Here's an article from the Salem Evening News in Massachusetts. (www.salemnews.com)
An illegal immigrant from Brazil plowed into a Salem police officer doing a road detail. She then lied about her identity. She's getting a little jail sentence, but hardly enough. The officer may never be able to return to his job. It is an invasion, as Michelle Malkin says. Go to the website to find the picture and article.
Illegal immigrant imprisoned for running down patrolman
Nilma Goncalves Figueiredo,23, sits with a Portuguese interpreter appointed by the court during her court session Monday afternoon before Judge Santo Ruma. Michael Shea and his wife Melissa are in the background Photo by Jim Daly/Salem News.
By Julie Manganis
Staff writer
PEABODY — An illegal immigrant from Brazil was sentenced to six months in jail yesterday for causing an accident that seriously injured a Salem patrolman and then giving police a false name.
But before she was sentenced, Nilma Goncalves Figueiredo, 23, apologized in court to the man she ran down.
"I'm feeling very badly," she said, through a Portuguese interpreter, "because I caused these injuries to this officer. I want him to forgive me."
"I'm very glad you said that," Peabody District Court Judge Santo Ruma responded. "You almost took a man's life."
Whether her victim, veteran Salem police officer Michael Shea, will forgive her is a question he would not answer yesterday afternoon, as he avoided reporters waiting to speak with him after Figueiredo's plea hearing.
On the evening of April 13, Shea was working a detail at a gas leak on Tremont Street in downtown Peabody. As he directed traffic around two Keyspan trucks, Figueiredo clipped him with the right side of the Honda Accord she was driving.
The impact knocked Shea off his feet and onto the hood of the sedan. He hit the back of his head against the windshield and was then thrown from the car onto the pavement, prosecutor William Melkonian said.
A state police accident-reconstruction team concluded that Figueiredo was driving between 17 and 20 mph, well below the 30 mph speed limit. She simply wasn't paying attention, Melkonian said.
After the accident, Shea was flown to a Boston hospital where he was put into a medically induced coma because of swelling in his brain. While he has regained his mental abilities, he still suffers headaches and dizziness, the prosecutor said.
And his leg was badly damaged. Doctors had to insert a metal plate and eight titanium screws in his leg to repair it. Melkonian said the plate and screws will be permanent. It's still unclear whether he will ever return to the police force, a job Shea, 39, held for 18 years.
Shea did not speak at all during yesterday's hearing.
Figueiredo has formally been deported, but immigration officials have promised prosecutors they will not put her on a plane to Brazil until she completes her sentence, which will be served at Framingham State Prison.
She was given credit for 27 days she was held in jail before her bail was posted, and could also receive credit at the jail that could further reduce her time behind bars. She will be deported upon her release.
'Hoping to help her family'
It's not the outcome she was hoping for when she crossed the border between Mexico and Texas back on April 4, and then — after being released by the Border Patrol with an order to leave the country within 30 days — took a bus to Boston.
On the night of the accident, her lawyer said, she had been allowed by her passenger to drive the car, which was owned by a Salem woman, Lizette Faria. Figueiredo was heading to Salem to pick up a book that would help her learn English, the lawyer said.
Shea has filed a civil lawsuit against both Figueiredo and Faria.
"She had hoped to find the American dream and to be able to help her family," said defense lawyer Mark Gallant. Her sister suffers from a club foot, and Figueiredo told him she wanted to make money to help pay for medical treatment.
But Figueiredo appears to have had another reason for coming here, according to Danielli Limos, a Brazilian journalist who has been covering the case for a Portuguese-language newspaper, O Jornal.
A young man named Patricio, who was Figueiredo's boyfriend in Brazil, is in the United States on a work visa, a document Figueiredo was unable to obtain herself. Patricio was in court Friday and again yesterday for Figueiredo's hearing. During the hearing, he was crying.
Melkonian had urged the judge to send Figueiredo to jail for eight months — six months for the crash and another two months for giving police the false name of Leila Lopes and saying she was just 17.
Gallant, meanwhile, urged the judge to impose a sentence of time served, meaning she would have been sent back to Brazil with no further jail time.
Ruma imposed a sentence of four months for driving to endanger charge and another two months for giving a false name.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
A "Right Nation" Update at the WSJ Opinionjournal.com
As I listed it in my bio, I really like the Right Nation book published sometime before the 2004 Presidential election. The authors, Brits who write about America in The Economist, brought a sharp outsider's perspective of our political culture, which demonstrated an astute understanding of our nation.
They've written an editorial published at the WSJ's Opinionjournal.com free site. I've reposted it here in case the link stops working. I think it's interesting and a reminder of the big picture for American Conservatives:
THE RIGHT NATION
Cheer Up, Conservatives!
You're still winning.
BY JOHN MICKLETHWAIT AND ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
The second-century physician Galen observed famously: "Triste est omne animal post coitum." So perhaps it was inevitable that such a lusty beast as American conservatism should fall prey to unhappiness sometime after its greatest electoral seduction. All the same, the droopy state of the American right these days is unnatural.
Last November, American conservatives were full of grand visions of a permanent revolution, with spending brought back under control, Social Security privatized, conservatives filling the federal bench, and a great depression visited on the lawsuit industry. Six months later, listening to conservatives is as uplifting as reading William Styron's "Darkness Visible." Larry Kudlow bemoans "the dreariest political spring." John Derbyshire worries about the "twilight of conservatism" as the Republicans go the way of Britain's Tories. For Pat Buchanan "the conservative movement has passed into history"--much as, some would say, Mr. Buchanan himself has done.
Conservatives whinge that George Bush has presided over a huge increase in federal spending. Social Security reform is stalled. A plan to deprive the Democrats of the power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees failed at the 11th hour, when seven Republican Senators defected. America is confronting protracted resistance in Iraq. And, needless to say, liberals remain firmly in charge of the commanding heights of American culture, from the Ivy League to the Hollywood studios.
All true. But it is time for conservatives to cheer up. Fixate on a snapshot of recent events and pessimism makes sense. Stand back and look at the grand sweep of things and the darkness soon lifts. There are two questions that really matter in assessing the current state of conservatism: What direction is America moving in? And how does the United States compare with the rest of the world? The answer to both questions should encourage the right.
The Republicans have by far the most powerful political machine in the country. Last November, the Democrats threw everything they had at George Bush, from the pent-up fury of a "stolen election" to the millions of George Soros. Liberals outspent and out-ranted conservatives, and pushed up Democratic turnout by 12%. But the Republicans increased their turnout by a fifth.
Crucially, George Bush won as a conservative: He did not "triangulate" or hide behind a fuzzy "Morning in America" message. Against the background of an unpopular war and an arguably dodgy economy, he positioned himself to the right, betting that conservative America was bigger than liberal America. And it was: The exit polls showed both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry won 85% of their base, but self-described "conservatives" accounted for nearly a third of the electorate while liberals were only a fifth. Mr. Bush could afford to lose "moderates" to Mr. Kerry by nine points--and still end up with 51% of the vote, more than any Democrat has got since 1964.
It is true that, since those glory days, the Republican Party has lost some of its discipline. Once-loyal members of Congress have defied a threat of a presidential veto on both highway spending and stem-cell research. It is also true that the liberal wing of the party is enjoying an Indian Summer. Opinion polls suggest that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the two favorites for the Republican nomination in 2008.
But is this loss of steam really all that remarkable? All second-term presidents face restlessness in the ranks. And the noise is arguably a sign of strength. The Democrats would give a lot to have a big-tent party as capacious as the Republicans'. One of the reasons the GOP manages to contain Southern theocrats as well as Western libertarians is that it encourages arguments rather than suppressing them. Go to a meeting of young conservatives in Washington and the atmosphere crackles with ideas, much as it did in London in the heyday of the Thatcher revolution. The Democrats barely know what a debate is.
Moreover, it is not as if the Republican moderates really pose a long-term threat to the conservatives. The High Command of the party--Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Frist, Hastert and DeLay--are all from the right. Even Messrs. McCain and Giuliani are better described as mavericks rather than liberals. Mr. Giuliani is as resolute on terrorism as Churchill would have been; Mr. McCain mixes social conservatism with media-pleasing iconoclasm. Both these alleged RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) are further to the right than Ronald Reagan on plenty of issues.
Political success is not everything, of course. Reassure conservatives about the Republican Party, and you get an inevitable retort: that the Republicans are doing well, but conservatism, either of the fiscal or social sort, is not. Stand back a little, however, and this, too, looks over-pessimistic.
Consider, for instance, Mr. Bush's failure to control public spending. The White House points out that some of the splurge is thanks to Clinton-mandated programs. This can hardly apply to the prescription-drug benefit or the pork-stuffed farm bill. All the same, other bits of big-government conservatism have a decidedly ideological edge. Schools have been given more money, but only in return for tougher standards. Money has gone into social programs, but with a clear attempt to encourage self-discipline. The Bush administration is trying to practice "statecraft as soulcraft" (to borrow a phrase from George Will): to use government for conservative ends--to reinforce family values and individual self-discipline, and to give poorer Americans the skills they need to rise in a market economy.
The essential conservatism of Mr. Bush's approach is all the clearer if you compare it with the big-government liberalism of the 1960s--or with the big-government reality of European countries that American liberals are so keen to emulate. Mr. Bush is not using government to redistribute wealth (unless you own an oil company), to reward sloth or to coddle the poor. And government in America remains a shriveled thing by European standards. Some 40 years after the Great Society, America still has no national health service; it asks students to pay as much as $40,000 a year for a university education; it gives mothers only a few weeks of maternity leave.
What about values? Back in the 1960s, it was axiomatic amongst the elite that religion was doomed. In "The Secular City" (1965), Harvey Cox argued that Christianity had to come to terms with a secular culture. Now religion of the most basic sort is back with a vengeance. The president, his secretary of state, the House speaker and Senate majority leader are all evangelical Christians. Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, jokes that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy.
Rather than dying a slow death, evangelical Protestantism and hard-core Catholicism are bursting out all over the place. Who would have predicted, back in the 1960s, the success of "The Passion of the Christ," the "Left Behind" series or "The Purpose Driven Life"? To be sure, liberals still control universities, but, thanks to its rive droite of think tanks in Washington and many state capitals, the right has a firm control of the political-ideas business.
Indeed, the left has reached the same level of fury that the right reached in the 1960s--but with none of the intellectual inventiveness. On everything from Social Security to foreign policy to economic policy, it is reduced merely to opposing conservative ideas. This strategy may have punctured the Bush reforms on Social Security, but it has also bared a deeper weakness for the left. In the 1960s, the conservative movement coalesced around several simple propositions--lower taxes, more religion, an America-first foreign policy--that eventually revolutionized politics. The modern left is split on all these issues, between New Democrats and back-to-basics liberals.
The biggest advantage of all for conservatives is that they have a lock on the American dream. America is famously an idea more than a geographical expression, and that idea seems to be the province of the right. A recent Pew Research Center Survey, "Beyond Red Versus Blue," shows that the Republicans are more optimistic, convinced that the future will be better than the past and that they can determine their own futures. Democrats, on the other hand, have a European belief that "fate," or, in modern parlance, social circumstances, determines people's lot in life. (And judging by some recent series in newspapers on the subject, the party appears to have staunch allies in American newsrooms at least.)
If the American dream means anything, it means finding a plot of land where you can shape your destiny and raise your children. Those pragmatic dreamers look ever more Republican. Mr. Bush walloped Mr. Kerry among people who were married with children. He also carried 25 of the top 26 cities in terms of white fertility. Mr. Kerry carried the bottom 16. San Francisco, the citadel of liberalism, has the lowest proportion of people under 18 in the country (14.5%).
So cheer up conservatives. You have the country's most powerful political party on your side. You have control of the market for political ideas. You have the American dream. And, despite your bout of triste post coitum, you are still outbreeding your rivals. That counts for more than the odd setback in the Senate.
Messrs Micklethwait and Wooldridge, who work for The Economist, are the authors of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America," just out in paperback from Penguin.
They've written an editorial published at the WSJ's Opinionjournal.com free site. I've reposted it here in case the link stops working. I think it's interesting and a reminder of the big picture for American Conservatives:
THE RIGHT NATION
Cheer Up, Conservatives!
You're still winning.
BY JOHN MICKLETHWAIT AND ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
The second-century physician Galen observed famously: "Triste est omne animal post coitum." So perhaps it was inevitable that such a lusty beast as American conservatism should fall prey to unhappiness sometime after its greatest electoral seduction. All the same, the droopy state of the American right these days is unnatural.
Last November, American conservatives were full of grand visions of a permanent revolution, with spending brought back under control, Social Security privatized, conservatives filling the federal bench, and a great depression visited on the lawsuit industry. Six months later, listening to conservatives is as uplifting as reading William Styron's "Darkness Visible." Larry Kudlow bemoans "the dreariest political spring." John Derbyshire worries about the "twilight of conservatism" as the Republicans go the way of Britain's Tories. For Pat Buchanan "the conservative movement has passed into history"--much as, some would say, Mr. Buchanan himself has done.
Conservatives whinge that George Bush has presided over a huge increase in federal spending. Social Security reform is stalled. A plan to deprive the Democrats of the power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees failed at the 11th hour, when seven Republican Senators defected. America is confronting protracted resistance in Iraq. And, needless to say, liberals remain firmly in charge of the commanding heights of American culture, from the Ivy League to the Hollywood studios.
All true. But it is time for conservatives to cheer up. Fixate on a snapshot of recent events and pessimism makes sense. Stand back and look at the grand sweep of things and the darkness soon lifts. There are two questions that really matter in assessing the current state of conservatism: What direction is America moving in? And how does the United States compare with the rest of the world? The answer to both questions should encourage the right.
The Republicans have by far the most powerful political machine in the country. Last November, the Democrats threw everything they had at George Bush, from the pent-up fury of a "stolen election" to the millions of George Soros. Liberals outspent and out-ranted conservatives, and pushed up Democratic turnout by 12%. But the Republicans increased their turnout by a fifth.
Crucially, George Bush won as a conservative: He did not "triangulate" or hide behind a fuzzy "Morning in America" message. Against the background of an unpopular war and an arguably dodgy economy, he positioned himself to the right, betting that conservative America was bigger than liberal America. And it was: The exit polls showed both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry won 85% of their base, but self-described "conservatives" accounted for nearly a third of the electorate while liberals were only a fifth. Mr. Bush could afford to lose "moderates" to Mr. Kerry by nine points--and still end up with 51% of the vote, more than any Democrat has got since 1964.
It is true that, since those glory days, the Republican Party has lost some of its discipline. Once-loyal members of Congress have defied a threat of a presidential veto on both highway spending and stem-cell research. It is also true that the liberal wing of the party is enjoying an Indian Summer. Opinion polls suggest that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the two favorites for the Republican nomination in 2008.
But is this loss of steam really all that remarkable? All second-term presidents face restlessness in the ranks. And the noise is arguably a sign of strength. The Democrats would give a lot to have a big-tent party as capacious as the Republicans'. One of the reasons the GOP manages to contain Southern theocrats as well as Western libertarians is that it encourages arguments rather than suppressing them. Go to a meeting of young conservatives in Washington and the atmosphere crackles with ideas, much as it did in London in the heyday of the Thatcher revolution. The Democrats barely know what a debate is.
Moreover, it is not as if the Republican moderates really pose a long-term threat to the conservatives. The High Command of the party--Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Frist, Hastert and DeLay--are all from the right. Even Messrs. McCain and Giuliani are better described as mavericks rather than liberals. Mr. Giuliani is as resolute on terrorism as Churchill would have been; Mr. McCain mixes social conservatism with media-pleasing iconoclasm. Both these alleged RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) are further to the right than Ronald Reagan on plenty of issues.
Political success is not everything, of course. Reassure conservatives about the Republican Party, and you get an inevitable retort: that the Republicans are doing well, but conservatism, either of the fiscal or social sort, is not. Stand back a little, however, and this, too, looks over-pessimistic.
Consider, for instance, Mr. Bush's failure to control public spending. The White House points out that some of the splurge is thanks to Clinton-mandated programs. This can hardly apply to the prescription-drug benefit or the pork-stuffed farm bill. All the same, other bits of big-government conservatism have a decidedly ideological edge. Schools have been given more money, but only in return for tougher standards. Money has gone into social programs, but with a clear attempt to encourage self-discipline. The Bush administration is trying to practice "statecraft as soulcraft" (to borrow a phrase from George Will): to use government for conservative ends--to reinforce family values and individual self-discipline, and to give poorer Americans the skills they need to rise in a market economy.
The essential conservatism of Mr. Bush's approach is all the clearer if you compare it with the big-government liberalism of the 1960s--or with the big-government reality of European countries that American liberals are so keen to emulate. Mr. Bush is not using government to redistribute wealth (unless you own an oil company), to reward sloth or to coddle the poor. And government in America remains a shriveled thing by European standards. Some 40 years after the Great Society, America still has no national health service; it asks students to pay as much as $40,000 a year for a university education; it gives mothers only a few weeks of maternity leave.
What about values? Back in the 1960s, it was axiomatic amongst the elite that religion was doomed. In "The Secular City" (1965), Harvey Cox argued that Christianity had to come to terms with a secular culture. Now religion of the most basic sort is back with a vengeance. The president, his secretary of state, the House speaker and Senate majority leader are all evangelical Christians. Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, jokes that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy.
Rather than dying a slow death, evangelical Protestantism and hard-core Catholicism are bursting out all over the place. Who would have predicted, back in the 1960s, the success of "The Passion of the Christ," the "Left Behind" series or "The Purpose Driven Life"? To be sure, liberals still control universities, but, thanks to its rive droite of think tanks in Washington and many state capitals, the right has a firm control of the political-ideas business.
Indeed, the left has reached the same level of fury that the right reached in the 1960s--but with none of the intellectual inventiveness. On everything from Social Security to foreign policy to economic policy, it is reduced merely to opposing conservative ideas. This strategy may have punctured the Bush reforms on Social Security, but it has also bared a deeper weakness for the left. In the 1960s, the conservative movement coalesced around several simple propositions--lower taxes, more religion, an America-first foreign policy--that eventually revolutionized politics. The modern left is split on all these issues, between New Democrats and back-to-basics liberals.
The biggest advantage of all for conservatives is that they have a lock on the American dream. America is famously an idea more than a geographical expression, and that idea seems to be the province of the right. A recent Pew Research Center Survey, "Beyond Red Versus Blue," shows that the Republicans are more optimistic, convinced that the future will be better than the past and that they can determine their own futures. Democrats, on the other hand, have a European belief that "fate," or, in modern parlance, social circumstances, determines people's lot in life. (And judging by some recent series in newspapers on the subject, the party appears to have staunch allies in American newsrooms at least.)
If the American dream means anything, it means finding a plot of land where you can shape your destiny and raise your children. Those pragmatic dreamers look ever more Republican. Mr. Bush walloped Mr. Kerry among people who were married with children. He also carried 25 of the top 26 cities in terms of white fertility. Mr. Kerry carried the bottom 16. San Francisco, the citadel of liberalism, has the lowest proportion of people under 18 in the country (14.5%).
So cheer up conservatives. You have the country's most powerful political party on your side. You have control of the market for political ideas. You have the American dream. And, despite your bout of triste post coitum, you are still outbreeding your rivals. That counts for more than the odd setback in the Senate.
Messrs Micklethwait and Wooldridge, who work for The Economist, are the authors of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America," just out in paperback from Penguin.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Rush Limbaugh. For the MANY who claim that he spews hate, is a "mouthpiece" for the Bush Administration, is a liar, is a bigot, I have just one question: have you ever listened to his radio show? Not have you read transcripts, or heard excerpts. Have you actually listened to the show? For an hour or so, and for at least a week or so? You might want to try it before you prejudge. I'll tell you what, my preconceptions about Rush were 180 degrees off of the reality. Where did I get the preconceptions? From reading, watching, and listening to the mainstream media my whole life. Thanks God for the alternative media. The monopoly of misinformation has been beaten back!
O'Reilly really is an A-hole. I think it's hilarious when a liberal friend points to Bill O'Reilly when they are attacking Fox News. I think to a liberal, O'Reilly is a Conservative. To a Conservative, he's a...well, not really sure, just know he's not one of us. Actually, he's a Bill-otarian. What's a Bill-otarian? It's someone who believes that the world revolves around Bill O'Reilly, and that he's the source of all wisdom, knowledge, and truth. I'd say that political party has about 1 member. The rest of us? Well, those of us who occasionally watch his show (which is often nearly impossible to do), find ourselves there because we turned on Fox News for Brit Hume's excellent Special Report broadcast at 6:00 pm, and because the alternatives are EVEN WORSE if you can believe it! Do I need to mention Keith Olberman??? God help us with primetime TV. Where did I leave that copy of National Review or Weekly Standard anyway...
Happy Father's Day
Happy Father's Day to any other fathers out there in the vast www. This is my second, and now that my baby is getting a little older, it was a lot of fun! Children are really what this life is all about. I can't wait until next year!
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Michael Jackson--pre-acquittal. Troubling freak. Likely child predator. Probably correctly acquitted in THIS case. I am no fan of Michael Jackson. And, I think he is likely a child predator. But, his recent criminal trial seems like a good example of our American Criminal Justic System working properly. In our system, we let 12 guilty go free, to ensure that one innocent isn't wrongfully convicted. Are there terrible consequences from this approach? Yes. Many people are harmed by people who have been acquitted, but who were not innocent. Is it worth it? I think so. For the system to maintain any moral authority, the citizens must be confident that it is doing all that it can to protect the rights of the innocent. In the process, some "not-innocent" people are found not guilty. Even with this price, I don't think there's ever been a better system.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Anysoldier.com. What a Great Site!
Just found this site. [http://anysoldier.com/index.cfm]
It looks like a great way to send needed care packages to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are on the front lines and who are lacking some contact and some little treats from back home.
Check out the site and click through the pix. It seems like it started out as a nice and simple idea of a serving soldier, and it blossomed into a really successful project.
Now I've gotta find a soldier and figure out what I want to send. Maybe I'll even get some email and some visits from some of our soldiers who can tell us what they're really doing and accomplishing--which many in the media don't seem interested in conveying to those of us who care back in the States.
It looks like a great way to send needed care packages to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are on the front lines and who are lacking some contact and some little treats from back home.
Check out the site and click through the pix. It seems like it started out as a nice and simple idea of a serving soldier, and it blossomed into a really successful project.
Now I've gotta find a soldier and figure out what I want to send. Maybe I'll even get some email and some visits from some of our soldiers who can tell us what they're really doing and accomplishing--which many in the media don't seem interested in conveying to those of us who care back in the States.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. Undoubtedly about to impart some really foolish "wisdom." Did you hear about his latest rant on the US Senate floor? He compared the behavior of US soldiers at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center holding suspected Islamo-fascist, barbarian, savages, with the conduct of the Stalin Communists, the Nazi's and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia after the Viet Nam War. How do these liberal Democrat leaders expect us to do anything but change the channel when they speak? Their complaints and criticisms are so absurd, juvenile and outrageous that they're not worthy of serious consideration. In my opinion, we are much more humane and decent than we need to be or should be with this enemy. Their brutality must be matched with greater (albeit more civilized) brutality. What do I mean? Well, while they try and kill civilians and children by car bombs and beheadings, we should use our precision guided weaponry to incinerate suspected terrorists, wherever they might be. We will never try to harm civilians, but we must show no mercy when it comes to destroying the enemy. Any less will be seen as a sign of weakness and will only encourage greater terrorism in the hopes of breaking our will. With fools like Durbin providing the verbal ammunition, is it any wonder that they think this way?
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Just Added a Site Meter/Counter
Wondering if anyone is coming here--even if by accident. I just added a site meter to help to see. If you do find yourself here, please feel free to post a comment, suggestion, or a rebuttal to one of my many "stream of consciousness" posts. (I don't start out intending for them to be SOC posts, but they seem to end up that way when I get really annoyed or frustrated.) Thanks!
I love this! Wonkette apparently doesn't, which makes me love it even more.
Reprinted in it's entirety from www.worldnetdialy.com :
WAR ON TERRORBush urged: 'Never apologize' to MuslimsAdministration officials reportedly inspired by classic John Wayne movie
Posted: June 7, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Some members of the Bush administration have taken a cue from a classic John Wayne Western and are advising their boss to take the film's advice – "Never apologize" – when dealing with Muslims, reports geopolitical analysts Jack Wheeler.
In a column on his intelligence website, To the Point, Wheeler explains Wayne's "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," made in 1948, though lesser known than many of the star's films, includes what's been called one of the top 100 movie quotes of all time.
Wayne's character, Capt. Nathan Brittles, who is facing an Indian attack, advises a junior officer: "Never apologize, son. It's a sign of weakness."
It's that attitude that some employees of the Pentagon, State Department and White House are urging President Bush to take when dealing with charges of Quran desecration and other allegations from radical Muslims. They've even sent a DVD copy of the film to the commander in chief.
"Their numbers are small," explains Wheeler, "but they are seriously sick and tired of squishing-out to the hadjis (the nickname our soldiers give the Muslim terrorists in Iraq and their sympathizers – pronounced 'hah-geez,' referring to the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca called the hadj). These sympathizers now include not just rioters on Pakistani streets but Newsweek magazine and Amnesty International.
"'The more we kiss the hadjis' tushes, the more they denounce us and the less they respect us,' one of them told me. 'Just take a look at the DOD's procedures for the handling and inspecting of detainee Korans . You won't believe how impossibly respectful and careful they are. What good does this do us? All we get is lies, lawsuits and riots in return.'"
Wheeler says the goal of the John Wayne aficionados is to eliminate any "We're sorry" message in State Department cables and communiqu̩s, National Security Council analyses, and Pentagon press briefings Р"and inserting in their place, however subtly worded in diplo-speak, the message: 'If you don't like it, stuff it.'"
In his column, Wheeler quotes from a message the anti-apology staffers would like to see in a future Bush speech:
I want to make it very clear that neither this administration nor the American military nor the American people owe an apology whatsoever to the religion of Islam and its believers. The American people have every right to take enormous pride in the respect which our military treats believers in Islam, and in the fact that the American military is not just the most powerful but the most humanitarian fighting force in the history of humankind. It is the Islamic terrorists and their followers who owe us an apology for making war on us, and owe an apology to their fellow believers in Islam for making war on them.
Writes Wheeler: "So cross your fingers he takes the movie and the message to heart. The day the president of the United States announces that Muslims owe an apology to us and not the other way around will be the day we truly begin to win this war."
WAR ON TERRORBush urged: 'Never apologize' to MuslimsAdministration officials reportedly inspired by classic John Wayne movie
Posted: June 7, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Some members of the Bush administration have taken a cue from a classic John Wayne Western and are advising their boss to take the film's advice – "Never apologize" – when dealing with Muslims, reports geopolitical analysts Jack Wheeler.
In a column on his intelligence website, To the Point, Wheeler explains Wayne's "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," made in 1948, though lesser known than many of the star's films, includes what's been called one of the top 100 movie quotes of all time.
Wayne's character, Capt. Nathan Brittles, who is facing an Indian attack, advises a junior officer: "Never apologize, son. It's a sign of weakness."
It's that attitude that some employees of the Pentagon, State Department and White House are urging President Bush to take when dealing with charges of Quran desecration and other allegations from radical Muslims. They've even sent a DVD copy of the film to the commander in chief.
"Their numbers are small," explains Wheeler, "but they are seriously sick and tired of squishing-out to the hadjis (the nickname our soldiers give the Muslim terrorists in Iraq and their sympathizers – pronounced 'hah-geez,' referring to the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca called the hadj). These sympathizers now include not just rioters on Pakistani streets but Newsweek magazine and Amnesty International.
"'The more we kiss the hadjis' tushes, the more they denounce us and the less they respect us,' one of them told me. 'Just take a look at the DOD's procedures for the handling and inspecting of detainee Korans . You won't believe how impossibly respectful and careful they are. What good does this do us? All we get is lies, lawsuits and riots in return.'"
Wheeler says the goal of the John Wayne aficionados is to eliminate any "We're sorry" message in State Department cables and communiqu̩s, National Security Council analyses, and Pentagon press briefings Р"and inserting in their place, however subtly worded in diplo-speak, the message: 'If you don't like it, stuff it.'"
In his column, Wheeler quotes from a message the anti-apology staffers would like to see in a future Bush speech:
I want to make it very clear that neither this administration nor the American military nor the American people owe an apology whatsoever to the religion of Islam and its believers. The American people have every right to take enormous pride in the respect which our military treats believers in Islam, and in the fact that the American military is not just the most powerful but the most humanitarian fighting force in the history of humankind. It is the Islamic terrorists and their followers who owe us an apology for making war on us, and owe an apology to their fellow believers in Islam for making war on them.
Writes Wheeler: "So cross your fingers he takes the movie and the message to heart. The day the president of the United States announces that Muslims owe an apology to us and not the other way around will be the day we truly begin to win this war."
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Wow! This is not a handsome man. Actually, I think this is a John F. Kerry picture from his Yale days. Funny thing, though. His grades from college have been released to the Boston Globe, and it turns out they're a little lower than President Bush's were from his Yale days. I guess Kerry wasn't the superior intellect that his supporters smugly proclaimed him to be. I never bought the "nuance" crap, anyhow. To me, he was indecisive and always trying to be on both-sides in every issue so that he could always be "right." Of course, it also made him "wrong" on every issue, too. Bush, he just tries to make a good decision and he sticks to it if he thinks it was the right one. Articulate? No, Bush isn't. Bright, courageous, grounded and steady? You betcha! That's why he got my vote.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Posting in bed.
Gotta love technology. Posting this from on top of my pillow with my Dell Axim X50v and wifi! One day it'll probably be telepathic posting. Wow!
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Admiring their legacy. It's ok to move on, guys. Watergate was 30-plus years ago. Deep Throat Made Them Rich and Famous. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein made a career publishing leaked information provided by a top F.B.I. agent upset at being passed-over for the top job after Hoover retired. Did they provide the public with information it had a right to know? Of course. But, why is most of the modern political and corporate investigative reporting aimed at Republicans? Aggressive investigative reporting is wonderful--when it's accurate, even-handed, and a little less self-richeous. What am I talking about? Rathergate, NewsWeek Koran-gate, the un-investigated Swift-Boat Vets Allegations, Sandy Berger's Theft and Destruction of Classified Documents, etc. All I ask is that you do it professionally and fairly.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Farrah Fawcett's famous poster picture. Anyone else have this on their wall as a kid? What an innocent time. No internet porn. No cable sex. No little girls being kidnapped and buried alive by perverted maniacs. I feel bad for kids today who never get a chance to be a simple and stupid kid--like us.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld patiently explaining things to people who don't care what he has to say. Instead, they care about what they have to say. Me, I really don't give a crap about what they have to say. I think many other Americans agree. God Bless Rumsfeld for putting up with their idiocy.
The Press Drives Me Nuts, Edition 324
I just happened to be watching CSPAN this afternoon, as they rebroadcast a Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers Press Conference from the Pentagon.
My impression of Rumsfeld and Myers? Professional, mature, serious.
My impression of the questioners? Ugh! Pathetic!
These boobs are such shallow blow-hards. They live to ask a question that will get "play" on the network news. They are not asking serious questions or asking about serious issues, but rather are looking for the "gotcha" moment and the potential faux pas by Rummy or Myers.
The part I watched included the end of the opening statement by Rumsfeld. In it, he spend a few minutes describing the care that the Pantagon has taken to show respect for Muslim detainees. Respect for tradition/culture/religion guided the rules and policies on meals, prayer, and handling of items like a Koran. And, after mentioning this, he mentioned how the detailed document showing this policy has been released for a couple of years and that it's been available for publication, but that he's never seen it published in it's entirety, or mentioned in a way that shows what it says and purports to do.
Is this an accident? Of course not. What do our soldiers think when they are tarred and feathered by incredible tales from suspected terrorist detainees who make outrageous claims, while they know the truth?
Have any of our troops acted unprofessionally and harmed detainees? Probably. Is that not a commonly told tale from every era, nation, government, organization? I'm not suggesting that this is acceptable, just that a serious analysis or criticism must offer a valid historical perspective and balanced report. A single sliver from a historic pie is relatively worthless. We once entrusted the press to provide this.
After witnessing another example of our modern press at work, I entrust them with little. They have made themselves irrelevant sideshows in the story of our times.
Give me CSPAN, a webcam, the internet, and the many voices of those who know what they're talking about, and I think I'll be able to understand the world a little bit better.
My impression of Rumsfeld and Myers? Professional, mature, serious.
My impression of the questioners? Ugh! Pathetic!
These boobs are such shallow blow-hards. They live to ask a question that will get "play" on the network news. They are not asking serious questions or asking about serious issues, but rather are looking for the "gotcha" moment and the potential faux pas by Rummy or Myers.
The part I watched included the end of the opening statement by Rumsfeld. In it, he spend a few minutes describing the care that the Pantagon has taken to show respect for Muslim detainees. Respect for tradition/culture/religion guided the rules and policies on meals, prayer, and handling of items like a Koran. And, after mentioning this, he mentioned how the detailed document showing this policy has been released for a couple of years and that it's been available for publication, but that he's never seen it published in it's entirety, or mentioned in a way that shows what it says and purports to do.
Is this an accident? Of course not. What do our soldiers think when they are tarred and feathered by incredible tales from suspected terrorist detainees who make outrageous claims, while they know the truth?
Have any of our troops acted unprofessionally and harmed detainees? Probably. Is that not a commonly told tale from every era, nation, government, organization? I'm not suggesting that this is acceptable, just that a serious analysis or criticism must offer a valid historical perspective and balanced report. A single sliver from a historic pie is relatively worthless. We once entrusted the press to provide this.
After witnessing another example of our modern press at work, I entrust them with little. They have made themselves irrelevant sideshows in the story of our times.
Give me CSPAN, a webcam, the internet, and the many voices of those who know what they're talking about, and I think I'll be able to understand the world a little bit better.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Bear in the Big Blue House
Just an aside. My daughter loves Bear in the Big Blue House. (She's one.) And, I can admit that I think it's cute, too.
Now, mind you, I'd prefer to be watching C-SPAN or news or something else, but if the baby needs to watch something for a short while as I do something like shower or draft a short email, Bear does the trick!
In my day, it was Captain Kangaroo, Mr. Rogers, or maybe Sesame Street. Simple, nice and innocent. I think those were gentler times for a child to grow up in. Today, it's a mess. Loads of junk, violence, sex and stupidy bombards our senses. Even on Disney, PBS and Nickelodeon. What a shame.
I can't wait till she sits still and lets me read to her!
Now, mind you, I'd prefer to be watching C-SPAN or news or something else, but if the baby needs to watch something for a short while as I do something like shower or draft a short email, Bear does the trick!
In my day, it was Captain Kangaroo, Mr. Rogers, or maybe Sesame Street. Simple, nice and innocent. I think those were gentler times for a child to grow up in. Today, it's a mess. Loads of junk, violence, sex and stupidy bombards our senses. Even on Disney, PBS and Nickelodeon. What a shame.
I can't wait till she sits still and lets me read to her!
Monday, May 30, 2005
Can't believe it's been over a month
Wow. Time does fly here, and I can't believe I haven't posted in over a month.
So, I'll just post a few quick thoughts:
I'm getting really tired of Democrat obstructionism. The judicial filibusters and their conduct with regards to John Bolton's nomination as the American UN Ambassador have been really pathetic.
But, I'm even more tired of weak and squishy Republicans who have no principals either. I'm not saying that they must walk in lock-step with the President, but my god, show us that they really believe in anything except compromise and moderation.
As Barry Goldwater said is his acceptance speech of the Republican Party’s nomination as their candidate for president in 1964: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice (and) that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
I don't mind that many in the Democrat party would prefer more liberal judges, or that they'd prefer a more appeasement-oriented UN Ambassador, but the fact is that they lost the election. More Americans voted for BUSH and he is still the President. He has the right and authority under the Constitution to make these appointments. Absent evidence of lack of qualifications or ability, his choices should be approved. They almost always have beeen in the past, with either a Republican or Democrat in the White House.
To me, this obstruction is a real sign or a collapsing party and ideology. Opposition is fine, but reflexive opposition is foolish and belies a lack of an acceptable alternative philosophy. The Liberal philosophy had a good run, it spurred many changes in society, government, and our culture. Not all have been bad, but many have turned out to be disasterous.
Is that fatal to their cause? Not if they honestly acknowledged what we see in our lives every day, and if they worked harder to try and address their failures. Admitting failure isn't failure. It could be the first step to greater success. But, I think they feel they can't admit failure, since they don't have a solution, since their failures may be inevitable consequences of their guiding principles.
What am I saying? Well, I don't think the Liberal world-view is grounded in reality. I don't think Liberals understand the human condition. The fact that people are inherently conflicted--with good and bad instincts and with patterns of behaviour which seem hard-wired into the species. Is that goood or bad? Of course it's neither. It's just the fact of being human.
Liberals seem to view the world as an ideal environment where humanity will necessarily move towards their preferred path. If this were so, then thier programs and teachings might make some sense. But, I don't think it is so. People aren't ideal, and it takes a certain type of training and coaxing and corralling to push people down the right path. But, it also takes an understanding of what makes people "tick" and what motiviates people. Ambition, faith, love of Country and Countrymen, Jealousy, Logic, Compassion, all are PART of the equation. These things can't be removed from the human condition. They are the human condition. And, it's ok to accept that and to work with that.
I think that people are waking up after a long sleep, and are re-evaluating their lives, their nation, their preconceptions and their world. For those who don't do this, and who can't see the reality around them, it must be a confusing and frustrating time.
It always reminds me of the scene in The Matrix, when Neo has to choose between the two pills. One color (blue) would return him to his previous unreal "reality" while the other (red) would force him to confront the actual "reality." I've taken the red pill he took. I see a lot of other people in our vessel, but I see a lot still hooked up to their tubes and inside of their water-capsules.
I believe that more people are taking the red pill, and that this is happening even in our "blue states."
So, Senate, get back to business. Approve the judges, approve the appointments, and Democrats, if you don't like it, come up with some better ideas and CONVINCE us that the're wise.
So, I'll just post a few quick thoughts:
I'm getting really tired of Democrat obstructionism. The judicial filibusters and their conduct with regards to John Bolton's nomination as the American UN Ambassador have been really pathetic.
But, I'm even more tired of weak and squishy Republicans who have no principals either. I'm not saying that they must walk in lock-step with the President, but my god, show us that they really believe in anything except compromise and moderation.
As Barry Goldwater said is his acceptance speech of the Republican Party’s nomination as their candidate for president in 1964: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice (and) that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
I don't mind that many in the Democrat party would prefer more liberal judges, or that they'd prefer a more appeasement-oriented UN Ambassador, but the fact is that they lost the election. More Americans voted for BUSH and he is still the President. He has the right and authority under the Constitution to make these appointments. Absent evidence of lack of qualifications or ability, his choices should be approved. They almost always have beeen in the past, with either a Republican or Democrat in the White House.
To me, this obstruction is a real sign or a collapsing party and ideology. Opposition is fine, but reflexive opposition is foolish and belies a lack of an acceptable alternative philosophy. The Liberal philosophy had a good run, it spurred many changes in society, government, and our culture. Not all have been bad, but many have turned out to be disasterous.
Is that fatal to their cause? Not if they honestly acknowledged what we see in our lives every day, and if they worked harder to try and address their failures. Admitting failure isn't failure. It could be the first step to greater success. But, I think they feel they can't admit failure, since they don't have a solution, since their failures may be inevitable consequences of their guiding principles.
What am I saying? Well, I don't think the Liberal world-view is grounded in reality. I don't think Liberals understand the human condition. The fact that people are inherently conflicted--with good and bad instincts and with patterns of behaviour which seem hard-wired into the species. Is that goood or bad? Of course it's neither. It's just the fact of being human.
Liberals seem to view the world as an ideal environment where humanity will necessarily move towards their preferred path. If this were so, then thier programs and teachings might make some sense. But, I don't think it is so. People aren't ideal, and it takes a certain type of training and coaxing and corralling to push people down the right path. But, it also takes an understanding of what makes people "tick" and what motiviates people. Ambition, faith, love of Country and Countrymen, Jealousy, Logic, Compassion, all are PART of the equation. These things can't be removed from the human condition. They are the human condition. And, it's ok to accept that and to work with that.
I think that people are waking up after a long sleep, and are re-evaluating their lives, their nation, their preconceptions and their world. For those who don't do this, and who can't see the reality around them, it must be a confusing and frustrating time.
It always reminds me of the scene in The Matrix, when Neo has to choose between the two pills. One color (blue) would return him to his previous unreal "reality" while the other (red) would force him to confront the actual "reality." I've taken the red pill he took. I see a lot of other people in our vessel, but I see a lot still hooked up to their tubes and inside of their water-capsules.
I believe that more people are taking the red pill, and that this is happening even in our "blue states."
So, Senate, get back to business. Approve the judges, approve the appointments, and Democrats, if you don't like it, come up with some better ideas and CONVINCE us that the're wise.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
I'm a Conservative, Not a Republican
I don't consider myself a Republican.
I am a registered "unenrolled" voter--in Massachusetts we don't have "independents." As I get older (and perhaps wiser), I find myself voting for fewer Democrats and for more Republicans. But, I am hardly a Party Voter. By that I mean, I don't automatically vote for a Republican in an election because he/she must have a similar philisophy to me.
You see, to me that's the rub.
Parties don't really have a philisophy. They may claim to have one, but I don't think they really do. Or, can. They're in the business of getting elected. Elected officials have to serve their consitutents, who often are quite diverse and who often have incompatible views and wishes.
I don't envy politicians who must confront this problem each day. Now, don't misunderstand me, I don't really like how most handle this challenge. In fact, I think most of them end up whoring for whoever shouts the loudest and pays them the most in contributions or votes.
What am I then? I think I'm a Conservative. And, in this day and age, despite the overheated rhetoric from the Left, a Conservative isn't a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, anti-immigration, and religious zealot. No. In fact, while I'm sure some who these labels apply to (for real), agree with some of the views held by Conservatives, they don't represent the vision and philisophy of a Conservative. (And, I have news for you, there are just as many in the Liberal camp who those labels apply to as well. It doesn't define their philosophy either.)
What do I mean by Conservative? Well, to me, a Conservative is one who can view the world with a bit of historical perspective. A Conservative is one who has the ability to take an idea that has become many's "conventional wisdom" and critically evaluate it. A Conservative is one who realizes that the passage of time and the notion of "progress" might not necessarily go hand in hand.
What am I talking about. When I was younger, there was such a thing as right and wrong. When I was younger, schools tought us match, english, history, science, and related disciplines. When I was younger, children dressed-up when they should, were tought manners, were punished when they did wrong, and were part of a family and a family's traditions. When I was younger, children were allowed to be children and to learn from the mistakes children made.
Saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance should not hurt a reasonable person. Saying "Merry Christmas" should not hurt a reasonable person. A man's holding a door open for a woman should not hurt a reasonable person. Officially defining a marriage as between one man and one woman (while providing similar benefits to others) should not hurt a reasonable person. Having the words "In God We Trust" on our currency should not hurt a reasonable person. And, the list could continue...
Is "should not hurt a reasonable person" the best standard. Maybe not. But, how about looking at the benefit of the traditions? You see, it seems that this part of the argument is never discussed.
What is the benefit for our traditions and customs? Human continuity. Historical linkage. We are descendants of a great past. A past to be revered. A past without mistakes, injustices and shame? Of course not. Our past has many dark moments, but the light is far brighter and significant.
Human beings are, of course, human. As humans, we will always make mistakes. What makes us different than many other creatures, is that we can reason. We can recognize our mistakes nad learn from them. We can (and should) always try to make things better and to leave the world and our nation better off than when we found it.
But, don't forget, sometimes our "solutions" are mistakes themselves. Sometimes, our "mistakes" aren't actually mistakes at all, they just look that way at the time. So, I urge perspective and critical thought. Don't assume that all of our old ways are wrong. Many were not. In fact, they were the product of thousands of years of human development.
Aren't we quite arrogant to assume that we must know best since we live today?
There was a healthy reassessment of our society and culture in the '60's. Young people were empowered and were able to take some responsibility for themselves. Those aren't bad things.
What they did with it and what has come to pass since, however, isn't necessarily progress. It seems that it became fashionable to question everything and to believe that there was always a better, newer way to do things. To believe as gospel, that the ways of our ancesters was primitive and could not possible be best.
What I see, is a growing realization that many of the customs, practices, lessons, and values that our nation once stood for, might not be so bad afterall. There is a growing realization that the alternative view isn't progress at all, but rather a bizarre and once-unimaginable caricature of a philosophy.
An American philosophy that is fundamentally un-American can never succeed. You see, for most of us, America is a great country. Not perfect, but on-balance, the most perfect in a couple of hundred years.
Don't you wonder why so many millions have always wanted to come here and make it there home? Is there anything wrong with wanting to keep it so?
I am a registered "unenrolled" voter--in Massachusetts we don't have "independents." As I get older (and perhaps wiser), I find myself voting for fewer Democrats and for more Republicans. But, I am hardly a Party Voter. By that I mean, I don't automatically vote for a Republican in an election because he/she must have a similar philisophy to me.
You see, to me that's the rub.
Parties don't really have a philisophy. They may claim to have one, but I don't think they really do. Or, can. They're in the business of getting elected. Elected officials have to serve their consitutents, who often are quite diverse and who often have incompatible views and wishes.
I don't envy politicians who must confront this problem each day. Now, don't misunderstand me, I don't really like how most handle this challenge. In fact, I think most of them end up whoring for whoever shouts the loudest and pays them the most in contributions or votes.
What am I then? I think I'm a Conservative. And, in this day and age, despite the overheated rhetoric from the Left, a Conservative isn't a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, anti-immigration, and religious zealot. No. In fact, while I'm sure some who these labels apply to (for real), agree with some of the views held by Conservatives, they don't represent the vision and philisophy of a Conservative. (And, I have news for you, there are just as many in the Liberal camp who those labels apply to as well. It doesn't define their philosophy either.)
What do I mean by Conservative? Well, to me, a Conservative is one who can view the world with a bit of historical perspective. A Conservative is one who has the ability to take an idea that has become many's "conventional wisdom" and critically evaluate it. A Conservative is one who realizes that the passage of time and the notion of "progress" might not necessarily go hand in hand.
What am I talking about. When I was younger, there was such a thing as right and wrong. When I was younger, schools tought us match, english, history, science, and related disciplines. When I was younger, children dressed-up when they should, were tought manners, were punished when they did wrong, and were part of a family and a family's traditions. When I was younger, children were allowed to be children and to learn from the mistakes children made.
Saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance should not hurt a reasonable person. Saying "Merry Christmas" should not hurt a reasonable person. A man's holding a door open for a woman should not hurt a reasonable person. Officially defining a marriage as between one man and one woman (while providing similar benefits to others) should not hurt a reasonable person. Having the words "In God We Trust" on our currency should not hurt a reasonable person. And, the list could continue...
Is "should not hurt a reasonable person" the best standard. Maybe not. But, how about looking at the benefit of the traditions? You see, it seems that this part of the argument is never discussed.
What is the benefit for our traditions and customs? Human continuity. Historical linkage. We are descendants of a great past. A past to be revered. A past without mistakes, injustices and shame? Of course not. Our past has many dark moments, but the light is far brighter and significant.
Human beings are, of course, human. As humans, we will always make mistakes. What makes us different than many other creatures, is that we can reason. We can recognize our mistakes nad learn from them. We can (and should) always try to make things better and to leave the world and our nation better off than when we found it.
But, don't forget, sometimes our "solutions" are mistakes themselves. Sometimes, our "mistakes" aren't actually mistakes at all, they just look that way at the time. So, I urge perspective and critical thought. Don't assume that all of our old ways are wrong. Many were not. In fact, they were the product of thousands of years of human development.
Aren't we quite arrogant to assume that we must know best since we live today?
There was a healthy reassessment of our society and culture in the '60's. Young people were empowered and were able to take some responsibility for themselves. Those aren't bad things.
What they did with it and what has come to pass since, however, isn't necessarily progress. It seems that it became fashionable to question everything and to believe that there was always a better, newer way to do things. To believe as gospel, that the ways of our ancesters was primitive and could not possible be best.
What I see, is a growing realization that many of the customs, practices, lessons, and values that our nation once stood for, might not be so bad afterall. There is a growing realization that the alternative view isn't progress at all, but rather a bizarre and once-unimaginable caricature of a philosophy.
An American philosophy that is fundamentally un-American can never succeed. You see, for most of us, America is a great country. Not perfect, but on-balance, the most perfect in a couple of hundred years.
Don't you wonder why so many millions have always wanted to come here and make it there home? Is there anything wrong with wanting to keep it so?
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
The Pope. RIP.
The passing of the Pope, not long after Ronald Reagan, and likely not too long until Margaret Thatcher, is historic and sad.
It's interesting to not how little pubic recognition such important and unique figures receive by most "opinion makers" while they're still alive.
Instead, criticism and faults are usually given equal (or greater) prominence when they are discussed, than their tremendous accomplishments. Even when they're gone, only grudging respect and acknowledgement is often noted by those who are writing the first draft of history.
Sounds depressing and frustrating, doesn't it? But, don't fret. We are on the cusp of a brand new information-age. No longer does the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, NPR, PBS, etc., have the loudest and singular voice on events of the day. No, my friend, that time is OVER.
CSPAN, FOX News, the internet, talk-radio, bloggers, etc., can't help but be heard. And, it's not that they have "overpowered" the other voices. It's just that their word is true to many of us who shook our heads when what was reported was inconsistent with what we saw/lived/knew to be true.
I live in the real world. I don't live in NY City or Washington DC (although I did go to law school and live in DC not too long ago). I don't only work with/eat with/live with/socialize with/commiserate with people just like myself. And, I'm not speaking of race, ethnicity or religtion, but rather about ideology.
My job takes me to the depths of our culture. I am always mixing in a world of educated elites in the legal profession, and a world of illegal aliens, welfare recipients, drug addicts, drunks, common thiefs, violent sociopaths, and a great majority of regular folk just like me.
People who try to live by the golden rule and treat others as they'd like to be treated themselves.
Death reminds us that life is short. It's precious and should be relished.
No one is promised tomorrow. Whether there's something more once it's over is something we'll never know for sure until we get there. But, we can be sure that the right way to live, is to live a good life.
Listen to the world. Watch it as it spins. Hug your loved ones a little tighter tonight.
We're alive and we're alive in exciting and momentus times.
This world we know might be heading in the right direction for a change. Isn't that nice?
It's interesting to not how little pubic recognition such important and unique figures receive by most "opinion makers" while they're still alive.
Instead, criticism and faults are usually given equal (or greater) prominence when they are discussed, than their tremendous accomplishments. Even when they're gone, only grudging respect and acknowledgement is often noted by those who are writing the first draft of history.
Sounds depressing and frustrating, doesn't it? But, don't fret. We are on the cusp of a brand new information-age. No longer does the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, NPR, PBS, etc., have the loudest and singular voice on events of the day. No, my friend, that time is OVER.
CSPAN, FOX News, the internet, talk-radio, bloggers, etc., can't help but be heard. And, it's not that they have "overpowered" the other voices. It's just that their word is true to many of us who shook our heads when what was reported was inconsistent with what we saw/lived/knew to be true.
I live in the real world. I don't live in NY City or Washington DC (although I did go to law school and live in DC not too long ago). I don't only work with/eat with/live with/socialize with/commiserate with people just like myself. And, I'm not speaking of race, ethnicity or religtion, but rather about ideology.
My job takes me to the depths of our culture. I am always mixing in a world of educated elites in the legal profession, and a world of illegal aliens, welfare recipients, drug addicts, drunks, common thiefs, violent sociopaths, and a great majority of regular folk just like me.
People who try to live by the golden rule and treat others as they'd like to be treated themselves.
Death reminds us that life is short. It's precious and should be relished.
No one is promised tomorrow. Whether there's something more once it's over is something we'll never know for sure until we get there. But, we can be sure that the right way to live, is to live a good life.
Listen to the world. Watch it as it spins. Hug your loved ones a little tighter tonight.
We're alive and we're alive in exciting and momentus times.
This world we know might be heading in the right direction for a change. Isn't that nice?
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Sunday Morning and I'm Playing with RSS Readers for Pocket PC
Title pretty much says it all. I think I really like RSS readers for my pocket pc. But, since these apps are fairly new and still evolving, I'm trying to get a feel for them.
To be honest, I haven't really found one that I love. I've been using PocketRSS and Egress, but each has flaws for me. In general, I much prefer the look of Egress, but the functionality of PRSS. PRSS just looks so UGLY on my VGA screen. They should call it PRSSUGLY. (OK, a bit of a stretch--just being silly on a Sunday.)
I just posted a POLL on the topic at Aximsite, and I look forward to seeing what people there think. Go check it out if you want: http://www.aximsite.com/boards/showthread.php?t=78634
To be honest, I haven't really found one that I love. I've been using PocketRSS and Egress, but each has flaws for me. In general, I much prefer the look of Egress, but the functionality of PRSS. PRSS just looks so UGLY on my VGA screen. They should call it PRSSUGLY. (OK, a bit of a stretch--just being silly on a Sunday.)
I just posted a POLL on the topic at Aximsite, and I look forward to seeing what people there think. Go check it out if you want: http://www.aximsite.com/boards/showthread.php?t=78634
Saturday, April 02, 2005
The Minuteman Project and Our Looming Immigration Disaster
Have you heard about the Minuteman Project which is about to begin out West? http://www.minutemanproject.com/
Citizens who are fed up with ILLEGAL immigration decided they had to act. I, for one, support them completely.
Ours is a land of immigrants. And, this is a wonderful thing.
Our nation could never have accomplished what it's accomplished without our constant replenishment of talented, hard-working, American-wannabes who come to our nation. I love this. And, I would venture to say, so do MOST of us who are very concerned about the problem of illegal immigration.
For our nation to continue to be strong and good, we need to have some control over what our country is and is becoming. The core values, principles and beliefs which inspired and united us are being whittled away and destroyed.
Why can't we utilize our LEGAL immigration policy? Is it racist or cruel to expect those who want to come to our country to obey our laws? Is it wrong to try to keep a criminal out and to encourage a law-abiding person to come? Isn't that how it used to be?
Many of us are the children and grandchildren of immigrants. Most are the children and grandchildren of legal immigrants. Those who went through proper channels and waited in line and did what America expected. And, the nation and the immigrants were better off for it!
Illegal immigration is not something we must accept, or be afraid to try and stop. The Minutemen are not standing on the border and keeping illegals out. They are showing anyone who'll look how bad the problem is, and how poor our government is doing at addressing the problem. President Bush and the Republican leadership is making a huge mistake in ignoring and misleading us about this problem.
The problem for the government, though, is that the people know the truth. Too many of us regular people see for ourselves what's happening and can't understand why we let it happen.
This is an issue that truly crosses party and ideological lines. Almost all Americans want this to stop.
And, almost all Americans want to encourage healthy immigration so that our Nation continues to progress as it always has. But, if things continue, a disaster is waiting to happen.
How can we expect Al Queda (or other enemies) to NOT cross the border to strike us? Both Mexico and Canada are complicit in the problem and there will be hell to pay when it "bites us in the ass."
As an attorney, and as an attorney who does a great deal of indigent criminal defense work in busy urban courts, I have seen what our "open-border" policies have wrought.
If most people understood how much of their tax money was being spend to provide government services and funds to people who are unwilling to obey our laws, assimilate into our culture, and give-back to the land they take from, I think they'd be aghast!
The governmental funds spent on illegal immigrants is astounding and unreported. Those of us who see it first hand have thousands of stories to tell--if anyone would listen.
So, I support the Minuteman Project and hope that their work helps to shed light on this problem and makes it impossible for our leaders to ignore. Rep. Tom Tancredo is a hero for working so hard to bring this issue to the fore!
For a wonderful blog about our illegal immigration problem and the hero's who are fighting to protect us, check out one of my hero's (Michelle Malkin) new blogs. http://michellemalkin.com/immigration/
Citizens who are fed up with ILLEGAL immigration decided they had to act. I, for one, support them completely.
Ours is a land of immigrants. And, this is a wonderful thing.
Our nation could never have accomplished what it's accomplished without our constant replenishment of talented, hard-working, American-wannabes who come to our nation. I love this. And, I would venture to say, so do MOST of us who are very concerned about the problem of illegal immigration.
For our nation to continue to be strong and good, we need to have some control over what our country is and is becoming. The core values, principles and beliefs which inspired and united us are being whittled away and destroyed.
Why can't we utilize our LEGAL immigration policy? Is it racist or cruel to expect those who want to come to our country to obey our laws? Is it wrong to try to keep a criminal out and to encourage a law-abiding person to come? Isn't that how it used to be?
Many of us are the children and grandchildren of immigrants. Most are the children and grandchildren of legal immigrants. Those who went through proper channels and waited in line and did what America expected. And, the nation and the immigrants were better off for it!
Illegal immigration is not something we must accept, or be afraid to try and stop. The Minutemen are not standing on the border and keeping illegals out. They are showing anyone who'll look how bad the problem is, and how poor our government is doing at addressing the problem. President Bush and the Republican leadership is making a huge mistake in ignoring and misleading us about this problem.
The problem for the government, though, is that the people know the truth. Too many of us regular people see for ourselves what's happening and can't understand why we let it happen.
This is an issue that truly crosses party and ideological lines. Almost all Americans want this to stop.
And, almost all Americans want to encourage healthy immigration so that our Nation continues to progress as it always has. But, if things continue, a disaster is waiting to happen.
How can we expect Al Queda (or other enemies) to NOT cross the border to strike us? Both Mexico and Canada are complicit in the problem and there will be hell to pay when it "bites us in the ass."
As an attorney, and as an attorney who does a great deal of indigent criminal defense work in busy urban courts, I have seen what our "open-border" policies have wrought.
If most people understood how much of their tax money was being spend to provide government services and funds to people who are unwilling to obey our laws, assimilate into our culture, and give-back to the land they take from, I think they'd be aghast!
The governmental funds spent on illegal immigrants is astounding and unreported. Those of us who see it first hand have thousands of stories to tell--if anyone would listen.
So, I support the Minuteman Project and hope that their work helps to shed light on this problem and makes it impossible for our leaders to ignore. Rep. Tom Tancredo is a hero for working so hard to bring this issue to the fore!
For a wonderful blog about our illegal immigration problem and the hero's who are fighting to protect us, check out one of my hero's (Michelle Malkin) new blogs. http://michellemalkin.com/immigration/
Raining Cats and Dogs.
What a mess! It's been a cold, snowy and LONG Winter. Now that it's Spring, it looks like it's gonna be very wet, too.
I just got back from the veterinarian's office to get some vaccines for my dog and for one of my cats. They both were pretty well-behaved, although my dog is really a big ol' wimp. He found the most inaccessible corner of the room when he realized he was about to get a shot in the behind. Maybe he was just showing the tech his best side?
I just got back from the veterinarian's office to get some vaccines for my dog and for one of my cats. They both were pretty well-behaved, although my dog is really a big ol' wimp. He found the most inaccessible corner of the room when he realized he was about to get a shot in the behind. Maybe he was just showing the tech his best side?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
