have voted no and demanded that ONLY congress can declare war. Bush, the Republicans, and those that support and vote for them continue to daily wipe their butts with the Constitution and the sorry Democrats are letting them get away with it!
Girl Sues MySpace Over Alleged Assault - 06/20/06
A 14-year-old girl claims she was sexually assaulted by a 19-year-old man she met via the MySpace social website. She's suing MySpace for $30 million. Apparently she holds them responsible for her own stupidity and ignorance. MySpace has no responsibility what so ever for this alleged assault. It was the girl who took the initiative to contact and meet up with this guy. Yet again idiots in our society don't think they should be responsible for their own actions. This case should be thrown out! Or maybe her parents should be charged since they gave her a computer and didn't provide "meaningful protections or security for underage users". Any jury that sides with this idiot family should be publicly caned.
Professor: Jesus may have walked on ice, not water - 04/06/06
Doron Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, claims that a natural explanation for the water-walking miracle attributed to Jesus might have been that Jesus was actually walking on a patch of ice. He claims that water and atmospheric conditions in the region 2000 years ago might could have been chilly enough to produce ice patches during cold spells. Nof doesn't know what he's talking about. A real miracle is probably more likely that his scenario. I would think this guy is intelligent, so I reckon he's doing this for publicity.
First of all, it has to be below freezing for a few days on end to make ice thick enough to walk on, especially on a large body of water. And even then it will still be relatively thin. I live in North Carolina and I have walked on ice, though I haven't seen ice thick enough to walk on in many, many, many years. We've had quite a few cold snaps this year, and it never produced ice thick enough to walk on. A free floating patch would have to be even thicker. And think of the dynamics. You'd have to maintain your balance while not slipping. Was Jesus a surfer dude?!
Secondly, if ice did form, everyone would know about it. All the kids would be playing on it. The response from the boat crew would not have been "look at that ghost", but rather "look at that fool out on the ice"!
Thirdly, the book of John tells us it was during or after Passover. Doesn't that occur during the spring? If we are going to have a rare, water freezing cold snap, I'd figure it would happen during the winter months.
Fourthly, what about Peter? The book of Matthew has Peter walking on the water with Jesus. Don't you think Peter would have noticed it was ice instead of water?
Fifthly, both books of Matthew and Mark, just previous to the water walk, talk about sending the multitude of people away because they are in a "desert" (i.e. it's HOT!). While desert regions can certainly get quite chilly at night, it's not enough to freeze the water to walking thickness.
With so much going against Nof's theory, it's quite clear that he hasn't given this any thought at all and doesn't seem to have a clue. You don't have to worry about Jesus being added to the Disney on Ice lineup. If Nof's wants a natural scenario, a more likely explanation would have been that Jesus was walking on a sandbar. I've done this and I've seen people do it, and it really does look like you're walking on the ocean.
Black congresswoman plays the race card - 04/05/06
U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (Democratic party), of Georgia, is claiming the efforts of a Capitol Hill police officer to stop her from entering the Capitol amounts to racism, and has even talked about filing "assault" charges against the police officer. She of course is an idiot. The facts of the matter is that the politicians are suppose to wear tags that identify them as members of congress. She admits she wasn't wearing hers. The police officer claims he didn't recognize her. Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant to her actions. My company requires ID badges and even though the lady at the front desk recognizes me each day, she still asks to see my ID. The police officer told her to stop. She didn't. When the police officer took hold of her arm in an effort to stop her, she allegedly struck the officer.
It's obvious that she knew why the police officer was holding her arm, and there's no way she felt in danger or any need for self defense. She seems to think her privileged position puts her above the rules others have to follow. She showed a disregard for protocol, a disregard for security, and a disregard for the law. Not only was the police officer justified in grabbing her, but after she assaulted him, he should have put her on the ground and in handcuffs. If she's too stupid and arrogant to follow the simple rules to get into the building, what kind of damage might she be doing to our country when congress is in session?
UPDATE NOTE: I just watched an "interview" of McKinney by CNN's Soledad O'Brien. Now I'm convinced that McKinney is a piece of crap and should be voted out of office! She had her lawyer there and he basically did all the talking, though they never answered a question. Time and time and time again, Soledad asked McKinney to tell her what happened that day and McKinney refused. I guess she doesn't want to admit she illegally assaulted a police officer. She only promoted her racial and political agenda, even going wildly to the topic of the Iraqi war. Hopefully a political opponent can use this to unseat her in the next election. I hope they charge her with a crime. I can guarantee if I did what she did, I would have been arrested and prosecuted.
UPDATE NOTE 06/20/06: A grand jury stupidly decided NOT to indict this idiot woman on assaulting a police officer. I guess she really is above the law!
Vice-President Dick Cheney shoots fellow hunter - 02/17/06
Last weekend Vice-President Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington (a lawyer friend) while quail hunting at a ranch in Texas. Cheney, who was using a 28 gauge Perazzi shotgun (made in Italy), hit Whittington in the face, neck, and chest. Whittington (age 78) remains in the hospital, and suffered a mild heart attack when one of the pellets migrated to his heart. It does appear he will recover. The news wasn't released until about a day later. Cheney also didn't talk to law enforcement until the next day. The media has been in a frenzy over this story.
First of all, the media has a right to complain about the lack of details and revelation on this shooting incident. When the Vice-President of the United States shoots someone, it's news! Had they made a full disclosure right away, there wouldn't be much of a mess. However this administration, and Cheney in particular, have pretty much gone out of their way to keep the press in the dark on matters big and small, so that is partially fueling this fire. The local law enforcement have already deemed this an accident and will not press charges. Cheney did lack the proper permit, but has already taken care of that.
Any problems? Yes! Within an hour, the victim was already at the hospital. At that point Cheney should have been interviewed by the police. Things are fresh in his mind and witnesses, plus the cops can see if he was under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. Rest assured, if you or I shot someone, we wouldn't have the luxury of waiting until the next day to speak with the police. While I do think this is just an accident, I also think it was because of negligence and disregard for safety on Cheney's part. Number one, you're suppose to know where your hunting partners are. Number two, you shouldn't fire on the level, especially if you don't know where your hunting partners are. Quails are low flyers, which means you need to be extra careful. And number three, know your target! If the sun is in your eyes, or anything else is problematic, don't shoot! If someone is so focused on shooting a bird that they don't realize they are pointing at a person, that person is too dangerous to be hunting.
Two other things still bother me about this fiasco. The first is that the Cheney defense league is already trying to blame the victim, saying he walked up "unannounced". Sorry, but in all the quail hunting I've done, we never walked around announcing ourselves. If you don't know where your partner is, don't shoot! Secondly, Cheney was using a foreign gun that costs tens of thousands of dollars (over $20K!) that he traveled personally to Italy to buy. What the hell is wrong with buying American! I'll take my American made Remington shotgun over Cheney's Italian gun any daggone day of the week. Go USA!
Senate Judiciary Committee: just a sham - 01/12/06
Let's stop the pretending. People have already made up their minds on the subject. Nothing new is going to be learned. The senators should just vote, or filibuster, or whatever and be done with it. President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The Republicans couldn't be happier given Alito's stance on abortion and other causes adopted by the GOP. The Democrats are worried for the exact same reasons.
Listening to the questioning is nothing but an exercise in frustration. Alito is never going to give a straight answer, or anything that can be construed as an answer to the more controversial topics. I hear the question, then I hear the babbling rhetoric from Alito, and I realize he didn't answer the question at all. If he's not going to give answers, why waste time asking questions? If he doesn't have the fortitude to be honest and forthright, then just use his past rulings, statements, and papers to form your opinion (this also applies to any potential Democratic justices in the future). Alito is on record as being against abortion and has even stated he doesn't consider it a constitutional right. So you can bet your bottom dollar if given the chance he will vote to overturn it. Simple as that. Alito listed membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (an organization wanting admission restrictions on women and minorities) on a job application. He claims no recollection of his membership. You've got two choices people, either he is lying now (there's no way an educated person wouldn't remember a job reference like that) or he was lying when he listed it (i.e. he did it because he thought it would make him a better candidate for the job). You choose which lie you think he told, but don't fool yourself into thinking he hasn't lied.
So let's stop pretending this is a real hearing, because it's nothing but a sham, wasting time and tax payer money. Either confirm the dude, or filibuster him. Even though he doesn't have the guts to give real answers, we already know where he stands on the issues.
Republican Apologists - 11/28/05
The Republican apologists are now coming out of the woodwork, trying to explain away the failures of President Bush. Funny how they criticized the Democrats for doing the same thing during Clinton's presidency, but blatant hypocrisy seems to be the hallmark of the Republican party. Although the Republicans seem to whine about the "liberal" media with every breath they take, I can't seem to turn on the radio or television without coming across a Democrat bashing commentator. Where are all the radio and television station programs that have Republican bashing?
Anyway, well known Republican apologist and hate-monger Ann Coulter is yet again on the warpath, attacking Democrats with her lies and misinformation. She now refers to Democrats as "gutless traitors" for exercising their constitutional rights in questioning President Bush (who I remind you, was a draft-dodger). The Republicans had no problem criticizing and humiliating President Clinton before the world, making us seem weak and disorganized, yet apologists like Coulter cry foul if their Lord and Savior, George Bush, gets any type of criticism. McCarthyism worshiper Coulter brags about the "scores of foreign terrorists" that have been killed in Baghdad. The key word here is FOREIGN. Of course we're killing scores of them. George Bush has now turned Iraq into a terrorist Disneyland for God's sake! It went from a tightly controlled dictatorship to a terrorist breeding ground. All thanks to Bush.
Partisan hate-monger Coulter also trivializes the price our American soldiers are paying. She says we've done all this work with "just over 2,000 deaths", and downplays it by comparing the death toll to the Civil War, WWII, and Vietnam. Apparently Coulter is too ignorant to realize that not only have we lost brave American servicemen, but each death also represents many more shattered lives. How many children have lost a parent? How many parents have lost children? Brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives? Friends? What of the thousands upon thousands of wounded Americans? Those that have lost eyes, hands, feet, legs, arms, the ability to walk, etc.? And what of the thousands of innocent Iraqi dead? Coulter is so busy being a Republican apologist, spewing hate and distorting the truth, that she doesn't see the big picture (or she does and willingly deceives). I'm not naïve, I know war isn't clean. But I despise people like Coulter, who trivialize the American cost just to cover-up the lackluster decisions of her god (President Bush).
Bob Woodward's comments on CIA operative leak - 11/21/05
Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, is apparently somehow involved in the case of where a CIA operative's name was publicly listed in a newspaper. What gets me is how dismissive he is of the potential damage it could have caused. His reasoning is that the damage from CIA's agent exposure was "quite minimal". That's like being dismissive of the damage a drunk driver can cause, just because they happen to make it home okay after a night of drinking.
Robert Blake liable in wife's death - 11/21/05
In a repeat of the OJ Simpson trial, actor Robert Blake was found innocent of murder in his criminal trial, yet found liable for the death in a civil trial. He was ordered to pay $30 million in damages. I hate to say it, but if you take a look at a civil trial jury selection, you're probably looking at some the most stupid and illogical people around. The jurors said they were swayed by Blake's combative attitude and how he confronted the plaintiffs' attorneys. In other words, rather than solely relying on facts and evidence as they should, they ruled against Blake because they didn't like him. He could have got up there and personally cursed each juror, and they still should only used fact and evidence in deciding the case. Our civil "justice" system is nothing but a joke.
Equal justice? - 11/16/05
A 41 year old woman from Colorado, Silvia Johnson, wanted to be a "cool mom". She had parties for high school students that included alcohol and drugs. She admitted having sex with high school boys. Johnson plead guilty to misdemeanor counts of sexual assault and felony accounts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Meanwhile, a North Carolina woman, Ann Miller Kontz, pleaded guilty to murdering her husband by poisoning him with arsenic (and it took more than one try) and conspiracy to commit murder. She is alleged to have been having an affair with a co-worker of hers, who allegedly helped plan the murder. He committed suicide after being interviewed by police. The bottom line is that Kontz planned and executed a murder plot on her husband. How much prison time did she get? she was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
This just goes to show how screwed up our courts and legal system is. Justice varies from court room to court room, from state to state. Although what Johnson did was wrong, at least legally, we are talking about consensual sex here. These were high school teenagers, who know right from wrong, and who were willing participants. Johnson should have received a very light sentence, possibly just probation, with a requirement for counseling. The teenagers involved should also be required to go to counseling (remember that they also broke the law by consuming alcohol and drugs). She should have NOT been sentenced to a ridiculous 30 years in prison.
Kontz on the other hand, outright murdered someone. A slow, painful murder with arsenic poisoning. One she had to plan, and then work on over time since the first poisoning didn't kill her husband. Think of the husband's shattered family. Think of the co-worker's shattered family, given his suicide and alleged involvement in this plot. But Kontz is sentenced to less time that the "cool mom". Only 25 years for purposely, cruelly snuffing out the life of an innocent man. Instead, Kontz should have been sentenced to death, and executed with arsenic poisoning.
Texas overturns death sentence for third time - 10/06/05
For the third time, confessed and convicted killer Johnny Paul Penry's death sentence for a murder he committed has been overturned. He claims he's "mentally retarded" and should not be executed for his crime. Around 1979, Penry broke into Pamela Moseley Carpenter's (age 22) home and raped her, beat her, and stabbed her. He admitted to planning the attack. He admitted to laying in wait, for her husband to leave. He admitted that he planned to kill her so she couldn't identify him. When he committed this crime, he was on parole for another rape he had committed.
What a bunch of crap! First of all, he should have been executed after the first rape. But no matter what some IQ test says, this man is fully responsible for his actions, especially given the planning he did, his reasoning, and the brutality of it. He knew what he was doing and knew the consequences of it. However, he should not be executed with lethal injection. After a lengthy torture session, possibly over a few days, he should be tied to stake, doused with gasoline, and set on fire.
NC Lottery Vote: Democrats LOSE integrity - 08/31/05
Just days after I praised the Democrats for taking the high road, they pull a Republican-style "fast one" and take the low road to get the lottery vote. North Carolina will now have a lottery, after Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue cast the tie-breaking vote to approve the bill. Senate leader Marc Basnight called the Senators back to Raleigh to vote because he thought the votes were there. Two Republicans were missing and apparently there either wasn't a provision for their votes to be included, or they just didn't cast them. The "fast one" was Perdue suspending the rule that requires TWO separate votes on TWO separate days. They are not playing fair when they suspend rules to give themselves an advantage. It's sneaky and makes them just as bad as the ones they complain about. Does the ends justify the means? In some cases it might. I think North Carolina should have a lottery and will benefit from it. But I don't think the Democrats should have stooped to such a low to get the law passed. They've burned a honor and integrity bridge with me on this one. Besides, until we actually join the Powerball with other states, I don't think the lottery is going to live up to it's full potential for our state. I wanted a lottery, but not like this. Shame on the Democrats for not playing by the rules.
North Carolina's Superintendent of Public Instruction - 08/24/05
North Carolina FINALLY has a new Superintendent of Public Instruction, NINE months after the November 2004 election. Democrat June Atkinson, who garnered 8,535 more votes than her opponent, was sworn into the office on Tuesday, after the General Assembly of the Senate and House. Why did it take so long? Because the piece of crap Republican that ran against her and lost, has been contesting the results from day one. See my other posting below, called "2004 Superintendent of Public Instruction election - 02/16/05". This is typical Republican hypocrisy and bitterness. More than 50 lawmakers, almost all Republican, wrote "protest" on their ballot. Apparently they thought they still couldn't determine a winner. This was a statewide election with a clear winner. If someone doesn't think June Atkinson should be in that office because of the vote count, they are clearly an idiot.
NC Lottery Vote: Democrat shows integrity - 08/24/05
Unfortunately, North Carolina is still without a lottery. The decision is still determined by law maker vote, instead of popular citizen vote. And for some reason, only Democrats support the lottery in NC (it doesn't seem to be a partisan issue in other states). Tuesday night ended with the lottery approval being only ONE VOTE SHY. But here's the amazing part the Democrats could have actually got that vote on a technicality. A Republican that was missing could have had his vote thrown out because he failed to follow proper procedure with his absence request. But Senate leader, Democrat Marc Basnight, chose not to take advantage of that loophole and decided instead to decide the vote in "an honorable way". It was completely to the Democrat's advantage, yet they chose to lose the vote because of honor and integrity. I doubt you'll EVER see that from today's Republican. Their win at all cost attitude means they'll stoop to any level, without regard to civility, legality, morality, or honor, in order to get their political agenda in place. Bravo for the Democrats showing what kind of integrity we need from our law makers.
NC Governor denies pardon - 08/19/05
NC Governor Mike Easley had two cases of men wrongly convicted of rape to consider. He pardoned Leo Waters, who had already served 21 years in prison. Waters was freed from prison when DNA evidence proved the perpetrator wasn't him. A pardon of innocence allows a wrongfully convicted person to seek $20,000 a year from the state for each year the person was imprisoned, up to an amount of $500,000.
However, Easley denied a pardon for Sylvester Smith, who was convicted in a 1984 trial of first degree rape and two counts of first degree sexual offense. Smith's alleged victims, who were children at the time, recanted their earlier testimony blaming Smith. They claimed their grandmother told them to lie to protect the real culprit, who was a cousin. This actually exposes a problem with our courts, in that they rely too heavily on verbal accounts, which are often fabrications. Anyway, a court ordered Smith released from prison, he won a new trial, and a prosecutor dismissed the charges. So why did Easley deny a pardon in this case?
It just so happens that Easley himself was the prosecutor that sent Smith to jail! What we have here is an EXTREME case of conflict of interest. Easley should grant a pardon because we all know that without the children's testimony, especially if they are pointing the finger at someone else, Easley NEVER would have got a conviction in the first place. It's wrong and egotistical to deny a pardon, and I think it borders on being a crime. Why won't he admit he made a mistake? Is he afraid of a potential civil lawsuit? Did he suppress evidence at the original trial, and now he's trying to keep it from the light of day? I've said it before, that we need a system in place that will allow the Lt. Governor to make decisions, such as pardons and clemency, when the Governor has a clear conflict of interest. I've just lost a lot of respect for Mike Easley.
Should "Intelligent Design" be taught in science class? - 08/18/05
Lately we've been hearing a lot of people say that "intelligent design" should be taught in science class, right along side evolution, geography, and other sciences. This is basically from pro-Christian groups (though I think them mostly hypocrites), who are trying to get God back in the classroom, under the radar of the separation of church and state. They say something along the lines that everything is too complex for us to understand, so some supernatural being must have done it. Rubbish! It's nothing but religion and religion should NOT be in schools. Teach religion in church or at home, but reserve the classroom time for facts and science. Just because we don't currently know how something happened, or have all the facts and information, that doesn't mean we have to assume some giant invisible spook in the sky did it. And which "designer" would the religious nuts have us pick? God? Zeus? Apollo? or any of the other numerous gods of the world? There's no reason to speculate about which god, if any, had a hand in the design of universe. Religions can do that in their religious services. School classes should be used to taking the facts as we know them, and seeing how they fit together. When it comes to gods, spooks, and spirits, it's only a guess since no one has any proof beyond voices in their head. When God appears on Good Morning America, or Larry King Live, then we'll know.
Anti-War protests - 08/18/05
Cindy Sheehan's son , Casey, was killed in Iraq last year will looking for all those weapons of mass destruction that President George Bush claimed to exist. Since learning of all the deception from the president and his supporters, Sheehan has turned her sorrow and outrage into an anti-war protest. She's currently camped out near Bush's ranch, demanding he meet with her and answer some questions. Others have jumped on her band wagon and now anti-war protests and vigils are popping up all over the country. A lot of Republicans, the heartless cannibals that they are, have turned on this grieving mother, denouncing her for having the gall to exercise her first amendment right. They claim she's hurting troop moral, she's dishonoring her son with her own political agenda, etc. Bullcrap! That's all part of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" rhetoric that Republicans continue to spew. Sheehan, by virtue of her son losing his life because of George Bush, has EARNED the RIGHT to protest this war, and Bush's actions. The ones that question and demean her are the real ones with political agendas.
"bring 'em on'' - 08/03/05
In July 2003, Republican President George Bush had a message for Iraqi insurgents that wanted to attack and kill American soldiers. He said, "bring 'em on''. Well today, Iraqi insurgents once again fulfilled Bush's request by killing FOURTEEN Marines in a single road side blast. TWENTY-ONE Marines have been killed in Iraq over the last three days. In rising to Bush's call, the insurgents are developing more and more sophisticated weapons; even shaped charges that easily penetrate the armor of our military vehicles. To date, the number of U.S. troops killed in Bush's war on Iraq stands at 1,820. That's ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY Americans that are now dead, from trying to find those weapons of mass destruction that Bush claimed to exist...from trying to stop the building of nuclear weapons that Bush claimed Iraq was involved in...from trying to cut the links to al Qaeda that Bush claimed to exist. We have since learned that all of Bush's claims were false. Yet day after day, more and more Americans are being butchered, cheered on by Bush's request for them to "bring 'em on''. How many families have been shattered and destroyed? How many other Americans have been mutilated, maimed, and crippled in Bush's war on Iraq? Thousands!!! An attack on Afghanistan was mandated by their attack on us. And we should attack to stop potential harm to the United States and its citizens. But the floundering and unjustified war on Iraq is because of one particular president and one particular political party. It's a stinking quagmire that will undoubtedly cost many more American lives. How anyone can vote Republican and still be able to look an American soldier in the eye is beyond me.
Toddler killed by careless, incompetent police - 07/14/05
During a standoff with police last Sunday in Los Angeles, Jose Raul Pena allegedly used his 19 month old daughter, Suzy, as a human shield while he took shots at the police. Pena fired 40 shots at police during three separate exchanges. The police (SWAT) responded by firing 90 shots at Pena, killing him and his daughter. The coroner determined that the little girl was killed by a single police bullet to the head.
This demonstrates just how careless, incompetent, and cowardly some police can be. One of the scariest things you can see in a civilized community is a police officer with their gun drawn. They seem to lack the training (both physically and mentally) needed in these situations, and that coupled with their ego driven authority status makes a deadly combination. This hostage situation unfolded over a couple or so HOURS. That's PLENTY of time to bring in negotiators and police snipers. What you don't do is fire haphazardly at a guy holding a child! The police claimed they were forced into their actions. Bull-crap! Cowards! If they were being fired upon and they lacked the skills to shoot their weapon accurately, they should take cover or run. They are the ones that forced the final showdown. From what I've read so far, the guy was trapped. A sniper should have EASILY been able to take him out. Even the regular police should have been able to accurately shoot without killing an innocent toddler. There is no excuse for this kind of tragedy. While I remove no blame from Pena, I also hold the police officers directly responsible for killing the child. And the fact that the police are even now "circling the wagons" and not accepting responsibility raises red flags and warnings that this is a continuing problem. It's disgusting! How in the world can someone fire at a person holding a child when they know they don't have the skills to accurately place the shot? And 11 officers fired! There should have been one or two expert snipers in place to cleanly take Pena down.
Some police need to lose their jobs over this. And they should be treated JUST LIKE a civilian who fired blindly at a criminal and killed an innocent person. It's NO different.
Note: A radio news report says the police shot came from a rifle. If true, that's even worse given how much easier it is to place a rifle shot over a handgun shot. If true, criminal charges should be brought against the officer.
Iraqi war update - 07/01/05
President Bush claimed that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" and implied they were working on nuclear weapons. Bush tied Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Because of these things, and neo-McCarthyism, Congress (the gutless wonders that they are) gave Bush the power to wage war and he did. But we quickly learned that none of it was true. We were misled. Hussein was just a bad dictator who had a bad history with the Bush family. Now over 1,700 Americans have died in Iraq (not to mention the thousands that have been wounded and maimed). Over 12,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. With no controlling dictator, Iraq has become a terrorist haven as foreigners pour into the region. The cost so far is over $200 billion. Yet even though our country was misled about the reasons to go into Iraq, and there seems to be no end to the violence and the deaths of our service men, Bush still claims the "sacrifice" is worth it. This is from a man who pulled strings to get into the National Guard so he would NOT have to serve in Vietnam (then he barely showed up for duty). This is from a coward that runs for cover every time a plane happens to fly too close to the White House. This is from a man who faked Christianity to get votes from those too stupid to see through his ruse. At some point America needs to say, enough is enough!
Michael Jackson verdict - 06/14/05
Michael Jackson has been found NOT GUILTY on all accounts in his child molestation trial. He was charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy two years ago at his Neverland Ranch. Whether or not justice was served, this is the CORRECT verdict for this trial. Finally, jurors actually followed the rule of law, followed the instructions of the court, and used their brains instead of their emotions in their decision making process. Did Jackson commit the crimes he was charged with? I don't know. Given how weird he seems and the circumstances he was in, it's certainly possible, or maybe even probable.
What is certain is that the district attorney did NOT prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The things that are beyond doubt is that the accuser (and others) are proven liars and are in this for the money. That doesn't mean that some things they claimed weren't true, but when they intentional lie, as they did and confessed to, it puts doubt onto all of their testimony. I can't help but feel that the mother and family intentionally put the accuser in this situation with future hopes of collecting some money.
But the thing I'm most happy about is the performance of the jury. They did an excellent job and weren't swayed by the underhanded tactics of the district attorney. For example, the DA deceitfully tried to make it seem that having pornographic material in your home makes you a bad person, and a molester. The jurors saw right through that ruse. In reference to the material, a juror said, "Anybody can own them", and "It doesn't prove the charge". Another juror claimed that they did what they were "instructed to do". Bravo!
Note to the logic impaired: If Jackson really did those things, regardless of how bad the family might be, he should be punished. Even if it was entrapment, driven by monetary desire, it would still be criminal intent on Jackson's part. My comments are only relative to the jurors following the rule of law.
"Deep Throat" revealed - 06/01/05
The informant known as "Deep Throat", that helped bring down the Richard Nixon presidency, has stepped forward to reveal himself. Mark Felt, the second in command of the FBI at the time, helped provide information to the Washington Post that exposed the details of the Watergate break-in and cover-up. Although his family might consider him "heroic", I don't see anything heroic about his actions. Certainly, a lot of it was due to "sour grapes", for being passed up by Nixon to be head of the FBI. Part of it might have been loyalty to the FBI, and not liking the way Nixon wanted to control the organization. And part of it could have been a sense of duty, to expose the corruption and crime in the Nixon administration. Nonetheless, Felt did the right thing in exposing the conspiracy.
Russian "justice" - 06/01/05
Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been found guilty of fraud and tax evasion and sentenced to spend about 7.5 years in prison. A lot of people feel that he was singled out by the Kremlin (i.e. Putin) because of his support for opposition political parties. Although I have no doubt that this is a political prosecution, at the same time this guy benefited and became rich because of corrupt politics and government policies. He bit the hand that fed him and now he's paying the price. It might be unfair that others are not being prosecuted, I'm not going to shed a tear for the one they did decide to go after.
Arthur Andersen conviction overturned - 06/01/05
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of accounting firm Arthur Andersen, which had been convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to Enron. The court cited faulty jury instructions. Something's rotten here. I believe Andersen knew exactly what Enron was up to and they knew exactly what they were doing, and why they were doing it, when they destroyed those documents. Even if they had a company policy that said documents should be destroyed....even if the instructions to the jury were wrong, I believe Anderson willingly and purposely destroyed evidence in an attempt to cover up what Enron was doing. But believing something and proving it in court are two separate issues. The ones that were hurt were the innocent employees (and consumers). The rich executives are STILL rich, and that shows you there is still something wrong with the system.
Poker a game of skill? - 05/24/05
A group wanting to open a poker club in Durham, NC got a negative ruling from a local judge. Under North Carolina law, it is illegal to play a game of chance if betting is involved. Why it is illegal, I have no idea. But since you can throw all your money away playing the games of chance at the NC State Fair, it probably has a lot to do with fake morality, hypocrisy, and who gets the money. The judge in this case ruled that poker is not like a sport, where talent is the main reason for winning. While I agree that cards are dealt and drawn on chance, I'm certain that to actually win at the game takes quite a bit of skill. Winning one hand is not true "winning". Walking away with more money is winning. And if you don't know when to hold them or when to fold them, that's just not going to happen. It's a game of knowing the odds, knowing the deck, and evaluating the style of the other players. I use to have a simple poker game on my computer. I found that if I played each hand to win, trying for that inside straight for example, I always ended up in the hole. But if I played with more skill, observing when other players bet, and folding much more often, I came out ahead. Better to lose a few small antes than a large pot. The better hands would pay off in the end. So poker is most definitely a game of skill. Rather than arguing the point with experts, those guys should have given a demonstration by playing a few hands with the judge.
More evil - 05/23/05
An 8 year old girl went missing on Sunday. By sheer, uncanny luck, she was found alive under rocks and crushed concrete INSIDE a covered recycling bin dumped in a garbage trailer at a shuttered landfill. Apparently the 17 year old that was staying with her godmother sexually assaulted the girl and put her in the trash to die. Along with assault, the guy is also charged with attempted murder. If the police account is true, this guy needs to be horse whipped, then tied to a stake, doused with gasoline, and then set on fire. I really wish this world had a deity that would at least look out for the children. But if God isn't going to do it, WE need to do it. And it starts by making gruesome examples of those we catch.
Another one bites the dust! - 05/13/05
Connecticut executed serial killer Michael Ross at 2:25am. Hooray!!! He had been sent to death row for the murder of four young women and confessed to four more, and most of them he also raped. The only sad thing about his execution is that he should have been doused with gasoline and set ablaze rather than killed with a lethal injection. Abandoning all his appeals, Ross willingly went to the execution chamber. Of course, there were idiot protesters there, saying he shouldn't be executed for his crime (even though he is guilty without the shadow of doubt). One had a sign that falsely proclaimed that "all life is sacred". If you want to put religion on it, read the Old Testament for proof that not all life is sacred.
Ross was almost executed in January when a stupid federal judge scolded his attorney and even threatened to lift his law license for trying to hasten Ross' execution. That shows another flaw in our legal system. Legally, a lawyer is suppose to make sure proper legal procedures are followed and all your rights are intact. But in today's society, people, such as this judge, assume lawyers are suppose to get their clients out of punishment, regardless of guilt.
Religious Politics - 05/11/05
A Baptist preacher in Waynesville, North Carolina is accused of running nine congregants out of the church because they disagreed with his Republican politics. The claim was that during the last presidential vote, he said people that support John Kerry should repent or resign, and that he has continued to "preach" politics that culminating in voting the nine people out of the church. I read today that although he welcomed the people back (most likely due to the negative publicity), he has resigned. Good riddance!!! There is NO place for this type of crap in a house of worship. It has nothing to do with God, but rather it is firmly rooted in politics, secular concerns, personal agendas, and hypocrisy. Republican political candidates are not saints!
Sadly, I even heard my own preacher from the church my grandfather founded criticising anyone who was going to vote for Bill Clinton. It was very, very wrong to use God's house to push his own political agenda and the only reason I didn't say anything was because I didn't want to embarrass my family members. It will NOT happen again, though I may give them a word of warning that they might want to step out of the church for a few minutes. :)
Sad state of human affairs - 05/11/05
Seems like I can't read the news without hearing about a child that has been killed by some horrible, sick, excuse for a human being. It weighs heavily on my soul. I detest the low lifes of the world but those they prey on children are the worst. I truly believe that these people should be tortured long and hard, and in public, before finally being executed (in the most gruesome way possible).
Biblical inconsistencies - 03/22/05
I recently came across a website devoted to bashing the Mormon faith. I noticed that one of their arguments relied on an event in one gospel, that didn't happen in another. That got me thinking about the bible and its various events. Consider the following case when Peter denied knowing Jesus...
In Matthew, Jesus tells Peter that he will deny Him three times before the cock crows once.
Matthew 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
From Matthew we get this timeline: Peter's denial -> Peter's denial -> Peter's denial -> cock crows
But in Mark, Jesus tells Peter that before the cock crocks twice, he will deny Him three times.
Mark 14:30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.
So from Mark we get this different timeline: Peter's denial -> cock crows -> Peter's denial -> Peter's denial -> cock crows
This is significant because a) it's an inconsistency, b) it's Jesus doing the talking here, and c) if you mix and match what happens, it will mess up a prophesy from Jesus. Does this inconsistency matter in the big scheme of things? Probably not. But it is interesting because I've run across a couple of people that just can't handle it. They claim there are no inconsistencies in the bible and flat out refuse to acknowledge or answer questions in regards to such things.
There are most definitely inconsistencies in the bible. Acknowledge them. Study them. Attempt to find a solution. But to deny them shows a form of deception, not worthy of those that consider themselves a Christian.
Bible fact or Bible faith - 03/01/05
Twice in one week I've heard references to the bible as a "book of faith" rather than a "book of facts". If you hear something like that, it should raise red flags all over the place. It means the person or organization is having trouble dealing with something within the bible, quite often something that probably condemns something in their lifestyle that they don't want to change. It's also a way of not having to deal with some of the harsh realities of the bible, or some of the things that might seem contradictory. A lot of organized religions today are nothing more than social clubs. People get together to sing and eat and talk about the business of the church. If they actually paid attention to what the bible says, they would have to change their lifestyle way too much. So instead of changing their ways, they change what the bible means, or white-wash it with general statements like it's a "book of faith".
If you can't accept the facts of the bible, you might as well be reading some secular work of fiction.. It could equally inspire you without giving you factual events. A man was arrested this week for being the BTK (bind, torture, kill) serial killer. He was charged with the brutal murders of at least 10 people. Yet he was the president of his church council!!! I'm sure that he too saw the bible as a book of faith rather than a book of fact, or truth. More people need to believe the wages of sin are real and literal, especially if they call themselves Christian.
Juvenile death penalty - 03/01/05
The Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 vote, has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional for criminals that were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes. The court said it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and that the United States should "acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime". First of all, they shouldn't be using an international trend to measure the Constitution of the United States.
Secondly, what are they going to do with all those sentenced to life instead of death? If the murderers are somehow less culpable because of their age, then likewise, shouldn't they be sentence to less time? Isn't locking them away for life, or even very long sentences, also a form of cruel and unusual punishment?
Personally, I think they should be held FULLY accountable for their crimes, and be executed if the crime is murder (and a few others). I would say the age limit should be 16. Since we think 16 year olds are capable of driving large vehicles on the road, and making life and death decisions with each turn of the steering wheel, they should also be held accountable for the heinous crimes they commit. Especially when those crimes show obvious planning, calculation, and evil intentions. Although teenagers may act more impulsively than older people, they still know right from wrong and the consequences of their actions. I think the Supreme Court is quite wrong on this ruling.
NOTE: I do realize that some people are saying 16 year olds shouldn't be driving either, but that doesn't change my mind in thinking they should be held fully responsible for their criminal actions. 16 year olds might like to drive fast and reckless, but they still know it's wrong.
2004 Superintendent of Public Instruction election - 02/16/05
When you hear about a Democrat contesting an election result, you hear a lot of flap from Republicans about how the Democrat should concede, especially for the "good of his party". But when the shoe is on the other foot, I don't seem to hear the same kind of comments. Although I hate to make general, partisan type comments, it seems increasingly clear that the Republicans follow the "put a Republican in office at all costs" mantra. Morality, decency, and legality doesn't seem to matter.
In November, we had a North Carolina state election for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Democrat June Atkinson beat the Republican Bill Fletcher by 8,500 votes. That's right folks, EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED votes. Yet Republican Fletcher is STILL contesting the election, THREE months after it happened. Fletcher wants 11,000 ballots thrown out, claiming the people voted in the wrong precinct. There are two things wrong with this picture. First of all, precedence has already shown that in similar cases, what matters is the actual vote rather than where it was cast. And secondly, in a state wide election, it shouldn't matter at all where the vote was cast.
This is yet another example of a Republican NOT wanting to count people's votes because it won't be in their favor. Disgusting Republican tactics like this make me want to join the Democratic party more and more.
American Idol rejects God's choice! - 01/20/05
First of all, I don't watch the American Idol singing show. I hate it and all the other "reality" shows that have flooded television over the last few years. But my family watches it, which means I do catch parts of it when I'm in the room. Anyway, on the latest round of the show an attractive girl told the panel that God himself wanted her to perform and told her she would win (or something to that effect). Well, her singing was less that spectacular and she was booted from the show. After her dismissal, she offered some comments for the designated jerk of the judging panel, Simon. Unfortunately, they had to "bleep" out a lot of what she said! This is one of God's chosen? I believe this is yet more proof of my hypothesis that most do NOT actually believe in God, despite their claims. How can a person claim to be in God's court at one moment, then speak Satan's language a few minutes later?
Abu Ghraib abuse trial - 01/07/05
The accused ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, Spc. Charles Graner, is going on trial. Graner doesn't deny abusing the prisoners. There's photos of him doing it. One shows him cocking his fist to punch a hooded detainee. He's accused of jumping on them, stomping their hands and feet, etc. The prosecution claims he punched one man in the temple hard enough to knock him out and require medical treatment. What's Graner's defense? He claims he was just following orders!
For those of you that think that's a justifiable excuse for his actions, let me remind you that the Nazis also used that excuse when they went on trial for killing millions of Jews. And it's probably true. I have no doubt that Graner was ordered to "soften up" the prisoners, though I doubt anyone told him what technique to use. I also have no doubt that Nazis were ordered to kill Jews. But if you think that is a good enough excuse for Graner, then you should also agree with those Nazis. Personally, I don't except it as a justifiable excuse. Those actions show evil intent in their hearts. It's takes a bad person to do that to people, just because you had orders. Consider this, the Nazis might have faced one of Hitler's firing squads if they had not followed orders. What would have happened to Graner had he refused to abuse prisoners? Probably nothing, because a) it would have been the legal thing to do, and b) others would fear exposure if they tried to punish Graner.
Should Alberto Gonzales be Attorney General? - 01/07/05
White House counsel Alberto Gonzales is President Bush's nominee for attorney general. But I think his past stance on torture definitions should eliminate him as a candidate. Gonzales was involved in a Justice Department memo that tried to redefined torture so that the people could torture prisoners "legally" without fear of prosecution. They wanted to define torture as something that causes "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." That means the famous Vietcong technique of shoving bamboo shoots up your fingernails would be sanctioned by Gonzales. Arms twisted behind the back and out of socket? Okay with Gonzales. Wires wrapped around genitals and electrified? That's okay too with the Gonzales' new torture definition.
The problem is that Gonzales agrees with the mentality that you can change the rules and laws as you see fit to protect yourself when you want to do bad things. That means as attorney general, he might lobby to change the laws and rules in order to prosecute someone that is actually behaving legally under the current system. That's not right and it's against the American way. It's also hypocritical. Gonzales also wrote a memo in which he thought we shouldn't adhere to the Geneva conventions with regards to prisoners caught during our "war on terrorism". How in the world can we expect other nations to treat Americans the right way if we don't treat them the right way?! Gonzales only wants to follow the rule of law when it's convenient. He should not be the attorney general of the United States.
Tom DeLay and Republican hypocrisy - 11/17/04
House Republicans want to change a party rule that requires leaders to step down from their post after a felony indictment. They enacted the rule in the early 1990s, supposedly to show their morality and ethics. Why do they want to change the rule now? Because the Republican party is a bunch of corrupt hypocrites, that's why. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has had three of his political associates indicted and the Republicans fear DeLay might also be indicted. So to make sure that DeLay retains his post as Majority Leader, they want to change the rule. If this isn't a clear example of the blatant hypocrisy, lack of ethics, and moral corruption that exists within the Republican party, I don't know what is! The Republican hierarchy is clear, the individual comes first, the political party comes second, but decency, ethics, and the welfare of the United States is somewhere else, way down the list. What a shame.
Bill Maher sued by ex-girlfriend - 11/15/04
Sometimes a news story just makes you sick of the greed and lack of morals of the human species. Comedian Bill Maher is being sued by an ex-girlfriend for $9 million dollars. Coco Johnsen claims that Maher caused her to give up her airline stewardess job because she thought he was going to marry her and give her a house. When that didn't happen, she ended the 17 month relationship and sued him. Can you believe this?!!! She dated him for ONLY 17 months and thinks he owes her NINE million dollars. If airline stewardesses make this kind of money, I'm in the wrong business. Why doesn't she just get her job back? Why would he owe her money if they weren't married? And how the hell does she figure he owes her $9 million?! In my opinion, this is yet another example of a greedy gold-digger using the idiotic American court system to make some easy money. The lawsuit should be thrown out and Johnsen and her lawyer should be fined for filing it in the first place.
Georgia's biology textbooks - 11/15/04
There's currently a federal lawsuit going on in Atlanta, Georgia over whether the constitutional separation of church and state was violated when a sticker concerning evolution was placed on high school biology books in 2002. At first I didn't think so, but as I've re-thought the matter, I tend to agree that the sticker is an indirect promotion of religion. The sticker was placed there as a result of previous actions by people who oppose evolution on "religious" grounds. The sticker basically says evolution is a theory, not a fact, and the material in the book should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. The problem is that although the sticker doesn't directly say anything about religion, it was put there ONLY because of religion (Christian religion) reasons. It was put there by people that consider evolution to be atheistic. Plus consider the fact that they don't complain about any other theories in the book, only evolution. I guarantee that these same lunatics would complain if "creationism" was being taught and it was some version of creation OTHER than the Christian view. It's the same everywhere you go. Hypocritical, religious nuts want God and religion in government, but only if it's their particular version of it. The bottom line is that science should be taught in science class, and religion should be taught in theology classes and church.
November 2004 presidential election - 11/03/04
Looks like the Republican "get-out-the-hate" campaign has been successful in getting George Bush elected for a second term. At least this time he has the popular vote. We really need to get rid of the electoral system. Being from North Carolina, I feel like my vote didn't really count since my state awards all the electoral votes to whoever carries the popular vote. I'm still amazed at the people who claim they voted for Bush on religious grounds. I've never seen so many gullible and mis-led people in all my life. Given Bush's comments and actions, he obviously doesn't follow the teachings of Christ. He claimed he was a Christian only to get the votes of people too ignorant to think for themselves. Is Bush against abortion? He was asked point blank if he would work to overturn Roe versus Wade, but he dodged the question. Embryonic stem cell research? If it's really an ethical question, why doesn't he ban ALL of it? Bush says what he think will get him the most votes.
On the Iraq war, I don't see how any intelligent, logical person could claim we need to be there. There were no weapons of mass destruction and they were not linked to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Saddam Hussein is just another horrible dictator, like others in the world. American lives are being lost there every day, but for what cause. What really amazes me is that people who lost friends and love ones to the Vietnam War STILL support Bush's war on Iraq! Vietnam was a political war to stop the so-called "spread of communism". But I doubt you'll find anyone who thinks their friend or love ones death was needed or justified. And we lost in Vietnam. Didn't change a thing. THOUSANDS of Americans died. Families were destroyed. Now the same thing is currently happening in Iraq. Over 1000 American lives have been lost, all on the whim of one president (and gutless politicians that gave him the power).
North Carolina 2004 Senate election - 11/03/04
Republican Richard Burr beat Democrat Erskine Bowles to become a U.S. Senator. Burr, being the piece of crap that he is, started negative and STAYED negative. He downright lied in his "get-out-the-hate" campaign and apparently it worked on the gullible public. His basic strategy was to link Bowles to President Bill Clinton, and everything else seen as negative from the Democratic party. Burr talked about how Bowles negotiated trade deals with China, raised taxes, cut the military, etc. The problem is that it's all a big, gigantic lie. Bowles didn't do any of this because he was NOT a member of Congress or the Senate. He was Chief of Staff for God's sake!!! Burr counted on idiot voters to believe whatever they hear on the television. They did, and of course the Republican base will ALWAYS vote Republican, even if their candidate turned out to be Satan himself. For some reason Republicans seem to think that other Republicans never do any wrong. I really see the Republican party as totally corrupt today. It's enough to make me want to join the Democratic party!
Flu vaccine politics - 10/20/04
Just like last year, we have another flu vaccine shortage as we approach the "sick" season. And this time the shortage is bigger. But what really makes this one different is that it's happening in the middle of the presidential election circus so the blame game is running on full steam. President Bush is trying to lay the blame on John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards (a sleazy, greedy trial lawyer). Bush is saying we have a shortage because the companies aren't making enough for fear of lawsuits, filed by people like Edwards. John Kerry on the other hand is saying Bush is the blame because he relied on a foreign source for the flu vaccine. Which one is correct?
Technically, Kerry is more accurate. We really were relying on a foreign company, in England, to provide the vaccine. It was shut down because contamination fears (not fear of lawsuit). I guess Bush might be able to get an indirect link to Edwards by saying if not for fear of lawsuits, American companies would be making the vaccine. That may or may not be the case. But in simplest terms, we did rely on a foreign source, and now we have a shortage. I think it's silly for either of them to try and blame each other, unless of course, Bush knew there was a danger or had been warned about it.
On the other hand, I find one of the solutions to the problem quite ironic given the political climate. The Democrats are for buying drugs from Canada, to lower drug costs. It's the same drugs as produced here in America, only we get to skip the slimy, greedy, American drug company executives. Sounds good. Bush and the other Republicans oppose this, saying the drugs won't be safe (though I believe the real reason is some powerful lobbying by rich drug company executives). Guess where we are going to get flu vaccine to make up for the shortage? That's right, Canada! And with Bush's blessing. Magically, when it's beneficial to Bush, the drugs aren't dangerous any more. I miss the good old days when hypocrisy was more subtle.
Bill Frist attacks John Edwards - 10/13/04
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attacked vice presidential candidate John Edwards over comments Edwards made regarding actor Christopher Reeve (Superman character who died this week). Edwards said that stem cell research could help people, like Reeve, get out of wheelchairs and walk again (Reeve was paralyzed in a horse riding accident). Of course President Bush, and his minions, are against stem cell research, equating it somewhat to abortion and therefore somehow unethical. Of course they're just fine with research on the existing stem cells, which indicates some hypocrisy. But what burns me about Frist is that he is saying Edwards' comments are "crass", "shameful" and being "opportunistic" of Reeve's death. Of course Frist is a lying piece of crap. He fails to note that presidential candidate John Kerry spoke of Reeve in the presidential debate LAST week!!! The Kerry campaign was speaking of Reeve BEFORE his death. Frist continues his deception by stating that President Bush will do stem cell research in an "ethical and moral framework". Let me remind you that Frist is the man who LIED to animal shelters so he could "adopt" cats, and then took them home to BUTCHER them!!! Have I mentioned that Frist is a lying piece of crap?
Mel Gibson's "stalker" - 10/13/04
Actor-director Mel Gibson (aka "The Passion of Christ") has had Zack Sinclair arrested on stalking charges. Some religious zealot/fanatics think Gibson is some kind of saint and the reason he did this movie was so that he could share his religion and the story of Jesus. To those IDIOTS, I remind you that Gibson's previous movies have glorified fornication, lying, robbery, drunkenness, profanity, etc. "The Passion of Christ" was made for one reason only MONEY! And you know what Mr. Sinclair's "stalking" charge is based on? He's apparently been asking Gibson to pray with him.
Update 08/01/06: Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving this past week and has entered a rehabilitation clinic. Gibson also issued an apology to the arresting officer, for saying what he described as "despicable" things. Well, although already obvious to those of us with open eyes, the leopard is showing his spots. These things happen when you fake being a Christian.
Gun maker lawsuit - 10/01/04
Finally, a good, common sense verdict in a civil lawsuit. Two former police officers sued the Ruger firearm company because the criminal that shot them used a Ruger handgun. The gun had come from a pawn shop. But get this, according to the news report I read, it had changed hands four times by the time it got to the pawnshop. And it even seems to have changed hands a few times before the criminal got it. For the police officers to claim that Ruger is responsible just shows you what pieces of crap they are. And of course, their lawyers are pieces of crap for even filing the lawsuit. Luckily, the Circuit Court Judge recognized the frivolous lawsuit for what it was, a greedy attempt to get money out of a law abiding company, and ruled in favor of Ruger.
Political obituary - 10/01/04
Jane Buffet had a passion for politics. So much so that the final statement in her obituary read, "To honor her memory, please do everything you can to elect John Kerry". There's nothing wrong with that. If a person's life was strongly political then their obituary should reflect that. I hope my own obituary talks about my passion for astronomy. But to show you have evil and despicable the Republican party has become, an anonymous (i.e. cowardly) caller to the newspaper said, "It's too bad she won't be able to vote for Kerry, and hopefully on the day that Bush gets elected she'll burn in hell!" I'd be willing to bet this person probably also claims to be a "Christian". I hate to be so partisan, but the current Republican party is pushing me that way. They either want you to vote for them, or not vote at all. And if you don't vote for them, they hope you "burn in hell". This Republican coward...uh...caller, is wishing eternal damnation on some little old lady, just because she has a different political view. That's wrong and that's un-American. It goes against the very fabric of our Constitution and Democracy. And sadly, except for a handful of people like Senator John McCain, that is what the Republican party is all about these days.
Jimmy Swaggart - 09/30/04
Remember Jimmy Swaggart? He was a popular television evangelist during the 1980s. He preached fire and brimstone, how sinners were going to hell in a hand basket for all the sins they do. He had a huge following. Then in 1987, he was caught with a prostitute. Yes, we found out he was a lying piece of hypocritical crap. He cried on national TV, saying he had sinned. Of course that didn't stop him from his evil ways. A few years later the police found him with yet another (suspected) prostitute.
I thought he had faded away, but apparently there's still a huge number of idiots that follow him. He recently said, "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that, I'm going to kill him and tell God he died." Think about that. He is claiming that he would commit murder, then lie to God about what happened! This is a "Christian"? The sad thing is that his audience greeted his enthusiasm to murder and lie to God with laughter and applause. It shows you that the people who follow this man are hypocritical, idiotic pieces of crap too. You'd be hard pressed to find a TRUE Christian in today's society.
Latest hostage killings in Iraq - 09/22/04
We all know that since President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, the ensuing chaos has caused terrorists to move in and operate freely. As bad as Hussein was on his own people, you have to admit that he didn't allow terrorist to function in his country. Well yet again, American workers (not soldiers) have been kidnapped and beheaded. But what struck me was the comments by one of the wives, as she pleaded for the release of her husband. She said that the hostages "had absolutely no agenda other than to enrich the lives of the people they were there to help". Of course that statement is completely false. Don't get me wrong, these kidnappers are horrible, evil men, who should be captured, tortured, doused with gasoline, and set ablaze. Nevertheless, I think I can confidently say that the TRUE agenda of these hostages (and others) is to enrich themselves. They are in Iraq because their companies, such as Halliburton, are paying big bucks. They are getting rich by working there. My best friend is there. I know for a fact that he would not be there if the money wasn't good. Now there are some truly good samaritans in this world. And these hostages are still probably very good people who care for their fellow man. But I would venture to say that if the money wasn't so great, you wouldn't find these people leaving their families and putting themselves into harm's way.
Personally, if I were a wife, I would tell the kidnappers that I personally would guarantee that my husband will leave their country and never return!
Can Catholics vote for John Kerry? - 09/09/04
Yes, most certainly, you (and other Christians) can vote for John Kerry. There's been some hype that good Catholics/Christians can't vote for candidates that support certain issues, like abortion or same-sex marriage. Let me tell you that rather than being based on religion and God, these views are political, ignorant, deliberate lies, or a combination of the three. It's coming from the Republicans, a party known to do anything in order to get or keep a Republican in office. They are no more religious than the next political party. Republicans, like some of their Democratic counter parts, lie, cheat, steal, fornicate, or do countless other sins. Here are the facts on the matter. John Kerry and John Edwards do NOT support same-sex marriage. They personally think it's wrong. But in keeping more aligned with the views of our founding fathers, they don't think the government should tell you how to live your life when it comes to moral issues. Republican Vice President Dick Cheney not only SUPPORTS the rights of same-sex marriage, he also has a lesbian daughter. When Republican hypocrite Alan Keyes said homosexuality was a SINFUL practice, the Bush campaign disagreed with his stance! Bush has been in office for FOUR years yet we still have abortion. His alleged views on the matter mean nothing. The bottom line is that if you are going to pick a political candidate based on how religious or free from sin they are, you're going to be hard pressed to find ANY candidate, regardless of the political party, that is worthy of your vote. Base your vote on ALL the candidate stands for, and what they can actually affect via executive order and policy. Religious leaders trying to tell people how to vote are just attempting to maintain power and control. They are either ignorant of the issues, or telling deliberate lies. No true Christian should rely on some religious leader in deciding how to vote. Oh, and if you think George Bush really is a Christian, you can count yourself among the truly ignorant.
U.S. Tennis Open - 09/08/04
I don't usually follow tennis at all. I don't even understand the whole game. But I've been watching a bit of the U.S. Open out of curiosity. Last night Jennifer Capriati beat Serena Williams. What the game will be remembered for is one very badly called shot. Williams hit a shot that was clearly in. The line judge called it in. My two cats watching the TV with me called it in. Aliens picking up our TV transmissions on some planet a million light-years away will call it in (a million years from now, of course). But for some unexplained reason, the umpire, Mariana Alves of Portugal, ruled the ball out. I have no clue as to why, or why she didn't correct her error that was so obvious. But what really gets me is the conduct of Jennifer Capriati. Why didn't Capriati come to Williams defense? She KNEW it was really in. She claimed she was just going by what the empire said. I don't know if this point really mattered for the final outcome of the game. There is a mental aspect to playing. But what I do know is that this girl, Jennifer Capriati, is willing to cheat and win unfairly if that's what it takes. It really shows you how some people lack character, when they are willing to profit from such mistakes. Kind of reminds me of George Bush and Catherine Harris, when they didn't want to actually count the votes in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.
Republicans mock John Kerry's Purple Hearts - 08/31/04
To demonstrate just how hateful and disrespectful the Republican party is, they are now mocking the Purple Heart medals that John Kerry won for injuries in Vietnam. They are passing out band-aids with little purple hearts on them. Let me remind people that John Kerry VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam while George Bush was a draft dodger. Kerry wins by default on any issue related to Vietnam. I don't know the nature of Kerry's injuries but I do know the nature of the Republican party. One of their biggest traits is hypocrisy. The 1996 Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole has said that his first Purple Heart was for a kind of wound that the Army treated "with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart." Did the Republicans mock it? No, because they are hypocrites. Granted, I think Purple Hearts are indeed handed out like candy. If you stump your toe or twist your ankle, you'll get a Purple Heart. Personally, I think Purple Hearts should only be from injuries directly caused by the enemy. But the Republican attacks on John Kerry, when their man was too afraid to go, just shows you how low and despicable they are. They have no decency at all. They will do ANYTHING to get a Republican into office.
Swift Boat politics - 08/27/04
An anti-Kerry group, calling themselves the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, have now been shown that they should be labeled Swift Boat Liars for Bush. Bush claims his campaign is not related to this "independent" group that has been airing commercials, claiming Kerry lied about the battles he was in and how he got his medals. But a week doesn't go by that the group isn't exposed for false statements and now it appears that they are basically just a front group for Bush's campaign.
They claimed Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. One the members, Larry Thurlow, insisted there was no gunfire or danger. But apparently Thurlow himself got a Bronze Star! Why did he accept it and keep it for 35 years if it wasn't valid? The Navy records reveal there was small arms and automatic weapon fire. A damage report even mentions bullet holes in Thurlow's boat! A liar for Bush exposed!
They claim Kerry lied when he said he was in Cambodia. John O'Neill, a leading figure of the Swift Boat Liars for Bush, is co-author of a book that accuses Kerry of lying about this event. Yet tapes of O'Neill speaking with President Nixon in the Oval Office in 1971 have O'Neill literally say, "I was in Cambodia, sir." Yet another liar exposed.
Swift Boat member Alfred French claims in one of the ads that he served with Kerry and that Kerry is lying. He's now confessed that he relied on the accounts (i.e. lies) of other veterans and didn't witness Kerry in combat. Yet another liar exposed.
Although Bush claims his campaign isn't connected to the Swift Boat group, his campaign lawyer, Benjamin Ginsberg, confessed that he is also the lawyer for the Swift Boat group, and resigned. More lies exposed! There is no decency among the Republican party these days.
Alan Keyes, Republican hypocrite running for Illinois senate - 08/10/04
The senate political race in Illinois has taken an interesting turn. Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate. The first guy the Republicans had to offer dropped out after allegations of him visiting "sex clubs". I guess that was part of those family values that President Bush is always talking about. Now the Republicans have offered up Alan Keyes, who's from Maryland. Is there anything wrong with a person running for senate in a state other than their own? Well, according to Alan Keyes there is! When Hillary Clinton was running for the New York senate in 2000, Keyes said,
"I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it."
But wait, isn't he doing the same exact same thing? Yet another example of blatant hypocrisy from the Republicans.
Pro-Choice politicians receiving communion - 06/17/04
The latest thing from so-called "religious" people is to claim that politicians that are in favor of a woman being able to make her own choice when it comes to ending a pregnancy (i.e. abortion) should not receive communion in church. That by itself might would be a valid stance if not for the fact that the protesters also say that you shouldn't vote for these politicians. Despite the fact that voting on a single issue is not always the most logical thing to do, this clearly shows that this stance is nothing more than thinly veiled partisan politics (i.e. it's just another version of Democrat bashing by Republicans), plus it's yet another example of blatant hypocrisy from the "religious" community.
What about the other sins that don't fit into the political agenda? In the eyes of God, a sin is a sin. What about those that lie? What about the fornicators? What about those that don't keep the Sabbath holy? What about those that use the Lord's name in vain? What about those that don't honor their parents? What about those that steal? And the variety of other sins? People committing these sins shouldn't receive communion either. The obvious answer is that those sins apparently cross political party lines, and the protesters themselves are guilty of them.
Innocent man released, justice still not served - 06/15/04
After serving THIRTEEN years in prison for a rape he didn't commit, Michael Green was awarded $1.6 million from the city of Cleveland, OH. Apparently his conviction resulted from a bungled job by the crime laboratory. Heads should roll over this. But the icing on this horrible, bitter cake is that the true rapist has been sentenced to ONLY five years in prison! Think about it. The innocent man had served 13 years and would probably STILL be there, yet the real criminal has a maximum sentence of only 5 years. That just goes to show you how screwed up our "justice" system really is.
Terry Nichols murder trial - 06/14/04
Terry Nichols helped Timothy McVeigh murder 168 people (men, women, children, and babies) in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building, yet some on the jury of his state murder trial thought the death penalty wasn't warranted. It just goes to show you how screwed up jurors can really be. Often times they don't follow the law or even the judge's instructions. Apparently five members of the jury thought he was guilty of murder, but also felt sorry for him. Some of their reasoning is apparently based on their belief that Nichols has found religion and he can do "some good" in prison.
The verdict from the jury should be punishment for what he did, not leniency for what he might can do. I don't think this type of leniency is meant for mass murderers. If Nichols really does have religion, and God has a use for him in this world, then God could pluck him from the execution chamber. Leave religious matters to God. The jurors had a duty to make sure he was punished according to his crime and they failed miserably. A man who murders 168 people (he was convicted on 161 counts) should receive the death penalty.
Doctors not treating lawyers - 06/10/04
I heard on the news where a group of doctors are trying to get a ruling that says they can refuse to treat lawyers and still be ethical. Of course, these lawyers happen to be ones that represent people in medical malpractice suits, and these doctors want to lay the blame for high insurance premiums on them.
What a big load of bull crap! Not that the lawyers are innocent, but that the doctors somehow see themselves as the victim and better than the ones they want to refuse medical service too. All of them, the insurance company, the lawyers, AND the doctors are participants in this shell game that ultimately means that patients pay more. ALL of them are sleazy and have questionable morals. Of course the insurance companies are charging huge fees, because they can. And of course with the way American society is today, the lawyers are bringing frivolous lawsuits to court because they can win them and get rich.
But for doctors to think they are above the fray is really laughable. They are certainly being unethical if they refuse to treat lawyers, just because they think it causes them to pay higher insurance premiums. What's next, not treating the police because they got a speeding ticket? Not treating politicians because they pay taxes or belong to another party? Not treating food workers because they think their Big Mac is over-priced? A lot of them are already unethical in my book because they "rape" the American medical system with their gigantic fees. Despite all their whining and complaining about insurance costs, they still live the lives of millionaires! I had one doctor charge me almost $200 for just LOOKING at a cut on my son for a few seconds. Then I had other fees tacked onto that. The doctor didn't do anything beyond look and comment. This is highway robbery and just shows you what kind of scum they can be. They become doctors not to help people, but to help themselves to money and a rich lifestyle. Pardon the pun, but when I hear doctors complaining about some fee, yet they are still filthy rich, it really makes me sick!
Latest anti-Kerry stuff - 06/02/04
A group of veterans, known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, are protesting the use of a photograph that presidential hopeful John Kerry uses in his television campaign ads. They call themselves non-partisan and say that Kerry didn't seek their permission to use the picture, which shows Kerry and other officers in Vietnam. The picture is shown for 2 seconds, and not all of the men in the original picture are visible. First of all, I'm not pro-Kerry, but I'm fast becoming anti-Republican and anti-Bush. This PARTISAN, HYPOCRITICAL crap really gets on my nerves.
First of all, even guys you don't see in the TV image are protesting. Why? Republican politics! They also claim that it sends the message that they support Kerry. Wrong! Pictures that old send the message that Kerry is a Vietnam veteran, and that's all. I seriously doubt you could find a single, intelligent person that would think that image means those guys want Kerry for president. But the real proof that these guys are just a bunch of whining, hypocritical, sorry excuses for whatever is that when they held a news conference to announce the formation of their anti-Kerry group, they used an enlarged version of the very same photograph! I wonder if these guys sought Kerry's permission to use the image? (for you diehard Republicans, this question is rhetorical and the answer is NO!)
Tax cuts for the rich - 05/13/04
President Bush's tax cuts have been attacked by the Democrats as mostly benefitting the rich. The Republicans (and rich) counter that they already pay more in taxes than anyone else. But do that really? Of course they might pay a higher dollar amount, but do they really pay a higher percentage (or have higher tax burdens) as the middle class and lower class?
Well presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry (yes, as in Heinz food products), earned about $5 million in 2003. She paid about $750K in taxes. Why in the hell does President Bush think people like this need a tax break? She only paid about 15 percent!!!
A rich friend recently was telling me how much his parents paid in taxes, as if it was a huge amount. But a rough calculation in my head revealed that it was quite a small percentage. Here I am, having to get a 30 year mortgage to buy a house and these people can pay cash for one (a bigger one). Yet their tax burden is probably LESS than mine! I'm starting to think the IRS should follow Robin Hood's example of taking from the rich to give to the poor (and government).
For those of you that just don't get it (i.e. you're probably rich, from a rich family, or you're benefiting from rich people), think of it as how it affects lifestyle. What if the rich people didn't have to pay taxes? Would it affect their current lifestyle? Well since they already want for nothing, probably not. It would just give them more money to invest, since they already have the homes, land, cars, etc. they want. But if people like me didn't have to pay taxes, it would mean a lifestyle change. I could pay off my house, get a larger house, send my kids to private school, take vacations, eat better food, buy better clothes, etc. Our tax burden is GREATER than rich people because it affects our lifestyle more.
Rush Limbaugh on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners - 05/07/04
Against my better judgment, I went out to Rush Limbaugh's website last night to read some of his comments on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners (uh, excuse me, he calls it "alleged abuse"). He's gone off the deep end. Maybe his drug abuse (done by personal choice according to his logic) fried his brain. His weird need to bash ANYTHING Democratic and his stance that Republicans can hardly EVER do anything wrong, just shows you that he has completely lost it. If anyone still follows and believes this man, you're an idiot!
Limbaugh has likened the prisoner abuse to a "fraternity prank". He thinks it is "pretty thoughtful" and "good intimidation". He says the people that did this are "pretty smart" and "pulled off a brilliant maneuver". Limbaugh says "nobody got hurt" and "nobody was physically injured".
Let me say that Rush Limbaugh is a worthless piece of shit excuse for a human being. Since when has being anally raped with a chemical light stick and a broom handle NOT considered as getting "hurt" or "physically injured"???!!! Since when has having electrified wires wrapped around your genitals NOT considered as getting "hurt" or "physically injured"???!!! Since when has being severely beaten NOT considered as getting "hurt" or "physically injured"???!!!
Over 20 something prisoners have DIED at the hands of their American jailers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of these have OFFICIALLY been declared as HOMICIDES. People that have been thrown into prison and not charged with any crime yet. They are dying yet Rush Limbaugh still maintains that nobody is getting "hurt" or "physically injured". Again, if you support Rush Limbaugh, you're a TOTAL idiot!
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners - 05/07/04
In the same vein as it depends on what the meaning of "is" is, Rumsfeld is trying to draw the attention to the fact that abuse has been alleged, but NOT torture. Hmmm....I wonder what he would think if his genitals were wrapped with electrified wire? I wonder how far up his butt the broomstick would have to be shoved before he called it torture?
Abuse of Iraqi prisoners - 05/04/04
Remember when President Bush said that he wanted immunity of prosecution for Americans participating in United Nations activities? Well given the recent revelation of how Americans are abusing Iraqi prisoners, now you know why. It shows you what evil lurks in the hearts of some humans. While I don't think it reaches the level of Saddam Hussein as some want to imply, it's still very, very wrong and it should be punished severely. Not holding Americans to the standards that we hold others is very hypocritical. I believe those responsible should be subject to International law given that they are committing their crimes in an international arena.
Showing pictures of American war dead - 05/04/04
Images of flag draped caskets returning from President Bush's war against Iraqi have been shown in newspapers. Bush and his supporters claim it is wrong because it somehow dishonors the soldiers that were killed. Of course this is total hogwash. The REAL truth of the matter is that Bush and his flock don't want the public to see the true cost in human lives that his policies are costing. While it is true that you hear the numbers in the media, it just doesn't invoke the passion and personal response/feeling of seeing a flag draped coffin.
And some of those saying they want them to be seen ONLY because it does honor are also offering up some hogwash. Some people want to show them only as a way to protest the war and make Bush look bad.
Personally, I think they should be shown, in all cases of war, to show the price America pays. Doesn't matter whether or not I support the war, the American military still pays the price and the public should know about it.
Single issue voting - 05/04/04
I've never really had much understanding for people that vote based on a single issue, like abortion, gay marriages, etc. It was hard for me to understand how one point could garner so much importance and weight. And although I still can't quite grasp how these more common single issues can solely determine who someone might vote for, President Bush has made one issue very important to me. I'm at the closest I've ever been to being influenced by a single issue. Luckily I have other issues that bring it into balance, but it is big enough that even if the others were positive, I might still vote based on this one issue.
This issue is the so-called "enemy combatants" that President Bush has created with just the utterance of the phrase. There are hundreds of people locked away for life (potentially) because of President Bush. They have NEVER heard the charges against them. They have NO access to legal counsel. They have had NO contact with family and friends. Unless something changes, they will spend the REST of their ENTIRE lives in a tiny cell, NEVER being charged with a crime, NEVER having their day in court, and NEVER seeing (or communicating) with their family (wives, children, brothers, sisters, parents). Can you imagine such a thing? Could you imagine if someone snatched your dad away, and you NEVER saw or heard from him again? Even if by some warped reasoning you could come up with an explanation of how President Bush could have such power, it still doesn't justify the action. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. It is so evil and anti-American, that for this reason alone, I probably would vote against George Bush.
If these people are so dangerous, let's bring them out in the open. Let's beat the crap out of them. Let's send them to court, then hang them in the parking lot. But to potentially lock them away forever without any concern whatsoever for the American way of doing things is disgusting and vile.
Armed forces injuries - 03/08/04
Just thought I would put a brief note out here to get people thinking about our troops. Seems like a week doesn't go by that we don't hear about some of our troops getting killed in Iraq. HUNDREDS of our troops have been killed. I found myself breathing a sigh of relief every time I heard of an attack that only resulted in injuries. And that's the problem. Injuries to our troops are just as important as the deaths. We're not talking about scratches and scrapes that you just put a bandage on. A lot of these injuries are life changing events. Vision is being lost, fingers are being lost, hands are being lost, arms are being lost, legs are being lost. Some soldiers are scarred and impaired for life. So on top of the hundreds of troops being killed, please remember that we have HUNDREDS of troops being seriously injured in Iraq. Now the only time I breathe a sigh of relief is when I hear that no injuries are reported.
President Bush's use of terror attack images for campaign - 03/05/04
President Bush has started airing television commercials for his re-election campaign. He's using images of the terrorist attacks from September 11, 2001. Some families who lost loves ones are complaining. I totally agree with them! It's disgusting that President Bush would use a national tragedy to further his own political agenda. Even if he was dimwitted enough not to realize that it would offend people, now that the complaints have come in, he should cease using them instead of making excuses. He claims it shows his great leadership on that day. If I remember correctly, he and the vice-president were cowering in hidden places. Some things should not be used for political gain. I feel the terrorist attacks on our nation is one of them.
Pakistan's giving out nuclear technology - 03/03/04
Okay, what the heck is wrong with this picture? We hear lots of harping by our government about stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons (i.e. North Korea, Iran, etc.). We threaten other nations with embargoes and possible military action. We even invaded Iraq because President Bush claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was trying to build an even bigger one (i.e. the mother of all weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear device). Yet now that we've found out that the "father" of the nuclear bomb in Pakistan, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has been giving nuclear technology to Korea, Iran, and Libya! On top of that, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf gave him a full pardon!
What has the United States done about this? Not a daggone thing! You would think there would be some reaction since two of these nations are part of what Bush called the "axis of evil", and especially since he invaded the third part of the "axis" because of alleged fears of nuclear weapons. Yet President Bush hasn't done a thing. Nothing! It seems that we are trying to court Pakistan intro granting us more freedom in searching for Osama Bin Laden. While that is a worthy goal, it is very short sighted and illogical given that the current administration claims to have already put a serious dent on his terrorist organization's activities. The clear and present danger right now is that Pakistan is giving out nuclear technology. I have this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that this is all political, and partisan at that. Capturing Bin Laden would pretty much guarantee Bush a victory in the November general election. It seems clear that Pakistan is the current, greater danger. More and more each day, I think our current stance of letting Pakistan slide is a component of Bush's re-election campaign. I really hope I'm wrong.
President Bush on gay marriage - 02/25/04
President Bush yesterday said we should amend the Constitution of the United States to keep ban same sex marriages. Of course that is absurd. The Constitution should be used to protect people's rights, not as a tool to discriminate and deny people's rights. Homosexual marriage has no affect on heterosexual marriage. If Bush really wants marriage to be traditional, maybe he should change the Constitution to say that men can have multiple wives. King Solomon ring a bell? Maybe he should amend the Constitution to ban interracial marriage. Traditionally people married within their own tribe/race. I bet you won't catch him proposing that! Amending the constitution to deny rights to people because of their sexual orientation is just wrong. Repeat after me, GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY. Besides, such a change would be analogous to the amendment that prohibited alcohol. We all know how well that one worked.
"Senator" John Edwards recent comments on President Bush - 02/25/04
Presidential hopeful John Edwards attacked President Bush yesterday by saying that he wished the President would spend just one day doing what he's doing. He went on to define what he's doing as getting out and meeting the people. I define what he's doing as campaigning. I personally wish that John Edwards would spend just one damn day doing what he's SUPPOSE to be doing, which is representing North Carolina as a US Senator!
Rep. Bill Janklow's trial results - 01/23/04
I've already commented below on the manslaughter case of Rep. Bill Janklow (of South Dakota). Well the trial is over with a guilty verdict and he was sentenced yesterday. The good news is that he was found guilty. But the bad news is that he only received a slap on the wrist. He was sentenced to 100 days in jail. But after 30 days, he can leave the jail for 10 hours each day. He was fined $5,400, and an additional $5,000 to cover jail costs.
First of all, HE KILLED SOMEBODY. Because he thought he was above the law since he had enough money to pay the fines, he drove fast and through stop signs. His disregard for the laws that the rest of us most follow brought about the death of an innocent person. Secondly, a $10,400 fine for a millionaire is ridiculous! That's pocket change to him. He's already admitted that the fines for speeding don't mean anything to him and therefore aren't enough to deter him from breaking the law.
Apparently Janklow's political pull from being the state attorney general, AND governor, AND a congressman helped him out quite a bit. It's a shame and disgrace.
Lewis Williams execution - 01/14/04
On Wednesday, January 14, 2004, Lewis Williams was executed in Ohio for the murder of Leona Chmielewski (a 76 year old woman). He allegedly beat her and shot her in the mouth during a robbery at her home in 1983. I don't have all the details of the case since I can only find bits and pieces of it on the Internet. Although he admits to being in the woman's home, he says he didn't kill her. I would take that with a grain of salt. But apparently the prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of jailhouse informants, and one of them later recanted his statement. To me, that throws up a big red flag. That, coupled with what seems to be a case of the prosecution failing to disclose some other evidence that might would have helped the defense makes me think that this case should have been reconsidered.
But believe it or not, I'm not writing because I think that an innocent man might have been executed, but rather about how the execution went itself, and the role God played in it. It seems that Williams did "not go gentle into that good night". Maintaining his innocence until the end, Williams had to be pried off the edge of a table, dragged into the execution chamber, and held down by at least nine guards in order for them to kill him. All the while he was begging and pleading, "I'm not guilty. God, help me." His final official statement was: "God, please help me. God, please hear my cry."
That is downright spooky and disturbing. Does he really believe in God? Since he wasn't screaming for forgiveness, can we assume he was not guilty, or maybe he had already been forgiven by God? But most importantly, why didn't God help him? I'm currently reading the Old Testament and when people cry out for God, he answers. When they ask for protection and help, He gives it. Why didn't He respond to Lewis Williams? Where was God? Was He listening? There have been other incidences over the last few years in which things happened that I would have thought would have been prevented by God. It really makes me wonder about things.
Joe Lieberman's latest comments - 12/15/03
Since Howard Dean is now the Democratic presidential candidate front-runner, all the other candidates have turned their attacks onto him, and away from President Bush. Joe Lieberman irked me with his comments after the capture of Saddam Hussein was announced. Trying to spin the news in his favor, Lieberman said, if Dean "had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today."
How about this spin...Lieberman's way has caused the DEATHS of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE American troops! That's 455 dead soldiers, because Lieberman got the "war" he voted for. How many lost husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, etc. does that represent? How many children will grow up now without the love and support and memories of their father or mother? If a single man (Hussein) was that important, we could have used a cruise missile or sniper team to take him out. We all had our reasons for or against overthrowing the government of Iraq. But I'm sick and tired of the Republicans, and now the Democrats, using it as a tool to bash those that disagreed with them (and to further their own political careers).
Capture of Saddam Hussein - 12/15/03
As everyone knows by now, Iraqi ex-President Saddam Hussein was captured. What we will do with him, I don't know. He and all the other soldiers caught should be treated as official prisoners of war. I doubt it will have any effect on Osama Bin Ladin and his organization. Terrorist groups will continue to attack us. But for some reason President Bush wanted to overthrow the country of Iraq, so here we are.
But as I see Saddam Hussein paraded around on TV, a wooden tongue depressor shoved in his mouth, his teeth checked, his head surveyed for lice or whatever, I must ask, WHAT ABOUT THE GENEVA CONVENTION???
The US screams bloody murder when our captured soldiers are displayed on TV. Remember during the opening days of the "war" when some of our troops were captured and shown on TV? Yet, we do the same with Hussein, who was PRESIDENT of a SOVEREIGN nation. Don't get me wrong, for everything Hussein has done I think he should be executed in a most painful way. BUT, no matter what the crimes of Hussein, that does NOT erase the rule of law we should follow as a nation. Especially if we expect other nations to follow that same law when it comes to Americans prisoners of war.
More and more each day, the United States of American refuses to follow the "golden rule" of treating others as we would have them treat us. What a shame and disgrace, and what seems to be typical hypocrisy from our current officials.
UPDATE NOTE: I thought I would add this note because it might seem I'm nit picking a little here. Well, I guess I am in a way. I think I'm bias on this issue given that I didn't think we should go to war with Iraq in the first place, but rather use a surgical strike to take Hussein out of power if that's what we wanted. I believe Hussein is a very bad dude and I'm glad when bad stuff happens to him. But we still need to be careful what we do as a nation and what repercussions that will have in the world. Like it or not, we are the policeman of the world, so it is imperative that we follow the rule of law.
Last Statement of a Murderer - 12/05/03
North Carolina: Robbie James Lyons murdered Stephen Wilson Stafford on September 25, 1993, as he attempted to rob Stafford's store. He was sentenced to death. Of course his defense lawyers (along with adulterer Jesse Jackson) claimed he shouldn't be executed because he had a bad childhood and he has some mental defect (despite having an IQ of 110). Last night, he was executed by lethal injection.
His last words: "If my death brings another person happiness, then I'm happy for them."
Well, it brings me happiness to see a murderer executed so I guess wherever he is now, he is happy for me.
Death of Black Man at hands of White Cincinnati Cops - 12/04/03
Early on the morning of Nov. 30, 2003, 41-year-old Nathaniel Jones (who is black) got into a struggle with Cincinnati police officers (who were white). They beat him with nightsticks. Most of the altercation was captured by the police car's video camera. After being handcuffed, Jones quit breathing and died a short time later. Jones weighed 350 pounds, and according to the coroner, had an enlarged heart, and "intoxicating levels" of PCP, methanol and cocaine in his blood.
There are a few problems here. First of all, did the police say something to the man to upset him? We don't know because the video isn't rolling until he is upset, calling one of the officers a "redneck" and lunging. Maybe he was in a drug induced frenzy, or maybe the cops were bullying him, we just don't know. We do see him attacking a police officer. And we know that after this, they put him on the ground and started beating him. From the video, I count at least about 30 blows from the cops. The second problem that I see is that some of these blows are jabbing or thrusting motions, which might have more potential to cause internal injuries or trauma. The coroner has said there were no internal injuries. The third problem is why did they beat the guy in the first place? He is big and fat. They could have easily maced him and stayed out of his reach. As long as he wasn't a danger to civilians, they should have been able to keep him in a specific area without beating the crap out of him. And of course, the more you beat someone, the more that person has a tendency to resist, in order to try and stop the beating. It's hard to give up and sit still, when you know you might get another crack from the baton. But the biggest problem of all, was that the police officers just stood around and did nothing while the guy was dying. They should have been administering CPR.
It's clear the guy was attacking the police at one point. We don't know if he was attacked by them before the video starts recording. But I think based on what we saw, they should have been able to handle the situation without beating him like they did. In general, it seems that cops really get upset when their authority is challenged, and all too often they react with violence.
South Dakota Congressman's Manslaughter Trial - 12/02/03
Rep. Bill Janklow was speeding and ran through a stop sign on August 16, striking and killing a motorcyclist by the name of Randy Scott. He's going on trial for manslaughter (plus the traffic offenses). The rumor is that his defense lawyer will try to say that Janklow had a diabetic reaction before the accident.
The problem with this defense is that more than likely it is a deliberate lie. It seems that it's just another sleazy lawyer doing whatever he can to keep a sleazy client from accepting the responsibility for his actions. Janklow, who also use to be governor, has a long history of speeding and disobeying traffic laws. In fact, he seemed to refer to his reputation of speeding as a badge of honor. He had over twelve tickets during a 5 year period and he has three accidents on his record. There's even a recorded admission from him that he speeds because he can afford to pay the fines! Apparently the safety aspects of speeding don't concern him because he thinks he can buy his way out of any trouble he gets in. There's also a witness that said Janklow almost hit her a year ago at the same intersection, while running the stop sign.
I think Janklow is a sleaze-ball that should be convicted and do SERIOUS jail time and pay some SERIOUS fines. I also think the defense lawyer should be jailed if he's knowingly attempting to put forward a defense based on a lie (i.e. the alleged diabetic reaction).
Known Rapist Arrested For College Student's Disappearance - 12/03/03
College student Dru Sjodin disappeared on November 22. 50 year old Alfonso Rodriguez Jr. has been arrested on a kidnapping charge. So far the police haven't release the details of the case. The girl still hasn't been found, though I think she is presumed dead at this point. And there hasn't been a statement as to how Rodriguez was linked to the case.
The problem is that if Rodriguez really is responsible for Sjodin's disappearance, it's a crime that should have never happened and it demonstrates what I think is wrong with our judicial system. You see, Rodriguez is listed as a predatory offender. He has been convicted of rape, aggravated assault, and kidnapping, and was released from prison on May 1. He has a history of attempted kidnapping. If I had my way in this country, Rodriguez would never have been released from prison. In fact, he would be dead. After being convicted of rape and aggravated assault the first time, I would have sentenced him to be executed. Rape, and some cases of aggravated assault, should qualify for the death penalty in my opinion. If Rodriguez is guilty of this crime, we now have another destroyed family because of how soft this country is on violent criminals. It's a shame and disgrace.
Massachusetts Court Okays Gay Marriage - 11/19/03
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that there isn't anything in their state constitution that bans homosexuals from getting married. It gave the state Legislature six months to change the state's marriage laws to accommodate this ruling (i.e. gay couples get the same benefits as heterosexual couples).
I applaud this ruling and think it was the right thing to do. Like it or not, society and the march of time has changed the definition of marriage. We've got people living in relationships where the only difference is that they are of the same sex. As long as they are willing to abide by ALL the rules governing heterosexual couples, they should be allowed the same benefits. The government should have no say in who people choose to be with and definitely shouldn't be in the business of legislating morality. Sure, the bible says it's a sin, but that's for God and the churches to sort out.
The bottom line is that if the government chooses to give benefits to people just because they are in relationships, it shouldn't discriminate against some couples because they happen to be of the same sex.
Suing Game & Movie Makers - 11/12/03
Our current society likes to place blame on everyone except the one that's responsible. The latest "craze" is to sue movies or video game makers when some young criminal claims that's where they got the idea. Right now, the families of two people that were shot are suing the creators of "Grand Theft Auto" (and Walmart and Sony) for a ridiculous amount of $246 million dollars. Two teenage brothers plead guilty to the shooting after admitting that they decided to randomly shoot at trucks just like it's done in the video game.
This lawsuit is a sham and should be thrown out. It doesn't matter where criminals get their ideas from. They are the ones responsible for their acts. They get their ideas from all over the place, like movies, books, TV, etc. If some criminal decides to crucify someone, will the families sue God because of the crucifixion described in the bible? We need to hold people responsible for their own actions. This appears to be an obvious attempt by family and lawyers to garner some big money from a tragic event.
Military Mom Being AWOL - 11/10/03
Simone Holcomb, along with her husband Vaughn, are in the Army. There is a custody dispute between them and her husband's ex-wife involving two children from that previous marriage. The Army has ordered them both to Iraq (?). But, a Colorado court says that either Holcomb or her husband must remain in the United States in order for the Holcombs to retain full custody of Vaughn's two children from the previous marriage. He has shipped out, but she is refusing to go in order to comply with the court order and to keep her family together.
What's the Army doing? They are threatening to ruin her Army career and bring charges against her for being what they consider AWOL. It's obvious that she should be given some sort of special leave or exemption but there are some high ranking assholes that think otherwise. Family comes first! If they really, really needed this particular individual to safeguard the United States, that would be different. But this all boils down to the Army being mad and upset that a mom has stood up to their bullying and said no in order to hold her family together. It's a shame and disgrace that our military and government behaves in this manner.
Update: 11/17/03 - Army spokesman Maj. Steve Stover announced that Holcomb will face no administrative or criminal penalties. Looks like the military was shamed into doing the right thing.
Army man charged with cowardice - 11/10/03
Staff Sgt. Georg-Andreas Pogany was charged with cowardice after he requested counseling. He had seen the body of an Iraqi man cut in half by American military fire. He claimed it caused him to shake, become ill, and lose sleep.
Being upset over a gruesome sight is NOT a measure of cowardice. This is yet another example that we have idiots within the military with the power to ruin lives and careers. If the man is being truthful, he can't help it that a horrible sight has affected him emotionally. Some people just can't handle it. He didn't run away and refuse to fight. He simply requested counseling. And for that, the Army turned on him.
The original cowardice charge has been dropped, to be replaced by a charge of dereliction of duty. But even that is a sham of a charge. That's like charging someone because they have an allergy to something, or have nightmares. It's hard to prepare for the ugly facts and visions of war. For the Army to turn on their own soldier just shows you how hateful and disgusting people in power can be. If the man is being honest, he should be given an honorable discharge or moved to a location where he can serve without seeing mangled bodies. Common sense, it's not just for breakfast any more!
Canadian man deported to Syria and tortured - 11/10/03
Canadian citizen Maher Arar is a software engineer who was arrested in New York's Kennedy airport last year while on the way back to Montreal from a family vacation in Tunisia. Although Arar was born in Syria, he moved to Canada while in high school and became a citizen.
The U.S. allegedly charged him with links to terrorism because he apparently was suppose to once know someone, who is somehow connected to a terrorist, or something to that effect. The U.S. deported him to Syria, where he spent about 10 months in a tiny cell, with claims of torture.
This is a example of extreme evil within our government and I think it is also criminal. If he really had ties to terrorism, why was he deported? He should have been questioned and put on trial. If he really had ties to terrorism, why was he sent to Syria, who we accuse of fostering terrorism? Wouldn't that be like giving them back one of their own terrorist so they can continue to get some use out of him? Why wasn't he given a lawyer? And most importantly, why wasn't he sent to Canada and why in the hell didn't we let Canada know until AFTER the fact? The ONLY answer can be that the people making the decisions are evil and probably driven by criminal instincts.
I think heads should roll over this. It's scary to think about because this means that the U.S. can snatch anyone off the street and deny their rights. It's not the way the United States of America is suppose to work. Not only should heads roll, but people should be punished in the same manner, if not worst, that Mr. Arar endured. It's a shame and disgrace, and absolutely disgusting that we have a government and an administration that would treat someone this way. If the man really was guilty, he should have been put in front of firing squad instead of being sent to a country that allegedly supports terrorism. Something fishy is definitely going on here.
Kobe Bryant, accused rapist - 10/16/03
Okay, I'm not a big sports fan so I don't know how "important" Kobe Bryant is to the NBA. Bryant is a big black basketball player that is accused of raping a 19 year old white girl that worked at a resort he was staying at. He claims he was just having some good old fashion adultery. She claims she went up to his room because he was a big star, started kissing, but then said no when he made his advances. She claims he held her by the neck, and bent her over a chair to rape her. She went to the authorities the next day. The hospital reported vaginal bruising. The judge is currently trying to decide whether to order the case to trial.
Okay, here's some facts. When she went to the hospital, her panties (which she claimed were different that the ones she was wearing the night before) contained the semen of another man other than Bryant. Relevant? The defense claims, or is trying to imply, that the girl had three different sex partners in three days, surrounding the alleged rape. Relevant? Should the sexual history of an alleged rape victim ever be presented in court? The answer to all these questions is YES.
First of all, a girl can be the biggest slut and whore in town and still have the right to say no. In fact, this girl could have went up to Bryant's room with the intention of making a hard core porno film, and she still has the right to change her mind and say no, even if they were already kissing and naked. That's not the point. Although I understand why you have to be careful with testimony about an accusers sex life, a woman that hardly ever says no might have not said no this time either. If she generally has sex freely with lots of people, this should be known because it puts some doubt on or at least raises some questions about why she would have said no this time. If she is more than likely to say yes to sex, this might be a case where she did say yes again but is going after money (from the inevitable lawsuit) because she bagged a famous/rich person. And multiple partners around the timeframe of the alleged event can put some doubt on the accused being the one that caused the vaginal bruising. Any lawyer that says this kind of information is irrelevant, is in my opinion, a piece of slime, and not honestly interested in truth and justice.
California Governor Recall - 09/24/03
On October 7, there will be an election in California to decide whether or not to recall Democratic Governor Gray Davis, and if so, to choose his successor. No, he didn't murder anyone, or embezzle money, or have consensual sex with an intern. Instead he's blamed for the bad economy in California and its looming deficit. Given that the rest of the states and even the nation as a whole has the same problem, you may ask why aren't any of the other elected officials being recalled. There's two main reasons. California makes it easy and this is a direct, partisan attempt to replace a Democratic politician with a Republican politician. Oh and thirdly, it represents one man's attempt to purchase the governorship.
U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, who represents portions of Southern California, ran against Gray Davis in the general election and lost. Since he has plenty of money and is a sore loser, he spearheaded and largely funded a petition drive to try and get the recall election. And he succeeded. Thanks to Issa, California is now going to go into dept even further to have this recall election. On top of that, when he learned that he would probably be beat by fellow Republican, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Issa dropped out of the race! I feel sorry for the Californians that this guy represents.
And to prove beyond all doubt that this is nothing but a partisan attack on Democrats, Rep. Issa announced this week that either Schwarzenegger or state Senator Tom McClintock (who is also a Republican candidate on the ballot) should get out of the race for fear of current Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (the leading Democrat on the ballot) winning. Issa is afraid that the Republican vote will be split between Schwarzenegger and McClintock, thus allowing Bustamante to get a majority from a united Democratic front. In other words, Issa doesn't really have a problem with Davis or how he's running the Californian economy but rather he has a problem with Democrats. It's a shame and disgrace that this one sorry excuse of a politician has the power and wealth to cause so much trouble.
"The Passion of the Christ" - Mel Gibson's movie on Jesus - 08/29/03
Mel Gibson has produced a movie titled "The Passion of the Christ", which is suppose to be about the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. People have been denouncing and protesting the movie because they said it is anti-Semitic (i.e. anti-Jew) and could lead to violence directed against the Jewish community. Apparently the film portrays the Jews in a negative light. Well what do you expect?! According to the bible, the Jews murdered Jesus because he had the gall to call himself the Son of God and their savior. Assemblyman Dov Hikins of New York said the brief clip he saw of the movie had a "mob of Jews yelling for the crucifixion of Jesus" and it was enough to "scare the daylights" out of him. Excuse me, but if he would actually read the bible he would see that's exactly what happened. The Roman governor of the region did everything he could to save Jesus, even offering a real criminal for sacrifice, but the Jews wanted Jesus dead. In fact, they threatened to report him to Caesar if he didn't execute Jesus. Although I haven't seen the movie, from what I've heard, it pretty much follows the biblical events of the Jews murdering Jesus. Give me truth over lies and deception any day. Truth in this case is portraying what the bible actually says. It's up to you to decide whether the bible is actually fact or fantasy. Assemblyman Hikins also refers the crucifixion of Jesus as a "so-called sin". The man doesn't have a clue! I guess he would also protest the movie "Roots" because it portrays white people in a negative light.
Using Race In College Admissions - 07/02/03
Well the Supreme Court has goofed again. They ruled that the Michigan University Law School could use race in determining who gets admitted to the school. The school uses a point system to evaluate candidates. The more points you have, the better your chances of getting in. And apparently the darker your skin color is, i.e. if you are black, the more points you get. It's totally wrong and unfair. In this day and time, no one should be using skin color as a measure of someone's worth. One way to determine if it's wrong is to reverse the color bias. Consider if you will, that being a lighter color, such as white, gave you more points for securing a position at a school (or job for that matter). If the press, or black leaders raised holy hell about it, then you would know that using skin color is wrong. And this is a case where it is decidedly wrong. They should find some other way to implement diversity.
Ten Commandments Monument - 07/02/03
A chief justice installed a monument of the Ten Commandments at the Alabama Supreme Court building. Several lawyers sued, saying that it infringed on their religious freedom. In other words, they claimed it violated the Constitution. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has now agreed and said it violated the constitutional separation of church and state. Unfortunately, they are wrong. And the case might likely head to the Supreme Court. I do admit, it's kind of a gray area. I agree with the court that the chief justice might could also put up crosses, religious murals, and other religious stuff if taken to the extreme. And I think Thomas Jefferson made it quite clear that the government shouldn't be doing religious stuff. Unfortunately for these schools of thought, it's still not unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly says that "congress shall make no law", regarding religion. So unless congress convened, passed a law, and placed that monument at the court building, it's NOT against the constitution. If people don't like it, they should work to change the constitution. It's been done before with ill thought-out laws, that had some serious loopholes. But as the constitution is written now, regardless of what the founding fathers were thinking or meant, the only way something religious can be considered unconstitutional is if congress is involved in making a law regarding the religious item.
Using the Bible During Jury Deliberations - 05/27/03
There have been a couple of cases lately that had criminal convictions and sentences overturned because jurors brought bibles to consult into the deliberations. In my opinion, bibles should NOT be allowed in juror deliberations. The only thing that should matter is the judge's instructions and the actual law. First of all, even a single bible is interpreted many ways by different people. Secondly, if you allow bibles, you'll have to allow other religious documents. Then you'll have problems with people of one faith claiming that they cannot be judged by people of another faith. In a court of law, people should stick to the law!
As for the specific cases that were overturned, I think the judge should have determined what role the bible played before overturning the entire conviction. I doubt the bible played much role in the conviction, but I can see where it might have had greater influence in sentencing (i.e. death sentences).
Should Muslims Have Veiled Driver's License? - 05/27/03
A Muslim woman is suing the state of Florida because they have revoked her driver's license. They did so because her current picture is of her covered with a veil (i.e. she is masked so that she cannot be recognized) and Florida wants her to show her face. The request from Florida came just after the September 11th terrorist attacks. She claims the request is a violation of her freedom of religion. I side with Florida on this issue.
First of all, shame on Florida for giving her a license with a masked photo in the first place. I'm sure they either didn't think twice about it then, or were worried about a lawsuit given the litigious nature of our country. After the terrorist attacks, they probably figured the risk of a law suit is small potatoes. Although they deny a connection to the attacks, I doubt their sincerity. But I still say so what? The terrorist attack reminded them to correct a previous wrong.
I truly believe the women thinks her freedom of religion rights are being violated. But the good of the many should come before the good of the few. This is a case where I think security of the state and country come before freedom of religious practice. If we are to live in and benefit from society, then we must all make compromises.
Tax Money to Restore Old North Church - 05/27/03
President Bush is allocating over $300K (I think) in tax money to help preserve the Old North Church, famous as the site of Paul Revere's warning that the British were coming during the revolutionary war. According the the news report I heard, this is a reversal of the position put in place during President Clinton's time, which considered any tax money spent on the church as a violation of the separation of church and state.
First of all, I agree with Bush in that this is not a church versus state issue, but rather one of historical preservation. If the Clinton administration thought otherwise, I think they were very short sighted. This building is intertwined with our country's history, regardless of what goes on within its walls today. True, any money that goes to the Old North Church does indirectly benefit the religion practiced there. But I think the building's role in the creation of our country trumps any consideration that it may be a church versus state issue.
President Bush's Aircraft Carrier Speech - 05/07/03
Last week, President Bush gave a speech from aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. In my opinion, this was done in an obvious attempt to boost his ratings as as strong military president. But the thing that really got to me was the fact that he arrived at the carrier via a military jet (tailhook landing and all). Despite claims by the Whitehouse that the carrier was too far out at sea for a helicopter landing, the true facts of the matter is that it was more than close enough. Senator Robert Byrd said, "President Bush's address to the American people announcing combat victory in Iraq deserved to be marked with solemnity, not extravagance; with gratitude to God, not self-congratulatory gestures. American blood has been shed on foreign soil in defense of the president's policies. This is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial." And although I usually stray from partisan politics, in this case I totally agree.
It was a clever political move by the Republicans, but I found it distasteful. Maybe if we didn't have elections next year it would be okay. If it was done in 2001 or maybe even 2002 it might be okay. But I see it for exactly what it is, a gearing up for the 2004 presidential elections. And to be honest, I did feel a little bit of pride to see our President showing off our strong military. But I still wish he had not done it, because I know it was only done to benefit his approval ratings.
Prosecutors Withholding Evidence - 04/25/03
I think I've heard two more cases of this type of thing just this week. We have prisoners on death row, being granted new trials or just plain outright deemed not guilty and released from prison, all because prosecutors willingly withheld and hid evidence that would have helped the defense during the trial. The evidence ranges from DNA that doesn't match the defendant to signed confessions from someone else that claims to have done the crime. It's sickening, immoral, unethical, and downright criminal.
I think that if a prosecutor willingly withholds evidence in order to convict a defendant, then that prosecutor should be held criminally liable. The really horrible, horrible thing about this is that these innocent guys are sentenced to death, with the prosecutor KNOWING they are innocent. To me, that is attempted murder. And since it's done for career and political gain, that's the same as killing for money. I think the prosecutors should be tried, convicted, then executed. You heard me, I said EXECUTED!
American Airlines - Greedy Executives - 04/22/03
This type of thing just burns me up, which is why I'm commenting on it. American Airlines was going under, heading for bankruptcy. The labor unions (i.e. pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, etc.) voted and decided to take pay reductions, benefit reductions, pension reductions, etc. in order to lower operating costs and help save the airline and keep it afloat. What they didn't know when they voted to make their sacrifices for the sake of the company was that the executives were still going to get their bonuses and pensions!
This is disgusting and vile and unfortunately, prevalent in business. We saw it with Enron and we saw it with WorldCom. The executives are willing to gut and destroy the company in order to get their money. They are millionaires so they know even if the company goes under, they are still rich and will not suffer. They are willing to destroy the lives of the common worker in order to pad their bank accounts. The top executives demand concessions from their subordinates, while giving none of their own. And they dishonestly say it's for the sake of the company when it's really for the sake of their own monetary worth. I think they are worthless criminals and should be treated as such.
United States War on Islam/Arab Nations? - 04/11/03
The latest thing on the international scene is equating our war on Saddam Hussein as a war on Islam. Many Muslims say it is the Christians attacking the Muslims of the world. This is laughable for three reasons. First of all, what "Christians"? Although many Americans claim to be Christian and of the Christian faith, they aren't truly living their lives in accordance with Christian doctrine. President Bush claims to be a Christian, but as we found out, that was for when the microphone is on. We're Americans, plain and simple. There really isn't much of God in our system, despite what our currency may say.
Secondly, what "Muslims"? Are those people that are rioting, looting, and vandalizing Baghdad and other cities considered faithful Muslims? Do they follow of Islamic law and doctrine? I don't think so.
And thirdly, if America attacking Saddam is considered as America attacking Islam, that would mean that since Saddam is evil, then Islam must be evil. Is that truly the message the Muslims want to send? Will they let an evil man flourish just because he is part of their religion? Sounds like politics to me!
The Dixie Chicks Boycott - 04/11/03
This is kind of old news now, but I still want to comment on it. The three girl country band called Dixie Chicks apparently do not agree with President Bush's war on Iraq. Being from Texas themselves, they said at the start of one of their concerts that they were ashamed that Bush was from Texas. Well, that seemed quite tame, especially compared to what I've heard other people say and it's really tame to what I've heard people say about President Clinton.
But judging by people's reactions, you would have thought they committed some terrorist act against the United States. Lots of people started calling for them to be boycotted on the radio and for people not to buy their music. Some people even went so far as organizing a burning of their music.
It's absolutely ridiculous. We do as a nation have a first amendment right and we do have a right to criticize our own government and its officials if we have the desire. If they can't say what they want for fear of some kind of retribution, then we really don't have a true freedom of speech. And if there is a reprisal for saying something against President Bush, it almost puts us in the same philosophy as Saddam Hussein's government. Oh we don't have to worry about torture or death, but the thinking process is the same. I'm sorry folks but if you're going to support the freedom of speech, every now and then you're going to have to put up with somebody saying something you don't like. Now I do know that the people protesting against the Dixie Chicks are also exercising their freedom of expression, but there is a fine line somewhere. In today's society, it seems like almost anything can trigger a call for a boycott or resignation. What ever happened to common sense?
Supreme Court Ruling on Three Strike Law - 03/06/03
Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on California's "three strike law" just goes to show that even though a person may sit on the highest court in the land, they don't always use common sense or do the smartest things. They sided with California and said that its three strike law was indeed constitutional, and did not amount to "cruel and unusual punishment". This means that two of the defendants in the case may spend the rest of their lives in prison. One was convicted of stealing some golf clubs and while the other was convicted for stealing some children's video tapes. As you can see by my opening line, I have some problems with the court's ruling.
The three strike law did initially have some good intentions. It was meant to get repeat violent offenders off the street. It was reasoned that by the third serious offense, it is clear that the criminal has no intention of following the law and has no regard for innocent people. That makes pretty good sense. In fact, I'd probably have some "one strike" laws on the books if it were up to me. The three strike laws came about because of children being victims of repeat offenders, and the public cried out and wondered why these horrible people were roaming the streets. Several other states have similar laws.
But California is different. In California, the third felony doesn't have to be a serious or violent felony. As long as it is some type of federal offense, California can lock you up for life. And California is also different in that the third offense doesn't even have to be a felony. California can use past felony convictions to turn a third offense, that might normally be a misdemeanor, into a felony. Isn't that special?
Clearly, this is not what the law was meant to do. It was meant to lock away violent criminals, they prey on society. If a person can be locked away for life for stealing a golf club or a video tape, something is definitely wrong with the system. That is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment. For the Supreme Court to decide otherwise implies that they checked their intellect at the court room door!
University of Michigan Admission Policies - 01/16/03
One of the latest cases going before the Supreme Court is the whether or not the admission policies at the University of Michigan are unconstitutional. The university apparently considers the color of your skin when making decisions. If you are black or some other "minority", you get higher marks and you're considered a better candidate for admission. Yep, it's unconstitutional, unfair, and racist. If you don't think so, what do you think the backlash would be if the preferred color of skin was white? It's time to quit trying to force diversity onto people, or at least figure out some other way of doing it. Shifting the negative effects of racism from one race to the other isn't the solution.
Interestingly, President Bush has come out in full force as being against the university on this matter. I have a sneaky feeling that Bush is politically motivated, but nonetheless, I totally agree with him. Who knows, his heart might just be in the right place this time.
Justice Scalia's Comments on Religion/Government - 01/13/03
If you remember, a federal court in California ruled last summer that the phrase "under God" makes the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional. I have an article on it at: Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional?
Well now Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said judges who ban prayer in school and the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are misinterpreting the Constitution. Scalia is right on one point and wrong on the other. He's right on the prayer issue. Although it might seem like a mix of church and state, unless it was a congressional law that created the prayer in school, it is not against the constitutional. However, the "under God" phrase might just be unconstitutional. I have more details in the article cited above but the main thing is that when congress passed the law to add "under God", they did it mainly to show the communist countries that we were a nation under the Christian God (remember that this was in 1954 when Communism and atheism were the big evils). And that's definitely promoting one religion, the Christian one, over the others.
Senator Lott's Comments - 12/12/02
Last week, at the 100th birthday part of retiring Senator Strom Thurmond, incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said the country "wouldn't have had all these problems" if Thurmond had succeeded in his 1948 bid for the presidency. At that point, the earth stopped spinning and we all went flying off into space. Well, the earth didn't actually stop spinning, but you would have thought it was that serious judging from the reaction of the media and some Democrats. Al Gore (who I, along with the majority of American voters voted for in 2000) couldn't wait to get to a microphone and do an interview, denouncing Lott's comments as racist. Indeed, quite a few people are calling for his resignation. Senator John Kerry is asking Lott to resign his leadership post. He's also being denounced by people like that lying, fornicating, bastard baby producing, adulterer Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Why, you ask? Because Thurmond ran for presidency on a segregationist platform and people see Lott's birthday praise as some sort of endorsement for segregation. Lott has apologized, but that apparently isn't good enough. He has stated he does not believe in segregation and he was just praising the Thurmond the man, not his policies. Lott basically stuck his foot in his mouth and since we really do NOT have total free speech in this country, people have come down hard on him. People should be free to say what they feel, whether good or bad. In this case, I think it's quite clear Lott wasn't saying he's pro-segregation. He was trying to honor Thurmond. And to those now questioning other past statements by Lott, just remember that they were all in a public forum. He didn't have some hidden, secret agenda. Even if he was a card carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan, if his constituency voted him in, it's their job to remove him if they see fit. Democracy and free speech means all points of views are heard, from the good to the bad.
Christmas Lights Before Thanksgiving! - 11/27/02
Every year they seem to be putting out Christmas stuff earlier and earlier in the stores. It's out even before Halloween! And I guess the general public is buying into it (both figuratively and literally) because they also seem to be decorating their houses earlier and earlier each year. We already have several houses in our neighborhood that have their Christmas trees and lights on display. Personally, I don't like it. I think it takes away from Thanksgiving and the fall season in general. It also kind of wears out the Christmas spirit. Christmas is a winter holiday. I think people should at least wait until AFTER Thanksgiving before decorating. Or at the very least, decorate on the Thanksgiving weekend. And a lot of times, these same people that put up their decorations before December are the ones taking down their decorations the very next day after Christmas. That's the very heart of the Christmas season. The days after Christmas are when you share your Christmas fortunes and merriment with your friends and family. You ask them how their Christmas was and what they got as gifts. You visit people because now the season is more relaxed (since the present buying is done). It's kind of silly to be sharing the Christmas spirit with people when the lights and trees are being taken down and tossed to the side of the curb. I generally like to leave my Christmas stuff up until the "epiphany", or "old Christmas", January 6th. But by that time, we're about the only ones left with decorations so it's kind of embarrassing. Personally, I think there should be a law that makes people keep their decorations up for the same amount of time AFTER Christmas, as they had them up BEFORE Christmas!
Boy Scouts and Atheists - 11/27/02
Every now and then you'll hear about some scout master or some eagle scout being kicked out of the Boy Scouts because they don't believe in God or they are homosexual. They always claim it's unfair and it shouldn't matter as long as they are decent people. Some even take it to civil court. I'm sorry but if the Boy Scout sets the rules, you have to follow them. The Constitution gives us the freedom to associate with who ever we want. The Boy Scouts says the requirement of being "reverent" means that you believe in God. They also say that the requirement of "morally straight" means you are heterosexual. If you don't like that rules and requirements, then DON'T join the club! You can start your own club. It's as simple as that. Indeed, even the Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts can discriminate in this manner if they want.
What gets me are the ones that claim some sort of ignorance, saying that they never realized what being "reverent" or "morally straight" meant in regards to the Boy Scouts. Well, that line might have worked when I was in the Boy Scouts, some 25 years ago. But even then, we knew "reverent" was associated with God and worship, even if no one specifically defined it as being Christian. But in today's society, given the media attention the Boy Scouts has been receiving these last few years, that excuse ain't gonna make it. There shouldn't be a single person that doesn't know that the Boy Scouts require a person to believe in God, and be heterosexual. End of story, I'm tired of the complaining and whining.
Washington D.C. Sniper Case - 11/26/02
Well, they caught two people in the Washington D.C. area Sniper Case. One is 42 year old John Allen Muhammad, and the other is 17 year old John Lee Malvo. They were together, in the same car, sleeping at a rest stop. The murder weapon has been recovered from the car and it looks like the car was modified in order to carry out the murders.
Now we have a scramble to decide where the suspects will be tried. And with two suspects, it might be hard to prove which one pulled the trigger in each case. That doesn't matter to me. Since they were living out of their car, and probably didn't wash their hands frequently, I'm hoping and praying the investigators had enough common sense to do a gun powder residue test on their hands. A positive test combined with the other facts of the test would be enough for me to convict. I think both of them are guilty of murder. And if convicted, I think the punishment should be death, for both of them. If they were so willing to deal out death, they should also be accepting of it as a penalty of law. Unfortunately, our civil society says it can't be cruel and unusual. There is something to be said for vengeance and revenge, no matter how uncivil it may seem at times.
Apple Computer TV Commercials - 10/08/02
I'm sure you've heard me talking (i.e. complaining) about those misleading Apple commercials that are all over TV now. Seemingly every day people, not being able to do anything with a Windows driven PC, but able to easily work magic on an Apple computer.
There's one where a girl is talking about her dad taking Christmas pictures on his digital camera but not being able to see them because he can't find "drivers" on the Internet, blah, blah, blah. She says she connects the camera to her Apple and magically has instant access to the pictures. She claims she "saved Christmas".
Well, as a test, I brought in my digital camera to work to see what happens when I connect it to my Windows driven PC without first trying to install a driver. On my Windows 2000 machine, a typical business operating system, it recognized my camera and automatically set it up as a separate hard drive. My images were easy to get to and view. So then I connected my camera to a Windows XP machine, a typical home operating system. Not only did it recognize my camera, it offered quite a few actions such as copy the images to my hard drive, just view the images, etc. I didn't have to download ANY drivers or do anything beyond just plugging the camera into the computer.
I think Apple is purposely trying to deceive people with their commercials and would avoid their products on this fact alone. Their ads remind you of the negative political ads you see around election time. I have yet to see a single Windows TV ad in which they bashed Apple.
Racial Profiling DWI Cases - 10/04/02
Just to prove we have stupid judges, charges of DWI (i.e. drunk driving) against a person have been dismissed because of alleged racial profiling. The judge said that the state police trooper pulled a Hispanic guy over based on his race, and without probable cause. Since this, more lawyers representing people that they think were "racially profiled" are asking that their charges be dismissed.
While I can see problems with racial profiling, I think the issue needs to be addressed with the person doing it. If the people are criminals, it shouldn't matter how they were caught. If they were not caught in an acceptable manner, then you reprimand the person that caught them. But the criminal charge should stand. One of the idiot lawyers in the case says it doesn't matter if his client was drunk driving because "you can't violate the rights of many to just get one or two". I see it the other way around. The rights and lives of many innocent people are being jeopardized by letting a single alleged drunk driver go free, without any punishment. Hopefully, if his client does drink and drive again, he'll crash his car into his lawyer instead of an innocent citizen (yes, you imply correctly, I don't consider this lawyer as innocent).
New Jersey's Senator - 10/03/02
Okay, elections are coming up next month. Robert Torricelli is a Democratic senator from New Jersey who was running for re-election. Unfortunately, he has been admonished by the Senate ethics committee for his relationship with a 1996 campaign supporter. He accepted gifts and stuff. So he's lagging in the polls and has decided to drop out of the race. But since the Democrats only have a one-seat majority in the Senate, they want another Democrat to replace him. The problem is that under New Jersey law, you can only replace a person on the ballot if he drops out at least 51 days BEFORE the election. The deadline has passed. The Democrats went to court to get a waiver and the NJ State Supreme Court gave them one saying it is more important for the voters to have a choice on the ballot rather than stick to some time limit rule. I think this is a wise choice and what democracy is all about.
But the Republicans are crying foul. Why? Well, one is for the same reason as the Democrats, they want that seat in the senate and not having a Democratic opponent to vote for guarantees it. But most importantly, the Republican candidate Douglas Forrester 's whole campaign has been based on a negative smear campaign against Torricelli. If Torricelli is replaced by former Democratic senator Frank Lautenberg, Forrester's campaign kind of falls apart. And Lautenberg is no friend of Torricelli. I don't like Forrester because I don't like negative smear politics. In fact, Forrester is already trying to falsely tie Lautenberg to Torricelli by referring to them as the "Torricelli-Lautenberg machine".
I usually don't generalized the political parties too much. About all I do is say the Republicans seem to represent more rich people and business. But I'm non affiliated and still vote for both parties. Even so, this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. In Florida 2000, the Republicans didn't want the votes to be counted. Now in New Jersey 2002, they're trying to fix it so that people don't have an opposing candidate to vote for! So much for true democracy. The Republicans say they are going to the US Supreme Court to try and keep Lautenberg off the ballot. If I were a member of the Republican party, I would be ashamed and disgusted (but then again, I'm usually disgusted with the tactics of both parties).
Car Chase and Shooting - 09/26/02
On Monday, a man kidnapped his ex-wife and two kids at gunpoint in Raleigh, NC. He eventually released the two kids and forced the woman to drive west on I-40, then north on I-85. He was pursued by many police cars and a helicopter. He was even shooting out the window along the way. Once he crossed into Virginia, the highway patrol of that state decided to eventually put out some "stop sticks" to deflate the tires and stop the vehicle (a truck). As soon as the truck stopped, he killed the woman and then killed himself.
I think the police did not handle this situation properly. They did nothing to help the woman. Even after taking out the tires of the truck with the "stop stick", they just sat there while the man murdered the woman. It was truly sickening. And all of this unfolded on live television.
In the first place, it was quite obvious that the man meant to kill the woman. Who in their right mind would force the truck to stop? I knew as soon as that trucked stopped, the man would think he was out of options and the woman would be dead. The police didn't even make an attempt to rush the vehicle. In fact, it took them some time to even start approaching the truck! What they should have done was put two or three snipers on an overpass to take simultaneous shots at the man right before the truck hit the stop sticks. That would have at least gave the woman some type of fighting chance of survival. And it wouldn't be that hard of a shot. They knew exactly where the man was in the vehicle and since the truck would be traveling right toward the overpass (bridge), there would be very little relative movement for the aiming point.. Forcing the truck to stop without doing anything basically signed the death warrant for the woman. They should have taken a shot! Even if they didn't kill the man, he might have been wounded enough, or even stunned enough, to give the woman at least some type of opportunity for escape. Instead they setup an inevitable outcome and we all watched it play out on the TV.
NC Lottery - 09/18/02
Well, it looks like once again the people will not get to vote on a lottery for North Carolina. Soon we will be the only state without one, despite having budget problems and the fact that a lot of North Carolinians are spending money on lotteries in the neighboring states. I also learned this time around that the problem is partisan politics. It seems that the Democrats want the lottery while the Republicans don't. And all this time I just thought it was hypocritical "Christians". Is it so partisan in other states? President Bush, a republican, had close ties to the lottery in Texas.
Basically a lottery is a win-win situation. The only harm in it might be a few people that get addicted to it. But that's the problem with everything (alcohol, tobacco, allegedly pornography, etc.). A lottery is not immoral. The bible has many examples of people "casting lots", apparently with the approval of God. It's a voluntary tax in that only those that play will pay. Even if the money doesn't all go for education, it's still money coming in that the state didn't have before. And the state will not take on a seedy look as the anti-lottery crowd falsely proclaim. You've been to all the other states on the Atlantic seaboard haven't you? Do they look seedy? I've lived in and visited other lottery states. Except for lottery booths at the gas station, there is NO difference from North Carolina. Of course the big difference is that the lottery states have another source of revenue that North Carolina is lacking (and losing to those other states).
The Miss North Carolina controversy - 09/09/02
Lady won the Miss North Carolina title. Ex-boyfriend, in an obvious spiteful move (which may or may not be justified), notifies the Miss America pageant that he has topless photos of her. She resigns because they tell her they will kick her out if she doesn't. First runner-up gets the crown. Original Miss North Carolina sues to get her crown back.
Okay, I think the original Miss North Carolina should be the one. Why? Well first of all, she only resigned because the Miss America pageant made her. So they can quit whining about them entering a "contract" with the first runner up because of the resignation. Secondly, a few private topless photos ain't nothing to resign over. Thirdly, she alleges that the ex-boyfriend snapped the photos while she was changing clothes. I think if we see the pictures, we can tell whether she was posing or not. But that still doesn't matter (i.e. still private photos).
On a related matter, the ex-boyfriend has been ordered to turn over the photos. But the Cherokee nation, of which he is an apparent member, says he might not have to. In fact, they say he has a right to be concerned with the "character issues" of Miss North Carolina. This is a perfect example of blatant hypocrisy in today's society. They don't even try to hide it anymore. Why isn't the Cherokee nation concerned with the "character issues" of a man who allegedly snapped photos of a woman while she was changing clothes?
Lastly, the first runner-up should keep her and her lawyer's noses out of this. She was second best from the beginning. I'd rather be represented by the best. She should stay out of it until the Miss America pageant settles the matter.
* Back to home page *