Coddled

Obama's approval index declines precipitously, as expected.

2009-11-24T15:02:00.003-05:00

So I just read over at Rasmussen that President Obama's Approval Index has gone from +28pts on Inauguration Day to -15pts today, a shocking 43pt swing!

I think it's safe to say, unequivocally, that the Obama Fairy Tale has officially reached the "THE END" part of the film, when everyone leaves the theater and politics as usual(?) assumes it's rightful place in the American landscape.

WHY DO YOU THINK OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATINGS HAVE DECLINED SO MUCH?

I think it's simple. President Obama (with the help of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) have effectively hijacked the United States Federal Government and are forcing their political agenda on the American people, against their will. Evidenced by the fact that they continue to pursue a partisan Health Care Agenda that has very little support from the public.

Why do they continue to pursue something that the public doesn't want?

Because they know what's better for us than we do (we're too stupid to know what's good for us).

They want to expand the role of the Federal Government in such a way that the public is more inclined to vote along the lines of a liberal agenda in the future.

Why are they pursuing this unpopular political agenda so urgently and ruthlessly?

Because they know their grip on the Federal Government won't last and they want to grab as much power as they can before the door hits them on the way out. It really is a disturbing level of dirty, unabashed, now-or-never political opportunism the likes of which has been rarely witnessed in the history of the United States. They know the public doesn't support their agenda, they know the other party doesn't support their agenda, but they know they are in control of the White House and Congress, and now's the time to make it happen.

What ever happened to the idea of a representative government?

YOUR THOUGHTS?

Why ObamaCare scares me...

2009-09-09T06:35:00.001-05:00

I know it's been a while, but here it is in an email format...

An email I wrote to a couple of friends:

---

Good morning gentlemen,

As a continuation of our discussion, regarding government-run healthcare:

I read this article today (read the whole thing please before you get to my questions).

Now, I know ObamaCare has a public "option" component, and that the private sector is supposed to remain largely intact, although what concerns me is that once we start wandering down this path, it will be encouraged, through taxing the private sector and small businesses, and eventually the Public Option will become the only viable option for Americans. Eventually, and in short order (a decade or two) we will be left with universal public health care as this is Obama's stated preference, and this step is the first in a large succession of steps that lead to that end.

When I read articles like that, and I look at the agency I work within, and then I look to the examples of other government-run ANYTHING (medicare, medicaid, the US Postal Service, Social Security...) I come to the conclusion that this is a bad idea, and ultimately will do more harm than any good that the public perceives Obamacare can provide. The faulty premise that politicians base their decisionmaking on these days is that government can do it better than the private sector. I see no evidence of this. The only thing the government is good at is bankrupting whatever program they create.

Can you guys explain why I shouldn't be afraid of government-run healthcare, from a liberal perspective? Taxes are one thing, they can come and go depending on the administration and makeup of congress. What fears me the most about this healthcare reform agenda that the Democratic Party and President Obama are pushing is that once it starts, there will be no going back. It will effectively erradicate our private healthcare sector and the whole healthcare industry in general will never be the same.

The other side that scares me about ObamaCare is the way they are proposing to fund it. By taxing small businesses roughly 5%. It doesn't sound like much, but they are also increasing income tax in small business by 5% by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Glenn Beck (hold your scoffing) outlined how small businesses are being directly threatened by this Administration's policies. Small businesses are businesses that have IIRC <250 employees. Well over 90% of our economy. Small businesses are the engine of this economy, that is where we find the most innovation, most growth potential, and most employees. They (those making over $250,000) will soon be taxed at well over a 50% rate. So they are effectively working for the government because the government takes more of their earnings than they do. You might say that they are doing well, but when you think of where the $250K goes, it is supposed to go into building the business, hiring new employees and the like. They are not "rich" despite what the Democratic party might have you believe.

I'm looking forward to your insight on this, especially you Connor, as you have a much better grasp on business than I do.

On a side note, this type of information is sincerely discouraging me from leaving employement with the federal government to work along side my dad. I am going to ask his insight, and see how he plans to continue to grow his business in light of these issues. At this very instant, it seems to make more sense staying here when the government is seemingly doing everything it can to grow itself and suck the private sector dry. Our economy can't sustain this ideology forever.

Mull it over and let me know what you guys are thinking.

YBIC,

Rob

PS: Have either of you heard of Van Jones? Just curious. Yes or no, no Googling.

---

What do my blog readers think?

Abortion: An issue that shouldn't be sugarcoated...

2009-03-04T13:09:00.000-05:00

Miami abortion clinic owner threw newborn away, prosecutors say

From the article, a poignant excerpt:

She [the mother] came face to face with a human being," Pennekamp said. "And that changed everything [her decision to have an abortion].

Adoption is pretty much always the right choice, but especially in cases like this, when young mothers who "don't have the resources or maturity to raise a child."

On Rush Limbaugh (they say it way better than I could)...

2009-03-04T09:40:00.001-05:00

The left is showing it's weakness in attacking Rush Limbaugh.

The Tired War on Rush Limbaugh - Jonah Goldberg
This is Way Bigger than Rush - David Limbaugh

Don't allow yourself to be distracted by the calculating Liberal Elite

2009-03-03T22:50:00.002-05:00

Why is our brave President Barack Obama, and the Liberal Elite sullying themselves by singling out a lowly talk radio host when we have an economic catastrophe of epic proportions brewing? Don't they have more important things to do than bash Rush Limbaugh? I think the President sounds absolutely pathetic when he starts talking about the talking heads. He's the President for God's sake! Not some two-bit commentator. Does he really need to stoop that low? Are the liberals that scared of Rush Limbaugh that they need to label him the leader of the conservative movement in a blatant attempt to denounce conservative ideals as a whole?

Seems kind of childish to me.

I think they're obviously trying to mislead the public on this. They're saying Rush Limbaugh want's Obama to fail and thus, wants America to fail. They say that this is "crossing the line." That's not at all what Rush meant, it isn't what he said, and it's missing the point he was trying to make; a point which any good conservative would make: He want's Obama's economic policies to fail because he wants Socialism (which is what Obama's policies are) to fail. He wants socialism and Obama to fail because he wants America to succeed. If Obama fails, then the American people will not be able to be fooled, and see Socialism for what it is: A faulty belief system that rewards laziness and punishes hard work. It robs from the rich to give to the poor. It is anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-growth, anti-commonsense. Communism and Naziism share the same family tree as Socialism. Communism and Naziism has killed hundreds of millions of people. They are philosophies that will always end in suffering and failure. If Obama's power grab fails, the Conservative movement will be strengthened and that is ultimately what Rush thinks is best for America.

Socialism is the antithesis of the American way of life. Namely, the idea that you can start with nothing and be dealt a bad hand in life; but by your own gumption, your own willpower, your own perseverance, you can get out of whatever hole you're in and succeed. Socialism says: If you're dealt a bad hand in life, it's not your fault, and big brother will help you out. Socialism effectively says it's bad to be rich. If you're rich, give me most of your money so I can give it to the lazy dude who'd rather spend his money on cigarettes, beer, and pornography than get a decent job. Socialism discourages hard-work, the accumulation of wealth, and takes away the incentives for self-improvement. Why is this bad? It's bad because as the incentives for hard work and self improvement decline, so do the incomes and numbers of rich individuals to tax, that then become a consumer of the welfare state, rather than a supporter. As consumers increase and supporters decrease, the imbalance multiply and eventually the system can no longer support itself and it will collapse under it's own weight. What happens at that point is scary to ponder. Suffice it to say it won't be pretty.

Anyone who does an honest analysis of Obama's socialist policies can see it isn't what America stands for. America doesn't stand for making bigger government the solution for our rough couple of years. America stands for hard work, honesty, justice, and the opportunity to make something out of nothing. America stands for personal responsibility, opportunity, freedom, and equality. In spite of the pretty speeches Obama gives us, I think it is important to point out that his charade is nothing more than a government power-grab. Once the government grabs power, it won't let go. It will rob us of our ability to keep the rewards of our hard work. It will slowly drain the economic incentives which reward that hard work. It will slowly drain the ideals that make this country great. If principles that this administration want to push forward are allowed to continue unopposed, unabated, and unrestricted, we will surely be witness to the beginning of the end of the greatest, most powerful, most principled, most generous nation the face of this earth has ever seen. America has stared down slavery, nazi-ism, communism, and terrorism. Let's hope it has the ability to stare down it's self-inflicted socialism.

That doesn't bode well for the future of America, and it certainly doesn't bode well for the future of the world.

As one of the greatest Presidents America has ever seen once said: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Are you satisfied with the Obama Administration so far?

2009-03-03T08:43:00.001-05:00

I know I'm not.

So far he has broken or backtracked on all of his major campaign promises:

Bipartisanship (failed)
No Lobbyists in Whitehouse (failed)
Transparency (failed)
Close Gitmo (backtracked)
End Iraq War (backtracked)
Economy (spiraling out of control)
Deficit spending (spiraling out of control)
Hope (erradicated)
Change (if he meant changing the American way of life, success)

Your thoughts?

Chuch Norris Weighs In on The Economy

2009-02-17T08:53:00.002-05:00

Who's gonna argue with Chuck Norris? I sure as hell ain't:

Congress' Clueless Credit System

Some reason's why it is obvious this man is correct:

If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you.
There is no 'ctrl' button on Chuck Norris's computer. Chuck Norris is always in control.
Apple pays Chuck Norris 99 cents every time he listens to a song.
Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise.
Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.

Our elected representatives better take note.

The Market Reacts

2009-02-12T11:07:00.004-05:00

Sometimes, a picture can say a thousand words:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average over the last few days...thoughts?

Dear Mr. "Christian": Get off your fat ass and help!

2009-02-12T09:11:00.001-05:00

I know it's really hard to lift a finger and help out with (insert anything here) on a Saturday, ESPECIALLY when there's more important things to be doing like SLEEPING! But just do me a favor, dig deep, WAY deep, get your ass out of bed and SERVE!!!

I know how hard your life is. You've got that paper you need to write, you've got that girl you want to hang out with, and you've got that beer to drink. But just for a moment here: give me a break!

Bro, there are people living 5 minutes away that DON'T have a place to call home for God's sake! They are living at a damn state-funded econo-lodge, they don't know where their next meal is going to come from, don't have a damn jacket to throw on their kids in the winter, are scared, lonely, and hungry. And what are you doing? Laying in your warm bed, listening to David Crowder Band and totally missing the message, and missing what God is calling on you to participate in.

Can you imagine what this fallen world would look like if every single person who claimed to be a "Christian" or "Christ Follower" did even HALF of what you've been called to do? HALF!?!?! THIS WORLD WOULD CHANGE!!! Dude, this world would be saved. That's how powerful Jesus Christ is. I'm not even talking about giving 110%, I'm asking you to give 50 freakin percent!

So stop being lazy.

Stop being a hypocrit (because you really are).

Stop being a consumer.

Stop being greedy.

Stop worrying.

Stop waiting.

Stop blaming everyone else.

START RESPONDING TO JESUS CHRIST'S SACRIFICE!!!

The Three

2009-02-10T11:26:00.001-05:00

These are the Republicans who are crossing the aisle to help pass the Stimulus Package:

Susan Collins (R) - Maine

Olympia Snowe (R) - Maine

Arlen Specter (R) - Pennsylvania

I'm not sure what they're doing, if they're providing political cover for the rest of the GOP to pass the Stimulus Package beause their constituency is solid, or what. Whatever their mindset is, they're the ones working closely with Obama on his package, and are the ones who are facilitating it's passage in the Democrat-controlled senate. Take it for what it's worth. I'm kind of indifferent, and not blaming them for anything, but I do find it strange that 2 of the 3 Republicans Senators are from the same state.

The fantasy is officially over...

2009-02-10T10:17:00.001-05:00

At first I thought Obama's statements to the press and the American people last night were reasonable. I'm backtracking. It's my brain, and I'm allowed to do that. I've spoken with folks who snapped me out of the daze I was in after Obama's performance last night.

Point #1: Partisan Politics is in Full Effect

Bro, you can't just dismiss the opposition's scruitiny of your precious "Stimulus Package" (I hate calling it that) because of the "last 8 years." They're in Washington to support their constituency. That constituency believes in tax cuts, supply-side economics and smaller government. Dismissing the opposition outright, is not the bipartisanship you promised the American people. I find it offensive actually. You can't just say things like "that's what the election was all about" and write your opponents off. You can't keep shifting blame by saying "I inherited this mess." We don't care about what "messes" you inherited, we care about what you're going to do to fix it. Stop it with the finger pointing and blame shifting.

Point #2: Hope Has Left the Building...

...and Fear has entered. What happened to your audacity of "hope?" "National catastrophe" if we don't act now? "Spiral" out of control (*NOW* with hand gestures!!!)? What we need now is facts and sound reason and judgement, not fear, smoke, and mirrors. Fear is why folks aren't spending. An anticipated economic disaster is why people have pulled their money out of the stock market. Your fear tactics are NOT helping the mood of the American consumers at all. Americans are sick and tired of fear tactics in Washington.

Point #3: Hypocrisy Reigns Supreme

New standards of ethics and transparency in the White House? No lobbyists? Do I need to elaborate on Daschle and the other political appointments he has made that smack of complete, total, unabashed hypocrisy?

How 'bout the pork that's in your bill. I don't care how many times you emphasize it's not pork. You can call it whatever you want, but I'm calling it pork. How 'bout the undisguised pandering of the Indiana and Maine Republicans (who you just so happen to NEED to pass the Stimulus Package). Just how many times did you mention the city of Elkhart, IN? I counted at least a dozen. That's politics people, not genuine leadership, and he's not even trying to hide it!

---

It's only been 3 weeks and I'm starting to think this guy is a complete and total phoney, an empty suit. Your thoughts?

I "HOPE" these folks are wrong on Obama's Stimulus:

2009-02-07T20:58:00.003-05:00

Not so good:

Congressional Budget Office:
Obama Stimulus Harmful Over the Long Haul

Ron Paul:

A True Bipartisan Simulus

2009-01-29T06:33:00.002-05:00

Well it's clear to me the bipartisanship President Obama promised us has been thrown out the window. So much for change, it looks like it's just more of the same in Washington.

Since President Obama feels so threatened by the likes of non-politicians like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, let's look at this Bipartisan Stimulus package that Rush proposed. I promise, it's an interesting take on stimulating the economy, one that's hard to disagree with and a true compromise:

My Bipartisan Stimulus
Let's cut taxes, as I want, and spend more, as Obama would like.
-Rush Limbaugh

Bipartisan Spirit of Obama's Campaign already over?

2009-01-25T08:03:00.001-05:00

So much for being bipartisan, huh Barack?

Barack Obama picks a fight with Rush Limbaugh as bipartisan spirit crumbles

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Give me a break. So it's okay for the Democrats to listen to the Daily Kos/Moveon.org types, but it's not okay for us to listen to Rush Limbaugh? It's okay for Democrats to run Al Franken as a genuine senator for Minnesota (I'm not even going to try to explain why Minnesota might even have elected him). Not to mention the fact that EVERY SINGLE MAJOR NEWS OUTLET less FoxNews was hailing Barack Obama as their savior while bashing President Bush. What happened to impartiality in news? I mean, come on, last count for Time Magazine covers featuring Obama in the last year was 16 covers, and that was like 3 weeks ago. I'm sure it's more like 19 now in the last year.

So the only media information that is acceptable is the media information that wants to hump Barack Obama's leg, right? Any opposing viewpoint is unacceptable? Is that how I'm supposed to interpret this?

Welcome to Washington, Mr. President. In the real world, there are folks who actually DON'T want to hump your leg (hard to believe, isn't it?).

At first I was hopeful for President Obama's administration, given the moves he made in his cabinet and the folks he included in his inauguration, but it seems that now that he's sitting in the Whitehouse, all of his promises of bipartisanship, and "change" were no more than gimmicks to get himself into office.

All Barak Obama cares about now is securing his own re-election and a Democrat majority for decades to come, NOT helping the American People through the most trying economic times in 70 years. This guy is turning out to be a fraud already, and instead of hopeful, I'm back to being nervous. If we're not careful here, we're going to turn America into a Socialist nation and we'll never be the same again.

Let's all hope this Rush Limbaugh comment was a blip, and that he isn't really serious.

Word of wisdom...

2009-01-11T12:52:00.001-05:00

Mark Steyn:

"...in Iraq, where Saddam's goons shoveled children into mass graves,
and in Afghanistan, where women were prevented by law from feeling
sunlight on their faces, 50 million Muslims live better lives because
of George W. Bush."

Coddled by God?

2008-12-31T05:44:00.002-05:00

...Hmmm, after reading a friends blog, primarily about her journey as a Christian and follower of Jesus, I'm thinking maybe my blog should take on a different personality.

...I'm pretty sure it's more important to share my relationship with Christ with people than it is sharing my political leanings or other odds-and-ends.

...yeah, so stay tuned.

Human Stupidity Part I

2008-12-17T07:10:00.001-05:00

Happy birthday, Adolf Hitler! Boy with nazi leader's name denied ShopRite cake

I feel so bad for those kids...

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Sham...

2008-12-11T09:25:00.001-05:00

It's nothing more than a tool for social control.

Skeptical scientists are not "fringe elements," that's an outright lie.

There is no consensus.

The only true Inconvenient Truth is this article (don't take my word for it, take theirs):

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Now don't get me wrong. We should be doing more to conserve, but it should be because it's the right thing to do, not because Al Gore and his Global Warming Alarmist co-horts said so. We should be doing it to rid ourselves of our dependency on foreign oil. We should be doing so to keep our earth, air, and water clean.

Climate change is way outside of mankind's ability to control, regardless of the cause, so stop wasting time, money and resourses trying to push a flawed ideology.

Think for yourself. The truth is out there somewhere it just requires effort on your part to discover it.

Go Vote...

2008-11-04T09:26:00.001-05:00

I don't care who you vote for, just vote.

If the guy you vote for wins, GREAT! Pray that he is the right man for the job and he can lead our country and this world in the direction it needs to go.

If the guy you vote for loses, GET OVER IT! Pray that the guy who did win is the right man for the job and can lead our country and this world in the directoin it needs to go.

Both sides need to start working together more effectively. The time for divisive, partisan politics is over. We have a job to do, and the very future of the United States depends on us making the difficult decisions in these troubling times.

Bush has kept us safe...

2008-09-15T07:33:00.000-05:00

Who would have thought there would be ZERO terrorist attacks on US soil in the 7 years that have passed since 9/11/01? Nobody. Not even me, not even the staunchest conservative.

Sadly, the media doesn't cover the lack of a terrorist attack. Just like it doesn't cover the lack of a levee bursting and flooding New Orleans. (Anyone remember Gustav? I didn't think so.)

I realize that some of you find Ann Coulter to be a bit blunt, divisive, rude and smug (she may very well be), but this article is an excellent read. It cites the Left's rooting for Hurricane Gustav to hit New Orleans to distract us from the GOP convention. It cites how much President Bush has stood up to the Left and to negative approval ratings to execute and succeed in putting in place a plan to protect Americans on US Soil from being attacked by terrorists. He stood up to the negative approval ratings to implement a surge to finally help us pull ahead in Iraq, in what is now considered (by even the Left) to have been a success "beyond our wildest dreams." (yeah, Barak Obama said that).

Maybe that dream wasn't so wild after all. Maybe President Bush deserves far more credit than he gets. Maybe, just maybe, the historians will credit President George W. Bush with successfully executing one of the most politically divisive wars in US History. I sure hope so.

Read this:

Bush 7, Terrorists 0 - Ann Coulter

Test Post

2008-09-15T07:08:00.001-05:00

I'm just testing my email-to-blog publishing thing. With Pictures.

I don't think my daughter was a punishment...

2008-09-14T20:23:00.002-05:00

Look, I know this is old. But this illustrates one of the things I simply cannot reconcile in Barak Obama's stance and my personal beliefs.

He says he doesn't want his daughters "punished with a baby."

My daughter was not planned. It was a complete suprise to both of us. She was absolutely NOT a punishment. She was a gift from God, plain and simple, and is now THE joy of my life. I simply cannot imagine considering any baby a "punishment."

If Sarah Palin is unqualified to be VP why the hell is Barak Obama qualified to be PRESIDENT?

2008-09-14T20:10:00.004-05:00

(borrowed from Annika)

The wolves are on the hunt...

2008-09-14T07:29:00.003-05:00

The attacks, mischaracterizations, and outright lies of the left have resurected my blog. You can thank Charlie Gibson and his "interview" of GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin.

I find it slightly amusing that the Obama camp/Liberals/Democrats/Media have put almost all of their focus on Sarah Palin. They are trying to corner her, smear her, slime her.

Now, obviously there are folks out there trying to refute the nonsense (like myself) but they are far outnumbered by the mainstream media, and Hollywood who are doing everything in their power to assure that the Republicans leave the White House.

If you haven't seen the interview. Watch it.

If you have, and have seen the smeer campaign and witnessed the smug attitude of Gibson, here are some good reads:

- ABCs Gibson grilled Palin hard but it may backfire

- Gibson's Gaffee - Charles Krauthammer (the inventor of the term "Bush Doctrine")

A re-introduction

2006-08-30T20:55:00.001-05:00

I can't stand the bleeding-heart liberals who are so blinded by their self-righteous hatred for President Bush that they simply cannot put fourth a logical argument to support their ideas. Instead of explaining their position, they resort to bashing President Bush, who, if history is fair and the war on terror pans out, will be regarded as highly as President Reagan.

Instead of understanding where conservatives are coming from, they dismiss us as misguided unfortunate souls. Instead of recognizing the patterns from history that show us how dangerous Islamic Facism can be to our world, they ignore it, and attempt to appease terrorists. Instead of being honest about things like Global Warming and the environment, they manipulate the facts and cloud the air in order to forward their crazy political agendas.

That is why I started this blog. I started this blog as a backlash to all of that nonsense. Liberals control our media, they control our educational institutions, in short, they have quite a grasp on the minds of a large segment of our society. Thankfully, many Americans can cut through the bullshit and see the truth. That is why President Bush is in office. I just pray that the tides to not turn control of our government back to the Democrats who will undoubtedly lose the war on terror, ruin our economy, and put our lives and our livelihoods at risk.

Israel must defeat Hezbollah...

2006-07-21T09:46:00.000-05:00

[UPDATED @ 7:21PM]

Holy moly, this whole Israel vs.. Hamas vs.. Hezbollah has me all riled up! I can't say much from work, but:

1) Without a doubt and at ANY cost, Israel should eliminate the Hezbollah threat once and for all.

2) The calls of the "Usual Suspects" (Russia, France, etc.) for Israel to exercise restraint are ridiculous, short-sighted, and downright stupid.

Check back tonight for a more thorough post. In the mean time, please share your thoughts with me on the crisis in the Middle East.

---

UPDATE(S):

I hope this doesn't evolve into what's already been dubbed World War III. This volatile situation could certainly move in that direction. It seems as though this particular chapter in the Israeli/Arab dispute owes it's opening paragraph to the aggressive and unprovoked incursions, attacks, and kidnappings led first by Hamas, then by Hezbollah.

I tried a little experiment to make a point to my fiancee last night: While she was quietly brushing her teeth, I approached her and nudged her in the shoulder with my hand. She didn't respond, so I nudged her again (a bit harder this time). Still no response, again I nudged her a bit more forcefully and still nothing. Finally I nudged her to the point where her body tipped away from me, at which point she said, "Stop it!" but didn't react physically. At that point I nudged her again and she had to kick out her leg to remain standing. She yelled at me again and pushed me back and said "Why are you doing that?!?!" I replied: "My actions represent Hamas and Hezbollah, your response to my actions represent Israel." I know I'm a dork, but that's how I perceive the current events that are happening in Israel and Lebanon. Make sense?

Now I know some of you sickos could argue on behalf of the Hamas/Hezbollah, but I don't think you have a very stable foundations upon which to construct your argument, nor a grasp of reality.

You'll say: "The Israelis are killing innocent civilians!"

I'll reply: "Well, Dumbass, Israel goes out of it's way to avoid collateral damage, almost to the point of putting the success of the mission at risk. The Islamotardofanatoshcmuckofuckfaceofacists, on the other hand, deliberately establish their bases of operation within dense population centers for two reasons: 1) to make use of unwilling human shields, and 2) to cry foul when the Israelis strike at their facilities and accidentally hurt innocents. A difference in tactics that should not be overlooked.

"In addition to this, While the Israelis are attacking strategic targets with the utmost precision to prevent future terrorist attacks and protect herself; the Islamotardofanatoschmuckofuckfaceofacists are lobbing Katusha rockets into Israel for no other reason than to terrorize innocent civilians, they have no qualms about killing innocents, in fact it is one of their stated objectives.

"Furthermore, Israel has bent over backwards and unilaterally conceded territory and principle to appease the assholes. And by "unilaterally" I mean, they took appropriate action to satisfy the international community and to calm the Islamofacists, and asked for nothing in return except peace. They UNILATERALLY withdrew from South Lebanon in the 90s; They UNILATERALLY withdrew their settlements from the West Bank and Gaza. 'What did they get in return?' you ask? They got MORE suicide bombings, MORE Katusha rockets, MORE anti-Semitic anti-Israeli rhetoric. Gee, thanks but no thanks."

Its really quite simple, it breaks down like this: We have the forces of Good versus the forces of Evil, crystal clear, black and white. You decide who's side to root for. I'm rooting for Israel. I am behind Israel 110% on this, and wish more of the international community were as well.

---

LINKS:

Now isn't the time for restraint from Israel
(Newt Gingrich)

Israel's pursuit of Hezbollah in Lebanon is a mistake
(Alvaro Vargas Llosa - whoever that is?)

Liberals: Born to run
(Ann Coulter)

Happy Birthday America!

2006-07-04T07:24:00.000-05:00

Now is an excellent time count your blessings and appreciate America's existence.

If you live in America, you should celebrate and be thankful for being lucky enough to live in the best country on the face of the planet, nay, the universe.

If you don't live in America, you should celebrate and be thankful for America saving your ass from the Nazis, Communists, and hopefully, Islamofacists.

Our garden rocks!!!

2006-07-03T17:07:00.000-05:00

So my fiancee and myself started a garden this year. It's at the local community garden (we live in an apartment so we don't have access to our own land to plant) and it is our first experience gardening.

At first, we were too lazy to keep up with it, but one weekend while she was at work, I went nuts on it and ripped out all the weeds, tied up the tomatoes, put up a rabbit fence, etc. It went from this:

To this:

And here are some of the results!

Pretty cool, huh?

Quick opinion poll...

2006-07-01T11:08:00.000-05:00

**UPDATE**

I changed my position on flag-burning after hearing some democrat war veteran say something to the effect of:

Yes, I hate seeing the flag burned, and I think the people who do it are despicable; but nonetheless, as deplorable as I feel that is, it is their right to make a political statement by burning the flag.

In hindsite, I feel the same way.

**END UPDATE**

In light of the recent failed attempt at banning the physical desecration of Old Glory, I wanted to take a quick poll of my visitors:

Which of the following two images do you deem more patriotic:

Image 1:

Image 2:

Not only are the assholes in the first picture burning the American flag (protestors during the inauguration of GWB in 2001), but they're holding it upside down (another sign of disrespect). Also note: the two protestors don't even have the balls to show their faces, what does that tell you?

I personally have no tolerance for this, and am a bit disappointed that the legislation failed today.

Old Glory deserves more respect than those two little punks have given it. This is the same flag my Grandpa defended during WWII. The same flag my Uncle protected during Vietnam. The same flag my brother-in-law is defending in Afghanistan. Great men and women have fought and died in the face of fascism, communism, and terrorism; to give those little pot-smoking dirtbags the right to protest, and that's the thanks they get?

Give me a break. Freedom of speech is one thing, but shitting on the graves of those who have died to maintain your taken-for-granted freedom and abused liberty is entirely different. In my book, desecration of the U.S. flag should not only be illegal, but the punishment for breaking this law should be unnecessarily cruel and unusual.

The people who are pro-flag burning are on the same side as those who would defend the New York Times for divulging top-secret information to terrorists. They can also be referred to as: "leftists," "democrats," and "liberals."

I'll leave you with this last thing to ponder:

Just whose side are these people on anyways? Ours, or Theirs?

...and by "Theirs" I am referring to one or all of the following: Communists, Nazis, and/or Islamofacists.

I'll leave that for you to decide for yourself...but you know where I stand.

...because they said it better than I ever could...

2006-06-24T13:03:00.000-05:00

(Image courtesy californiaconservative.org)

Good Pro-America Anti-Democrat editorials:

'Iraq war' truth squad
(Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.)

The Democrats' withdrawl conundrum
(David Limbaugh)

Courtesy Townhall.com

The New York Times Sucks.

2006-06-24T11:45:00.000-05:00

The New York Times (NYT) and the Main Stream Media (MSM) are secretly hoping for America to lose the war on Islamic Terrorism.

If you disagree with the above statement, than YOU are secretly hoping for America to lose the war on Islamic Terrorism.

It really is that simple, folks.

I'm sure you've heard the story of the NYTs article divulging Top Secret Information on how the government is using financial records both domestically and abroad in tracking down and making cases against terrorists in the war on terror. This, despite the fact that top Administration officials pleaded with the NYT not to print the story, in hopes of protecting our winning hand in this war.

(Thanks, Annika)

So, when they're NOT rooting against our Marines in the greater MSM (Haditha); and rooting against the President (wiretaps; Bush lied...), they ARE giving valuable information to Terrorists, information that was admittedly declared legal, so there was no controversy, just blatant disregard for America's successful execution of the war on Islamic Terrorism and Muslim extremists.

Because of the obvious fact that the broader MSM is overwhelmingly left-leaning, seeing this blatant anti-Americanism is a direct reflection of how the left feels about America. They hate it. They hate that we're winning this war on Islamic terrorism, and they will stop at nothing to embolden Muslim fanatics on one side while bashing our Commander in Chief on the other. They want us to lose, period.

The fact of the matter is this: The left is on the wrong side of this debate, and there's NO debating that. It's fact. They yell that President Bush isn't doing enough to protect us, while simultaneously complaining about every tactic Bush has used in the War on Terror:

1) Wiretaps
2) War in Iraq
3) Tracking financial transactions
4) Secret CIA flights
5) Guantanamo Bay

---

Dear America:

If you want to win the War on Terror (or any war for that matter) vote Republican.

If you want to concede defeat, adopt pacifism, allow Al-Qaida to establish a global Caliphate; and become the bitches of Islamic Fascists, Communists or Nazis, vote Democrat.

A simple thing to keep in mind as you go to the polls this November, and every time you go to the polls for the rest of your life.

God Bless,
Rob

An inconvenient piece of propaganda?

2006-06-03T08:36:00.000-05:00

So what do you think about this whole global warming issue?

I was a science major in college, so global warming was pretty much accepted as truth all throughout my educational experience. Then I read Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear, which made me question all that I had been taught. A must-read if you want to expose yourself to the opposite side of the global-warming issue.

Now we have Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth being released this weekend.

Taken from the film's website:
Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.

Please note the caveat: "IF the vast majority of the world's scientists are right."

That is a VERY important statement, and one that you should keep in mind when viewing the film to keep your perspective in line. What if the "vast majority" of the world's scientists are wrong? Does the fact that they're a "vast majority" make them any more right than the supposed "minority" that thinks they're wrong? The opening summary of the film says a lot more than the casual reader would observe. This sentence including the word "IF" says it all.

It's the same "IF" that prevented President Bush and the U.S. Government from accepting the Kyoto Protocol. It's the same "IF" that gets swept under the rug when you speak to an anti-global warming environmentalist. It's the same "IF" that gets no exposure in Time Magazine or CNN.

(SIDE NOTE)

"IF" it is so critical, then why did the Kyoto Protocol exempt India and China from the rules and allow them to dump greenhouse gases into our shared atmosphere? The rest of the world would be working on a cleaner atmosphere (spending billions upon billions in the process) while the two most populous nations in the world are dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of the rest of the world ever did in the past.

We'd be running in place, inflicting untold harm on the global economy, for what? So we can witness this "ticking time bomb" in spite of all our hard work? That is why the Kyoto Protocol was rejected. That explanation is NEVER exposed in the media. Wake up, people.

(END SIDE NOTE)

I have realized recently that there's always two sides to an issue, ALWAYS. I have found that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, and it is up to the responsible observer to figure out what that truth is. I can pretty much guarantee that both Crichton's book, and Gore's film are filled with exaggerated propaganda bullshit, and that the truth and reality lay somewhere between these opposing points of view.

Personally, I think that the global warming hype is over-blown. Way over-blown. And this is coming from a person who graduated with a degree in Biology and understands the implications of global warming, polar ice melting, the greenhouse effect, and pollution. More so than most of my readers.

What do you think? If you're not sure, I encourage you to both read the book, and see the film mentioned in this post. Decide for yourself what you think the truth is.

Russia and China can kiss my ass...

2006-04-22T19:34:00.000-05:00

Why should we care what Russia and China have to say when it comes to our own national security and our allies'? I would argue we shouldn't.

Russia: "Prove nuclear weapons program in Iran before sanctions are allowed."

Me: "Dear Russia, Kiss my ass."

Russia is stupid. They're the same people who sold night-vision goggles to Iraq shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom. They're the same people who gave sensitive military information to them during the invasion. They're the same people who Saddam basically paid off to vote against any resolution in the UN Security Council which would sanction the invasion (which is the reason we had to go it alone in the first place). Russia is shady. Period. I don't care to listen to ANYTHING they have to say.

We don't need proof do do anything. Screw that. C'mon people, look what Iran is doing:

Day 1: "Our nuclear aspirations are for peaceful energy production."
Day 2: "Let's wipe Israel off the map."
Day 3: "We just launched a new kind of ballistic missle! Yay!"
Day 4: "We've accomplished uranium enrichment!"
Day 5: "The holocaust never happened."
Day 6: "We just tried out a new type of high-speed torpedo, it was sweet."

Can I make this any clearer? They're maniacs! Do they really need nuclear power? They're sitting on one of the world's richest supplies of fossil fuels, why do you need this nuclear power right this second? Stop acting shady, join us at the international table, sit down, shut up, and start acting like a grown-up, asshole. On second thought, keep acting crazy and keep giving us an excuse to wipe you sorry fucks off the map, and install another free democracy in the Middle East.

And China? Give me a break. They're slated to increase their oil consumption exponentially. That's why they want us to go easy on Iran. I don't care what they have to say either. They're shady. They're cruel. They're on the wrong side of this whole world peace/democracy/human rights/war-on-terror thing. They take North Korea's and Iran's side? Ummm...?!?! They just take the opposite of whatever view the United States has to be spiteful. They want to be the world's premier power. They're jealous. They're also stupid. Oppression and violence can only last so long. Eventually the people will revolt against the government, and Chinese Communism will fall.

There's no way the authorities can keep that huge population oppressed forever.

Here's a clue folks: Don't trust any country that doesn't have a free press. Period. A simple rule if you ask me.

Finally!

2006-04-22T19:32:00.000-05:00

Iraq breaks political deadlock.

That's all I have to say about that.

dannetcu@hotmail.com or dannetcu@yahoo.ca

2006-04-08T10:55:00.000-05:00

dannetcu@hotmail.com

dannetcu@yahoo.ca

For the benefit of spambots everywhere. My revenge on this guy.

Someone save us...

2006-03-30T18:41:00.000-05:00

Been a while, eh? My excuses: work, apathy, frustration, wedding planning, Miami, brother-in-law being deployed to Afghanistan...are those good enough for you? Good, then leave me alone...

I'm going to share a little secret with you. I'm losing hope in President Bush. I'm losing hope in the GOP.

Some serious shake-ups need to be undertaken in the cabinet for Bush to regain some foothold and not slip into lame duck status (if he hasn't already). As far as I'm concerned our President has done NOTHING substantial since beating Kerry in '04. Now this may or may not be his fault (the Democrats were damn good - and damn proud of it - at stifling Social Security reform, which would have been a good thing for all of us) but it is the truth. President Bush has lost credibility, has spent all of his "capital" and will probably see a bumpy road ahead, costing the GOP as a whole.

The two things that really bother me are Iraq and the Dubai Ports deal. Iraq was looking up after their elections, but now those idiots over there can't form a government (not necessarily our fault, but that is the case nonetheless).

He really dropped the ball on the Ports deal: ALL he had to do was send a knowledgeable person out in front of the American people to look us in the eye and explain EXACTLY what would occur when DPW assumed control of logistical operations at a few terminals at a few American ports [I would argue that it would have meant absolutely nothing except a change in letterhead at the respective terminal, and paychecks for the longshoremen being issued from another company's payroll] but the politicians put their typical spin on it and (with the help of the liberal media) blew it way out of proportion using phrases such as "controlling our ports" and "security" and "dirty bomb" (nonsense, I tell you - ask me why later).

Has the GOP given me ANYTHING to be proud of in the last 365 calendar days, um let me think about that for a moment...no.

Anyways, I'm frustrated. I'll admit it. I'm losing hope and I don't know how they (the GOP) can turn this around. I anticipate them losing control of 2 branches of government within 4 years. Our only solace is in the fact that Bush was able to swing the predispositions of the Supreme Court to the right, which I hope holds steadfast for a while, lets see if he can get another one in there before his term is up...

Had to vent...am I right or wrong? Am I seeing the glass half-empty, when infact it is half-full? Help me out here...please. I'm begging you.

Muhammad cartoon riots...

2006-02-07T20:30:00.000-05:00

Let me know if I understand this correctly:

INTOLERABLE: A Danish newspaper publishing a cartoon of Muhammad.

TOLERABLE: Violent response to said cartoon in which innocent people have been maimed and killed, and buildings (having nothing to do with the cartoon) torched.

[Confused] Ummm...did I miss a memo or something? Since when was this a logical response? If someone out there knows something that I don't, please feel free to fill me in...

Do America a favor...

2006-02-07T20:13:00.000-05:00

Watch "Farenhype 9/11."

It is SO, SO, SO much more than a rebuttal to that other movie with a similar name by someone who's name I will no longer mention on this blog.

Important lesson:

We do not take pleasure in fighting wars.
We do not fight wars for oil.
We are not imperialists.
We are good people.
DO NOT LOSE FAITH IN AMERICA.

SOTU 2006

2006-02-01T23:14:00.000-05:00

Bravo President Bush, Bravo!

While I felt a lot of the speech was similar to last year's, it was still very important, and I think he did an awesome job defending his positions, and making the democrats look like the assholes they are.

I especially enjoyed the part when he spoke of the failed Social Security Reform he proposed last year, and the democrats had a standing ovation, as if to say to Americans (who are all affected by Social Security): "Ha ha, we stopped Social Security reform dead in it's tracks!" Doesn't that make them look like schmucks?!?! It's almost as if they have a republican in their ranks feeding them bad ideas!

Anyways, I agreed wholeheartedly with everything he said, but that's because I'm one of Bush's sheep.

His defense of the wiretapping authorization, the NEED for Social Security reform (the problem will not disappear - and it's true, the longer we wait, the worse it will be), his whole theme about isolationism and defeatism...it was wonderful.

It boggles my mind to see this and yet people still believe that the democrats have put forward ANY acceptable alternatives up to this point. What a bunch of smug, childish idiots. Their self-righteous agendas will destroy America if we allow them to gain ANY ground, whether that be in the White House or in the Capitol Building. Until they make some REALISTIC proposals, they should stay on the sidelines and let the Republicans take care of business.

My favorite quote:

"Hindsight is not wisdom and second guessing is not a strategy."

Awesome.

Jack Bauer is God.

2006-01-27T07:16:00.000-05:00

This is awesome. If you watch 24, you know what's up. If you don't, you're a damn loser and a downright disgrace to your family, please re-evaluate your life.

Why Jack Bauer is THE MAN:

1) You can lead a horse to water. Jack Bauer can make him drink.

2) If Jack Bauer was in a room with Hitler, Stalin, and Nina Meyers, and he had a gun with 2 bullets, he'd shoot Nina twice.

3)If you wake up in the morning, it's because Jack Bauer spared your life.

4) Upon hearing that he was played by Kiefer Sutherland, Jack Bauer killed
Sutherland. Jack Bauer gets played by no man.

5) Every time you maturbate Jack Bauer kills a terrorist. Not beacuase you
masurbated, but because that is how often he kills terrorists.

6) Jack Bauer let the dogs out.

7) Jack Bauer once forgot where he put his keys. He then spent the next half-hour torturing himself until he gave up the location of the keys.

8) 1.6 billion Chinese are angry with Jack Bauer. Sounds like a fair fight.

9) Jack Bauer killed 93 people in just 4 days time. Wait, that is a real fact.

10) Jack Bauer was never addicted to heroin. Heroin was addicted to Jack Bauer.

11) Osama bin Laden's recent proposal for truce is a direct result of him finding
out that Jack Bauer is, in fact, still alive.

12) Jack Bauer doesn't miss. If he didn't hit you it's because he was shooting at
another terrorist twelve miles away.

13) If Jack and MacGyver were locked in a room together, Jack would make a bomb out of MacGyver and get out.

14) Superman wears Jack Bauer pajamas.

15) Jack Bauer's favorite color is severe terror alert red. His second favorite
color is violet, but just because it sounds like violent.

16) When Google can't find something, it asks Jack Bauer for help.

17) The reason why terrorists attacked New York City was because Jack Bauer was in LA.

18) Jack Bauer got Hellen Keller to talk.

19) Jack Bauer played Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun and won.

10) Lets get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because Jack Bauer does not feel like carrying you.

11) People with amnesia still remember Jack Bauer.

12) When the boogie man goes to sleep, he checks his closet for Jack Bauer.

13) When you open a can of whoop-ass, Jack Bauer jumps out.

14) When life gave Jack Bauer lemons, he used them to kill terrorists.

15) Jack Bauer fucking hates lemonade.

16) Killing Jack Bauer doesn't make him dead. It just makes him angry.

17) It would only take 1 bullet for Jack Bauer to kill 50 Cent.

18) The quickest way to a man's heart is through Jack Bauer's gun.

19) Jack Bauer once won a game of Connect 4 in 3 moves.

20) Jack Bauer can get McDonald's breakfast after 10:30

Kerry trying to gain support for Alito filibuster?!?!

2006-01-26T19:25:00.000-05:00

On what grounds? That his qualified? That he's smarter than you? Fuck you John Kerry. Fuck you.

Read here.

"I've studied Judge Alito's legal record. I met with him one-on-one. After all this, I am left with one simple conclusion: if Judge Alito becomes Supreme Court Justice Alito, he will move the Court backwards." -John Kerry's statment.

Well, Asshole. I've studied your political record, I've seen you talk on television, and after all of this, I'm left with one simple conclusion: if Senator Kerry is allowed to continue this bullshit after getting his ass handed to him in the Presidential election of 2004, he will continue to make Democrats stupider.

This should be considered political suicide in my book. The last two LIBERAL judges appointed during the Clinton administration flew through the senate without a bipartisan upheaval, despite posessing very liberal views. Stephen Breyer won by a vote of 87-9 in 1994 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg won by a vote of 97-3 in 1993.

This is just ridiculous. Prescedent says: "If he's qualified, he gets the approval." End of story. Who am I to judge though? He has Senator Ted Kennedy's support!

Actually, now that I think about it, I encourage this type of reckless behavior from the left-wing radicals. It serves to push those with a liberal agenda to the fringe therefore securing the conservative foothold, and keeping America safe. Go Senator Kerry! Go!

Mr. Goldberg, well said!

2006-01-22T09:51:00.000-05:00

So far, so good...

A few good quotes:

...And it won't take you long to notice that there are a lot of liberals on the list, which, of course, is just how it ought to be. If I were compiling the list years ago, say, when I was in college, there'd be a lot of conservatives on it. But this isn't years ago, and besides, I'm smarter now than I was back then...

---

It's about the cultural-elite hypocrites, like the Beverly Hills environmentalist-to-the-stars who screams at total strangers for driving SUVs while she's tooling around the country in a private jet that sucks up more fuel in one hour than most small countries use in a year.

---

I'm not a lawyer, but I get it. We all get it: If the government is allowed to "trample" on the rights of any one of us, then none of us is safe from government tyranny. To which I say, bullshit. We live in a different world than we did on September 10, 2001. It would help if everyone, starting with Anthony Romero and the ACLU, would be a little more understanding, a little more flexible, and a little less absolutist. Right now the number one civil right most Americans care about is the one about our ass not getting blown up by some lunatic who thinks he's doing it for Allah. We'll worry about who's looking over our shoulder at the library when things calm down.

---

On Jesse Jackson calling Conservatives "Nazis":

...This kind of talk may win Jackson the applause of some blacks, who, hungry for a leader, apparently will take anything they can get--not to mention from the dwindling number of white liberals who also think conservatism equals fascism. But most of us wised up to Jackson's act a long time ago. We know full well that calling a conservative a Nazi is on the same moral plane as some bigot in the bad old days calling Jesse Jackson a nigger. Both are expressions of mean-spirited ignorance.

Whale dies in rescue attempt...liberals blame Bush.

2006-01-22T09:46:00.000-05:00

Poor whale.

I love wiretaps!!!

2005-12-23T11:23:00.000-05:00

Thank you, President Bush, for allowing us to listen to terrorists without a warrant so we can catch the bad guys and save lives. It's that simple.

Mr. Daschle, sit down and shut up. Enough of this political maneuvering, we're in a war here.

---

Updates

12/24/05
USA C.O.W.A.R.D. Act. (Annika's take, a MUST READ!!!)

ANWR drilling defeated...

2005-12-23T10:22:00.000-05:00

Okay, here you go guys...

Personally, I'm glad they're not drilling in the ANWR, it would just prolong our dependence on oil itself (for a very short time), and damage a portion of the refuge that could have far-reaching effects on the very fragile ecosystem.

In my mind, the short-term benefits for forever destroying even this small part of the ANWR does not justify the long-term effects. Estimates of available oil from this region are between 4 and 12 billion barrels. Given the U.S. consumption of oil at about 20 million barrels per day it would last between 200 and 500 days if used exclusively in the U.S. for daily oil consumption. While this could prove strategically useful economically and politically, the proposal do develop newer technologies continues to remain conspicuously absent; which could prove to be even more beneficial both politically and economically, in the long run.

However, if oil revenue from the ANWR (from the leasing of the land etc.) was earmarked exclusively for developing newer, cleaner, renewable technologies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, that might be a strong reason to support it. As it stands now, there is nothing convincing me to support this proposal, and I'm glad it was defeated.

The fight is far from over and there ARE two sides to this story, you cannot ignore the side that is in favor of ANWR drilling as the media has largely done, and I'm sure the more left-leaning visitors of this website will gloss over the potential benefits of drilling in ANWR.

You can find the debate on a previous post here (from January of this year):

Oil in the ANWR?

Also, here is Senator Steven's R-AK take (taken from knoxstudio.com):

On Wednesday night, a bitter Stevens told his fellow senators that they were also rejecting ANWR revenues and that the bill had dedicated them to good causes. He described mountains of cash they were passing up: $3.1 billion for border security, $2 billion to help poor families pay their energy bills, $1 billion for farmers and ranchers. Most of all, he said, the hurricane-damaged Gulf Coast states would lose out, he said, because a major portion of ANWR revenues were to go into a gulf recovery fund. Stevens accused ANWR opponents of not knowing what was in the bill, and he pledged that he wouldn't let their constituents forget.

Do a little research from the other perspective and you will be better off defending your point of view. I've read that the original provision established the ANWR for two things: wildlife research and for it's potential as an oil reserve. If that was, infact, the reason it was created, I can understand Senator Steven's frustration. Google it. Don't forget the other point of view that does present some valid arguments.

---

Helpful links:

Wikipedia.org: ANWR Debate

MmmMmmMmm...delicious...

2005-12-20T19:15:00.000-05:00

Damn, that shit is tight. Beeeyotch.

Iraq, not as bad as it is portrayed...

2005-12-15T18:01:00.000-05:00

ABC News Poll

Blogs for Bush Reaction

Time magazine had an excellent write-up of the results from the ABC-News poll, which clearly identified the questions and answers by region, and by ethnicity, which helps to fully understand the whole picture between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.

Iraqis vote

It also appears as though the turnout in today's election was outstanding and very positive. The incidences of violence were minimal. Another step forward for the Iraqi people. Sunni turnout was phenominal, when compared with January's interim elections.

Read The Messopotamian - an awesome Iraqi blog.

This good news is a breath of fresh air and certainly conflicts with the image of Iraq as it has been portrayed by the Media, and some politicians (Democrats AND Republicans).

---

Updates:

12/17: More good news: Leading Sunni Politician Open to Iraqi Coaltion Gov't. Lets hope the other parties are open to this idea as well...

Abortion 'leaves mental legacy.'

2005-12-15T17:52:00.000-05:00

Good read from BBC.

This article explains findings from the University of Oslo which found that the decision to terminate may bring with it long-standing feelings of anxiety and guilt.

No kidding.

In the meantime, pro-choice campaigners said there was no evidence abortion directly caused psychological trauma.

You're kidding me right?

Do some research yourself and decide what affects that decision has on the people making that difficult decision. I'd venture to guess the study is right on the money.

It's up to you though.

What is with this guy?

2005-12-11T08:23:00.000-05:00

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
---
Update 12/14: Now he says the Holocaust never happened! The insanity continues.

Read this BBC article.
---
Here's a simplified play-by-play of Ahmadinejad's recent statements (in the order they occurred):

1) He says:"...Israel must be wiped off the map..."
2) He says: Iran's nuclear ambitions are for peaceful energy production.
3) He says: Israel should be moved to Europe, and the Holocaust has been manipulated by the west to make an excuse for the creation of the Jewish State.
4) Iran's Foreign Ministry on Sunday offered the United States a share in building a new nuclear power plant in an apparent effort to curb US opposition to its controversial atomic program.

Jeez, they should really get all their ducks in a row before they think anyone's gonna be taking them seriously. Iran's got problems, and when Iran has problems, the world has problems.

This guy is nuts. I hope the international community really takes a stand against this guy, if he's left unchecked, this could really prove to be a challenge to the international community.

Read these:
Science Daily
Reuters
Aljazeera

...freedom is yummy

2005-12-07T11:01:00.000-05:00

"...the costs of lack of freedom are much higher than the costs of promoting it."

READ IT, IT'S GOOD!

...misled the public.

2005-11-30T17:51:00.000-05:00

"The administration lied or mislead the public."

That seems to be the recurring theme for anti-war protesters and the left. In order to glean whatever public opinion points and "cool anti-Bush liberal" points they can, they spout: "Bush lied, Bush lied!" and then scurry back into whatever hole they came out of...

My response is: "So fucking what? Is that really the best you got?"

If I was in charge, and I knew terrorism was the most pressing issue in today's world, I would want to confront it at its source, the Middle East. Now, we can't go invade the entire Middle East can we? That would be stupid. Does it make any more sense to not do anything? Nope.

President Bush (and I) believe that changing the Middle East is the only way to have a real long-term effect on the spread of terrorism. To give the region freedom and hope in the face of tyranny and fear seems like a no-brainer. This will combat the virulent strain of extremism that preys on a population that has historically been left behind in terms of progressing forward with the rest of the civilized world. In terms of contributions to society, economics, social standing, living conditions, etc. Add to that a religion which can be so easily manipulated and hijacked. Islam can become an easy way out of the stagnant, hopeless situation. One can easily elevate oneself to paradise, just by committing suicide in the name of Allah.

A fundamental change had to be brought about in the Middle East, and Democracy (which has proven itself) was one available option, and our most useful tool.

When a liberal person says that the administration lied, it is probably because we haven't found any WMDs in Iraq. Am I wrong? Ask yourself this: Didn't the whole entire fucking world think Saddam had WMDs, including your brave Democrats, and he was just pretty good at hiding them? Wasn't Saddam guilty of repeatedly violating the no-fly-zone rules and for kicking weapons inspectors out of the country? Why would a leader do that? Could it be because he was trying to hide something? At the very least, didn't he act pretty shady on the global stage?

No matter which way you cut it, liberals will never understand the geo-political-strategic position Saddam had backed himself into. He was the wrong person (aggressive towards his neighbors, and brutal to his population) in the wrong place (the Middle East) at the wrong time (a post-9/11 world); and he was ripe for the picking...

---

Update 11/30: An Ann Coulter Article

Please read this. I know some of you hate her, but just read through the logic on display. This article has more common sense in it than the entire Democratic Party.

Hello again...

2005-11-27T21:03:00.000-05:00

So I've been working a heck of a lot. I've decided not to post anything while I'm at work because I work for the government and I can get in trouble for taking part in any political blogging while on duty...so that's why I haven't been making regular updates. I probably won't get to many comments because I'm sure people got sick of clicking through and finding no new content.

I have been visiting Annika a lot lately. Two posts that I really enjoyed reading and participating in are Boogie to Baghdad and Joke of the Day. You'll find the debatable topics you oh-so-love in those links. We can talk about them here if you like, after reading them, come back here to comment.

Also, I poked around to find out the actual vote tally on the Iraq War resolution authorizing the President to use force if necessary. Here is what I found.

Your fearless Democratic leaders really came out and stood up against the big mean lying President didn't they? I guess the Democrats are just as guilty as our President if you buy into the "misleading-the-public-to-justify-the-war" bullshit. Give me a break you hypocritical pieces of poop. It's all about the opinion polls and never about doing what's right with those spineless "fucktards" (to quote the ever so eloquent Jan).

Giants have been doing well, except for today, when Feely missed 3 straight game-winning field goal opportunities and the Seahawks won in OT. Boo. Next week's game against the Cowboys should be just as entertaining.

In the news lately:

Iraq:
Same as usual, except it seems like the rhetoric is getting louder. Positioning for next years elections I guess. Left is still bitching, Right is still letting them bitch.

If you watch The Real World on MTV, they had the last episode this past Tuesday. Nehemiah told his roommate, Rachel, who is a young veteran who served in Iraq something like:

Nehemiah

"You think you accomplished something in Iraq, but you didn't."

Rachel

Rachel was a medic in Iraq and saw people die, and saved lives. Nehemiah's comment angered me and really upset the girl. Nehemiah(if that's even how you spell his name) is an ignorant angry asshole. Our veterans should be treated with the utmost of respect regardless of how we feel about this war. Please remember that.

Supreme Court:
Left is trying to paint Alito as some type of Right-wing lunatic, which probably isn't the case. But I don't really care about this right now either. It bores me. He'll probably get the green light at the end of the battle, which is fine by me, so long as he doesn't overturn Roe vs. Wade, which I don't think is likely anyways. By-the-way, I'm pro-choice for you but pro-life for me, in case you care.

Thanksgiving:
I hope yours was better than mine. I had to work till midnight that night, so I didn't get to spend any time with my family. My mom is still in L.A. and my sister was on a cruise ship, so it wouldn't have been a real Thanksgiving anyways. I made double time though, so that was good. Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday, family and friends are the most important thing so Thanksgiving is the best holiday.

Myspace.com:
I've been goofing off alot here lately. It's fun. If you're a member, you should add me as a friend so you can see my bulletins. They make me laugh.

I know I've made this empty promises before, but I'll try to post more often. I hear posting regularly helps keep people coming back to the blog, so I'll try to do that. Oh, and I am removing the google ads too, they're annoying me.

Iraqi Constitution

2005-10-25T17:03:00.000-05:00

I'm glad it passed, this is a step in the right direction, and a battle won in the rhetoric against the insurgency.

I do have my doubts, like many of my liberal bretheren. I think that the consitution only passed becuase it was supported by an American Puppet-Government, which is encouraged by a vast right-wing conspiracy, led by President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Halliburton. The same culprits responsible for the Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the Earthquake in Asia. Am I wrong in assuming this, Drew?

If you note the statisics, the draft failed in two provinces quite miserably (obviously provinces dominated by Sunnis). I think the American government quickly went in to the remaining Sunni-majority province and cooked the books to prevent the draft constitution's failure...isn't it obvious, Drew?

When will the world wake up and realize that the things that happen don't happen because they're supposed to happen, but because that is what President Bush wants to happen?

Because of this conspiracy I doubt that this consitution will have the long-term success that the American Constitution enjoys.

Sarcasm.

Thank you, Mr. President.

2005-10-06T15:01:00.000-05:00

What a speech! It's about time he set the record straight and bitch-slapped the left! I loved it. A great birthday present (it happens to be my 25th birthday today)!

If you didn't hear the whole speech first-hand, please do the next best thing and read the transcript.

Whether you consider yourself Liberal, Conservative, or Moderate, please do your part and understand our President's justification for our War on Terror; it's objectives, and it's fronts. Before you make any comments (if you wish to do so) please be sure to read the entire thing, twice. Let it sink in, try to see through his eyes, don't dismiss it outright, but please give it a chance.

---

A few excerpts:

In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies, determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom's victory.
---
Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.
---
Our enemy is utterly committed. As [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life."
---
Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures," but let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs and cuts the throat of a bound captive and targets worshippers leaving a mosque.

It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage and the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom.
---
And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation decline and collapse.

Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future.

...and Democrats are innocent little angels...

2005-10-03T12:59:00.000-05:00

This post stems from a conversation I had with Drew in an email the other day.

It would appear that DeLay's luck has finally run out, and as far as I can tell, rightfully so. However, it appears as thought he Democrats are always on the prowl for a good bust (of a Republican). Why don't they spend more time actually working instead of trying to ferret out the wrong-doings of any Republican they can get ahold of?

I would appear as though the Democrats are doing so because they are so far above political corruption and they want to hold their Republican counterparts to the same high standard they so strictly adhere to. After all, it is for the good of the American people, right?

For a taste of some of the things the morally superior Democrats have been up to, head on over to http://www.noagenda.org/

Just to balance the scales a bit...if I can...

Kanye West Sucks.

2005-09-22T17:48:00.000-05:00

He really does, I need to get this off my chest.

1) His rapping style just plain sucks.
2) His ignorance makes me want to vomit.
3) He is overconfident, conceited, arrogant, cocky.
4) His outspoken comments were in poor taste and immature.

When you combine all of his apparent traits you make for one extremely ugly human being.

His comments regarding President Bush are just another example of how this blind hatred liberals have for Bush is clouding their judgement and making them act stupid.

I will elaborate later.

----

Update:

Here are some excerpts from his recent interview w/ Stuff magazine:

Appearance is everything. You have to really respect the clothes. When you walk into a room and you are well-dressed, those who respect fashion have to honor you in a whole new way. Someone with no taste--automatically I am taking points off of their opinion about other things, about music. I'm like, you cannot even figure out what shoes to put with your shirt! How am I going to listen to you about anything else?

How do you feel about bling?

I'm not sure if we are allowed to say that word anymore. I think white people are allowed to say "bling." They are allowed to say all the old-school black slang, like "hottie" and "homie." Actually, I do not think that you all [white people] are allowed to use slang until it is at least a year old. If you say a slang word too early, it's like you're trying to be black. So as long as the slang is a little played out, you're all good. I do know what you are talking about because I remember when we used to say "bling," about two years ago.

Give me a goddamn break, what a hypocritical piece of shit. He perpetuates the black/white divide with garbage interviews like this.

Say "No!" to drugs.

2005-09-18T18:41:00.000-05:00

Funny <-- Click that

Remember.

2005-09-11T08:21:00.000-05:00

Where were you four years ago today?

Never forget 9/11/01.

Never forget how you felt that day.
Never forget the brave men and women who died that day.

Lance Armstrong is the man...

2005-09-07T07:19:00.000-05:00

How awesome would this be?

Excerpt:

Armstrong said: "While I'm absolutely enjoying my time as a retired athlete, the recent smear campaign out of France has awoken my competitive side.

"I'm thinking it's the best way to piss [the French] off. I'm not willing to put a percentage on the chances but I will no longer rule it out."

LOL, priceless.

A day late, and a dollar short...

2005-09-04T08:41:00.000-05:00

Jeez. I was waiting for the dust to settle before I posted about what has happened on the Gulf Coast. The ineptitude of our politicians is unbelieveable. Why the fuck did it take 5 days to get shit going? Can you say "red tape?" How 'bout "beaurocracy?" That is absolute bullshit.

Mayor Ray C. Nagin of New Orleans speaks for most Americans, I believe, when he said (full story):

Excuse my French everybody in America, but I am pissed.

I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man.... This is a national disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound busline in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans. That’s -- they’re thinking small, man. And this is a major, major, major deal. And I can’t emphasise it enough, man. This is crazy.

Don’t tell me 40,000 people are coming here. They’re not here. It’s too doggone late. Now get off your asses and do something, and let’s fix the biggest goddamn crisis in the history of this country.

Amen.

Another thing. They have to bring troops home from Iraq to help in the relief effort?!?! Are we that short-handed? Jesus. I'm re-considering my whole view on this Iraq War now, and I've been a staunch supporter since day numero uno! If we hadn't been in Iraq, would the response have been any faster? Many would argue the answer to that question is, yes.

In short, the AMERICAN response to this disaster has been infuriatingly frustrating. We are the most powerful doggone nation on the face of this filthy earth, and we can't rescue our own people in a disaster.

Its absolute bullshit. How many people died because of candy-ass beaurocratic delays? How many people died when President Bush was on his vacation for 3 days AFTER the hurricane struck before he graciously flew over New Orleans in Air Force One?

How 'bout this one:

We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)

WHO THE FUCK GIVES A SHIT ABOUT SENATOR TRENT LOTT'S HOUSE?

---

You absolutely dropped the ball on this one, Mr. President. You owe the nation an apology. And that goes for the rest of you piece of shit politicians. Thank God for our military, who is now making the best of a horrible situation. Thank God for Texas, which has wholeheartedly opened its arms to Katrina survivors.

Okay, I think I'm done...

Liberals blame Bush for levee break...

2005-09-03T09:30:00.000-05:00

So I heard a few people saying it was Bush's fault that the levees broke because he cut funding for the the US Army Corps of Engineers. Well, it's Bush's fault for everything, of course, but please read this first, Jerk:

About those levees...

You have to go a bit farther back to apply blame in this situation, at least twenty or thirty years. And there's a plethora of people to blame, not just ONE man.

Frickin lemmings.

Drew said...

2005-09-02T21:05:00.000-05:00

Ok... so it is good to spread democracy around the world, you would agree with that, right?

Doesn't democracy stand for FREEDOM? Freedom to say what you wish without persecution, freedom to protest issues that you don't agree with, freedom to change the course of what is happening?

So are you saying that we should throw our rights out the window so that Bush and his cronies can reap the riches of Iraq?

Drew

I took that from one of the responses Drew made to my previous post. Drew and I have had mostly respectful dialogue, in fact, we have exchanged numerous emails in the past, both presenting our points of view on various topics.

My response to his post is as follows:

I do, wholeheartedly, agree with spreading democracy around the globe. I believe democracy can brighten even the darkest corners of our planet. Further, I agree Democracy and Freedom go hand-in hand. To make matters worse, I agree with his whole statement:

Doesn't democracy stand for FREEDOM? Freedom to say what you wish without persecution, freedom to protest issues that you don't agree with, freedom to change the course of what is happening?

Where I disagree with Drew, apparently, is in the application of our Freedom. Freedom certain cross-sections of our society seem to be taking for granted, and applying those Freedoms at will with blatant disregard to the consequences those actions present.

With Freedom, Drew, comes responsibility. Responsibility to use those Freedoms in a manner that benefits the greater good. Responsibility to understand the marked effects those actions have upon others. Just because I have the Freedom of speech, doesn't mean I should shout from the tops of the hills that we should do or act a certain way.

Let me play Devil's Advocate:

Lets say (purely for the sake of argument) that I was a racist bigot asshole, and the only true and pure race was the White persuasion (this doesn't even apply to me because I, myself, have a mixed ethnic background). Well, it would appear to me that those views do not coincide with the views of our government. Would you not then speak out against me if I chose to park my pickup truck in front of the White House and (using a blow-horn) shout that there's no place for Niggers, Spics, and Gooks in America, and they are the downfall of our society, and we should therefore, close our borders and murder all of them. (Please keep in mind I am not trying to offend anyone by using such offensive terms, but I AM trying to make a point).

Do you see where I am coming from now? It is MY opinion, that anti-war protestors like Jane Fonda is effectively the equivalent of my theoretical white supremacist. She may feel that she is trying to do something to change the course of what is happening, but in reality, she is only harming the greater good of our society, and really the whole world.

That is how I perceive the outspoken, anti-war, liberal, knuckleheads.

Thank you, and have a nice holiday.

What makes suicide bombers tick?

2005-08-23T06:43:00.000-05:00

Good article(s):

8/23
Symposium: Through the Eyes of a Suicide Bomber (taken from Frontpage Magazine.com)

9/6
Why we have become suicide bombers...(taken from Mediareviewnet.com)

Jane Fonda Strikes Again!!!

2005-07-26T06:19:00.000-05:00

OMFG. Jane Fonda is going on a nationwide anti-war stump! Is it because she is a brave spokesperson for the anti-war effort? No! She has a new book coming out, and this is just a publicity stunt. She will no-doubt gain status on the best-seller list, but at what cost? I'll tell you a secret, this will no doubt cost the lives of our brave soldiers fighting in Iraq, and I will explain why.

What is it about people that they feel they STILL need to denounce the War in Iraq? As I've said numerous times it serves no legitimate positive purpose when considering the obvious negative effects. The only thing outspoken opposition to the war accomplishes is:

1) Confirming the fact that you are indeed just a liberal lemming.
2) Detracting from any progress we are making there.
3) Bolstering and encouraging the insurgents/terrorists/extremists.
4) Lowering the overall morale of the soldiers fighting there.
5) Ultimately lengthening the time we have to spend there until the job is finished.

ALL YOU ANTI-WAR KNUCKLEHEADS NEED TO RE-THINK YOUR OUTSPOKEN POSITION ON OUR WAR IN IRAQ.

I have no doubt in my mind that your ranting is closely tied to the loss of American life in Iraq because of the aforementioned ponts. Seriously, you need to sit down and shut up. Traitor.

OHHH! THE HUMANITY!!!

2005-07-23T19:41:00.000-05:00

I have to admit something to everyone. Ever since last year when Lance Armstrong won his 6th Tour De France, I have been awestruck by his determination and unparalleled ferocity when it comes to racing. He doesn't just want to beat you in the race, he wants to crush you into little tiny bits and pieces.

So I have been monitoring his progress at work (daily) via espn.com or sportsillustrated.com which both provide a real-time tracker with live (text) commentary. I was able to get my fix and make sure he didn't crash - which I saw as the only thing standing between him and his 7th tour title.

On Saturdays and Sundays, I'm able to wake up at about 8:30AM EST to catch the race as it's happening, live, on OLN. I was sure to wake up today to watch it...it was stage 20 and his last "individual time trial" which Lance has dominated in many of his appearances. This would be the stage that separates Lance from everyone else, and he proved it, by beating his closet competitor (as it has been for the last 7 years) Jan Ullrich by a whopping 26 seconds...extending his overall lead. This was also the last competitive race for Podium hopefuls, tomorrow being more ceremonial than anything else. It was absolutely stunning, to say the least, to watch Lance drive through every stroke of the pedal securing beyond a doubt (almost) his 7th Tour de France Championship.

However, at the beginning of the race, I saw something that was horrifying, disturbing, and even sickening. John Kerry was on hand to cheer Lance on. He even got to ride in Lance's chase car throughout the course. How disturbing is that?!?!?!? I admire Lance to the end of the earth, I'd even name my first male child after him, but after seeing JOHN KERRY climb into his follow-car, I wanted to garble with Listerine, I FELT BETRAYED! What the hell?

It makes me sick. Lance has discussed entering the world of politics in the future, once he's done with cycling, and I'm sure Kerry is just out there courting Lance to come over to the Democrats (I don't know which way Lance leans). It disturbs me. Lance Armstrong is the one athlete that transcends all that seems to divide the world, whether it be political affiliation, race, creed, religion, nationality, sex, beliefs...

To see Lance mixed up with the likes of John Kerry has left a bad taste in my mouth. Seeing this outstanding American (who, with his one testicle can defeat a whole legion of Euro-trash) transcend all that he has faced in his lifetime was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. That image of Lance's utter success will forever be tainted by the image of John Fucking Kerry giving an interview praising Lance and then climing into his chase-car.

Gross.

My patience wears thin...

2005-07-16T13:58:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I was reading an article in the NYT about the sympathetic attitude that British Muslims had for the 4 suicide bombings last week. It bothered me to the core of my soul. Here is the entire article. Here are a few memorable quotes:

"He was sick of it all, all the injustice and the way the world is going about it," Mr. Dutt, 22, said. "Why, for example, don't they ever take a moment of silence for all the Iraqi kids who die?"

Ummm, my response: Why, for example, doesn't the islamic world codemn the attacks by insurgents which unequivocally kill and maim hundreds of innocent civilians, including children??? It seems the DEAFENING silence by the islamic world is tatamount to an endorsement of the tactics used by the terrorists: Kill whoever you want! The more innocents you kill, the better -- especially children (they make great targets)!

They did not agree with what Mr. Tanweer had done, but made clear they shared the same sense of otherness, the same sense of siege, the same sense that their community, and Muslims in general, were in their view helpless before the whims of greater powers. Ultimately, they understood his anger.

So instead of standing up for the rest of the civilized world and condemning all acts of violence, lets strap a bomb to my back and kill even more innocent people. That seems like the perfect fucking solution doesn't it? Instead of striving to be part of the solution to the problem, and speaking out, lets add to the situation, and kill more people, that solves everything!

The party's stated goal (referring to a conservative, if not militant, Islamic movements in Britain today - Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Party of Liberation) is to rebuild the Caliphate - the Muslim state dissolved with the fall of the Ottoman Empire - to displace corrupt dictators in the Muslim world, and to instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life.

Sound familiar? Probably because that is the goal of al-Qaeda and terrorists in general. Welcome to 2005 baby, lets make a global religious state! Lets eliminate freedom and liberty! Wooohooo! Where's my backpack bomb? Did somebody take my backpack bomb???

(Jackass)

F**king assholes. And guess what, the rest of Muslim society is walking around, quietly whispering, "I don't agree with these terrorists, killing innocents is bad (but I can understand why they do it)." Fucking WAKE UP!!! The rest of the civilized world is waiting for Muslim leaders to step up to the plate and publicly condemn the acts and goals of terrorism. All we hear is the shouting and violence of the extremists. I know in my heart the vast majority of Muslims are good people, but where the fuck are they? Why don't they speak out? Please, I'm begging you!

"We know that the killing of innocents is forbidden," Dr. Waheed said. "But we don't see two classes of blood; the blood of Iraqis is just as important to us as English blood." He emphasized that they in no way condoned the bombings. "But when you understand things from that perspective, why should we condemn the bombing?"

Oh, shut the hell up. It is estimated that Saddam was responsible for killing between 2 and 6 million people (2,000,000 and 6,000,000). Where the hell were you when that was going on? Oh yeah, and remember the whole Kosovo thing? Who came to the rescue of the ethnic Albanians (overwhelmingly Muslim) as they were being murdered by the Serbs? That's right! America! But did the Muslim world help? No, not so much. Hypocrite.

He recalled one day, in particular, when the chairman of Birmingham's central mosque stood up to condemn the killing of Ken Bigley, a hostage taken in Iraq last year who was murdered, apparently by a group loyal to Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

"I remember the hypocrisy of it," Dr. Waheed said, "Then several older people in white beards stood up as well and said, 'Why did you not do anything when the Iraq war began?' "

Why did you not do anything when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Supressed, murdered, and raped the Shiites? Hypocrites.

---

I hope we see a day when the true Muslims realize the damage the radicals are causing, and get fed up, and start speaking up, LOUD AND CLEAR that these actions are unacceptable, and condemn extremists.

Before 9/11 I was looking forward to living in a global society. I watched eagerly as international commerce and travel grew, and borders between nations diminished. Now, because of fear and hatred spread by islamic extremists, that dream is gone. We now have to live in fear, we cannot travel in certain countries and be proud Americans anymore. I was envisioning my retirement in this lifetime, international travel would be encouraged and effortless. Look at what terrorism has done. It even has split the EU, and now stricter and stricter rules are in place in our airports and land borders? For what?

I challenge Muslims, true Muslims everywhere, who know that this killing is wrong, to condemn it, speak out, and become active. There is NO place for this extremism in our global society. Especially NOT in the 21st century. We, as a people, globally, have moved past this infantile mindset of imposing religion, rules, and mores on others. We, as a whole, have to embrace democracy, freedom, and liberty as the lifeblood of a global society. It is within our grasp, we haven't the time, or the tolerance for extremists.

---

Updates

(7/29/05) Finally, an important Muslim group has spoken out against the tactics used by terrorists. Thank you. Here is the edict they issued. Certainly a step in the right direction.

So What SHOULD We Do? II

2005-06-24T18:52:00.000-05:00

I took this from the previous thread I created a couple months ago, I wrote this in response to a reply made by Miss Penny Hinckler. For the full context, go to that particular thread.

While none of you have offered much of a feasible solution, but merely complaints, I will respond to the point Penny makes.

While I can understand your view that America inflicts it's "Disney World" view on the rest of the world as something that doesn't make sense, let me give you my view from an American Perspective.

Lets face it, we are living in a Global Community. The actions of a single nation have an impact on the rest of the world. 9/11 is one tragic example.

When our forefathers traveled to America to begin a country of freedom and democracy, we worked hard and have been rewarded with what we feel is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. We enjoy freedoms here that many people in many parts of the world can only dream about. Those freedoms are a direct result of our democracy in action, producing results.

We have seen the positive effect that democracy can have on a nation, and in turn, a region. North America has lived in peace for decades. No democratic nation has attacked or invaded another democratic nation. Ever.

A new philosophy emerging in the US is to "export" democracy. In Iraq it took military might, in other regions, it will take political and economic persuasion. A popular belief held in many Americans is what's called a "Manifest Destiny" of global democracy. Imagine a world in which every single nation is based on the will of it's people instead of the will of ruthless dictators whose only concern is of personal gain. Imagine!

When we chose to address Iraq militarily, it was for many reasons:

First, it was for the perceived threat of WMD, which I believe do exist, but were probably dismantled and/or hidden outside of Iraq shortly before the start of the war. Post 9/11, the threat of a menacing dictator in Iraq working in concert with Terrorists who want nothing more than to kill Americans was just to grave to ignore. The longer we waited, the greater the costs of addressing that threat would become.

Second, it was to stop the building threat posed by Saddam, as he continually provoked coalition airplanes by firing Surface-to-Air missiles, and repeatedly violating the no-fly zone rules imposed after the Gulf War by the UN. His aggression towards his neigbors in 1991 and towards security forces enforcing the no-fly zone was evidence of his disregard for the UN and it's policy towards Iraq, and, in turn, the blatant disregard for the wants of the global community.

Third, the humanitarian objective which need no explanation as we have uncovered countless mass graves, and Saddam's brutality is well documented.

Fourth, the installation of a free and democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East, the epicenter of Islamic Extremism, could have ramifications that extend far beyond that region in terms of global stability and security. As we reduce the number of territories sympathetic to those terrorists, the harder and harder it becomes for them to operate successfuly, recruit, and gain sympathy in other regions of the world.

When considering Iraq, it is much more than one issue, but an overall strategic goal to shift the state of the world away from extremism and violence towards freedom and peace.

We have yet to see if this plan will work in Iraq. It is, as I see it, our best opportunity to curb the spread of Islamic Extremism and Coalition resolve will determine its eventual outcome.

So that's my full and un-adulterated interpretation of the Bush Administration's goal in the Middle East; sometimes referred to as the Bush Doctrine. If I get any responses, I'm sure they'll be the ones that call me "brainwashed" and "naive." If that's the best you got, then don't even bother responding to this post. I look forward to a debate on the content, not my intelligence.

ON ANOTHER NOTE:

I just got the documentary "Voices of Iraq" from Netflix (which I highly recommend). I highly suggest you view this film. For a description, click here.

Political Progress in Iraq

2005-06-16T11:45:00.000-05:00

So I was perusing Annika's Journal and catching up with some things that have happened in the world in general, through her perspective, which I enjoy.

She had this transcript up from Donald Rumsfeld's press conference. Some people hate this guy, but when he speaks, he definitely commands respect and attention. I like him. Anyways, he made this awesome statement concerning the progress the Iraqis have made in terms of forming their new government. As Annika said, it's "...so inspiring and important, that i'm going to cut and paste it here." It's even better to listen to it.

It's awesome:

On the political portion of it, that's obviously not the business of this department, but I can comment on it.

The general feeling is as follows: That the election was held January 30th. It took a number of weeks to put a government together. Not a number of years, but a group of people, with no experience in democracy at all, took a number of weeks... a few months, to put together a government.

A lot of tugging and hauling, a lot of negotiating about what it would mean in the assembly, a lot of negotiating about what it might mean with respect to the constitution drafting, a lot of negotiating about what it might mean as to who's in what ministry, and for what reasons, and in the presidential council, I believe they call it. And they came to a conclusion.

When the conclusion was made and announced, one could look at worst case and say it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that the Shi'ia would say, "Okay, Sunnis, you didn't play in the election. You gave it to us for twenty, thirty years, and we didn't like it, and now it's our turn, and we're going to give it to you."

Quite the contrary. The Shi'ia, at the top leadership down, have been saying, "Look. We want to have one country. Let's reach out to the Sunnis. Let's include them. Let's find a way, even though they made a mistake and didn't participate in the election. Let's see that they're involved in this. Let's get them involved in the drafting of the constitution." Exactly the right instinct.

The Sunnis, instead of saying, "Okay, we didn't get in the election. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it wasn't. But now, we're not well represented, and we're not going to play, and go separately, and try to break the country into three pieces." The Sunnis didn't do that. I mean, everyone you talk to said, "we made a mistake. The Sunnis made a mistake." They should have gotten involved in the election. They didn't get involved in the election. They now know they should have gotten involved in the election, and thank the good Lord the Shi'ia are reaching out to them, and the Kurds are reaching out to them, and trying to include them.

Now, what does it mean next? Well, they're going to have a lot of to'ing and fro'ing on the constitution. Fortunately, they made a lot of those decisions in the transitional administrative law, the so-called TAL. And it's there as a guidepost. It's not a mandate. It's not a speed limit or direction, but it is generally agreed to. And so it'll serve, I would think, as at least a touchstone for the very complicated task of trying to find a piece of paper that people, who have had historic hostilities to each other, that have been held together, not through love or respect, but through vicious dictatorship repressing them. That's how they've held together as a country.

And now they're going to look for a piece of paper that will do that for them instead. Instead of a vicious dictatorship. Instead of repression. Instead of a police state. Instead of mass graves, filled with people... bodies, tens of thousands of bodies. There's going to be a piece of paper that those people are going to have to put their faith in. That is an enormous thing.

And they're going to be debating that, and tugging on it, and to'ing and fro'ing, and they're going to, in my view, come up with one... just a minute... just a minute... And then they're going to take that to the Iraqi people and have them vote on it. And another 26 million people will have a chance, or population, or whoever's eligible to vote, men and women alike. Some large number is going to have a chance to go vote on that. And then, it'll be there, and then they'll vote on whatever that constitution says, for a president, or a prime minister, whatever, representatives, they'll have a chance to vote on that in December.

This is amazing. This is historic. This is a gigantic step forward. This ought not to be dismissed or trivialized. This is a big deal.

Will it happen? I think it'll happen. Can I guarantee anything in life? No. I can't. No one can. It's their country.

How awesome is that? You will NEVER EVER EVER hear any media outlet praise this progress in any meaningful way. Nonetheless, it is a very important angle to be looked at in terms of the results of OUR decision to go in to remove Saddam and re-shape the region.

Ummm...don't think so buddy.

2005-05-04T18:03:00.000-05:00

Do you think Al-Jazeera will air this photo? Unlikely.

Story

So what SHOULD we do?

2005-05-02T07:45:00.000-05:00

Hope you all had a nice weekend, mine involved working more...I've been so busy it's ridiculous. Anyways, I just wanted to see if you guys wanted to suggest ways to get out of the situation we are currently in (globally). There are several topics I want to talk about, but I want to address them one at a time, so this will be the emphasis for the next few weeks on my blog.

It seems to me that in spite of the promising outlook we had on Iraq shortly after their election (see my previous post) that the insurgency has not been quieted. The news has been highlighted with a new surge in violence, killing countless innocent Iraqi civilians and others. I was hoping that the direction Iraq took in terms of it's future would be dictated by the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government, and not the insurgency, and that this would help to quite their aggressive tactics.

The only thing I do know, is that we have to "stay the course." Abandoning the nation to the insurgency would be a failure on many levels, and be deemed a huge victory for the terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda. So leaving immediately is NOT a feasible option.

So what do we do? Is there a solution?

Truce.

2005-04-25T13:13:00.000-05:00

Seriously now, lets put the past behind us, I have no idea how we even got here anyway, and honestly I am confused. Let me be honest with you all. I don't exactly know where I stand on many issues that I present on my blog, which is, admittedly, one major reason why I made my blog to begin with. I truly wanted an open dialogue between people who have different points of view. Despite that, it seems the only responses I get from anyone are either mocking me, mocking the President, or calling someone stupid; instead of presenting any opinions or thoughts of their own.

So, because I have a different point of view than others, that means the only appropriate and reasonable response is to mock, belittle, and irritate me? Why is it that you people feel that it is a waste of time to actually post comments that are meaningful, but it is a valuable use of your time to call me stupid for example? (See comments to the threads below)

I won't hold a grudge, and I'll try to present my opinions within a more open-minded framework, if that will yield comments that I can actually ponder on my own time. However, I expect that this too will be a waste of time, and this thread will be bombarded by people who dismiss me as stupid, arrogant, or immature because my views differ from yours.

Maybe I'm wrong about everything, perhaps it is possible for this blog to re-shape the way I feel about things by opening my mind to another point-of-view. It isn't likely so far, because the only responses I get call me stupid, instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt and understanding that there are more than one point of view out there, and one isn't necessarily more "right" than the other, they're just different. And believe me, I know I'm not entirely innocent of the name-calling and over-generalizations.

We all have different priorities, different desires, different values. Because of these core differences, we will have different points of view. But because we have different points of view doesn't mean we have to call eachother stupid and dismiss one another outright, before giving the chance to hear the other person out and engage in a respectful and open discussion. We should embrace differrences in opinion, and use them as a tool to really gauge the different topics I find important, and perhaps, arrive at some common ground that satisfies the desires of both sides of the spectrum, and everyone in-between.

I hate that our country is so divided on the issues, and my blog is a prime example. It seems like both sides just believe whole-heartedly they are right, and the other side is wrong. They (from both sides) like I said, dismiss the other outright, instead of hearing them out. I for one, certainly have different opinions on different issues, mostly conservative, many liberal, and many right smack-dab in the middle. My beef with liberals, historically, is the way they make me feel when I express my opinion either here, on my blog, or in person. They belittle me, mock me, and feel sorry for me; because I am just a stupid naive young man, incapable of really understanding and grasping what is going on in the world.

Well guess what, I've heard it all, I went through 4.5 years of learning at a very liberal college and have listened to both sides. I have worked along-side very liberal people who I still love and respect. Nonetheless, case after case, I have felt belittled and made to feel like my opinions didn't matter because I was "stupid" or "naive."

I call a truce. Can we try again?

Zippers!

2005-04-22T14:43:00.000-05:00

Look at the nearest zipper, chances are you will see the letters "YKK" on it. Well, if you were as curious as I was as to what the heck that "YKK" means, click here.

Go to the FAQ section for an explanation of the meaning of the letters.

NEW LOOK!

2005-04-20T10:16:00.000-05:00

Welcome to "Coddled!" NEW AND IMPROVED VERSION!

(I tweaked the look of the blog because I got tired of the old template)

Also...

I love you! (You know who you are.)

Crimes against children...

2005-04-19T10:09:00.000-05:00

Like many Americans, I am outgraged at the recent headlines that have grabbed our nation's attention. I am referring to the two murders that have occurred in Florida at the hands of convicted sex offenders.

Jessica Lunsford

What bothers me the most about this is that these people are KNOWN sex offenders. The very type of offenders who cannot be rehabilitated, it is believed, and they're walking the streets, free as a bird! Their every move should tracked and ideally they should be locked away for life. It angers me that men such as these can commit such horrific crimes, and be caught on camera smiling and laughing the next day!

John Couey

Who is to blame? Who decided that convicted child molesters deserved freedom? They DO NOT DESERVE basic human rights, they don't behave like basic human beings. Child molesters commit these crimes to satisfy their disgusting, abhorrent desires. They harm children to get their jollies! If that isn't the most reprehensible crime, then what is? Why are drug dealers in jail while child molesters walk the streets and stalk our children?

On the Liberal-Conservative spectrum (the theme of my blog), I believe it is the Left that is more responsible for the current status-quo in terms of how we are dealing with this issue. The laws against sexual deviants are not strong enough because the Left goes too far in it's quest to preserve the rights of everybody; gives everybody the benefit of the doubt, even the child molesters. Instead of making people responsible for their own actions, let the government take care of you, let the government rehabilitate the sexual deviant, and release him to harm another child. Let the government pay for your welfare so you can have more babies...

This has to stop.

Sometimes we need to draw a line, I think that line should clearly set child molesters in particular apart from the rest of the population, and they should be locked-up forever. Period.

Updates:

4/20 - A step in the right direction: Florida Legislation

5/2 - Now a law in Florida.

Theory proven...

2005-04-19T08:46:00.000-05:00

Regarding my last post, it would appear that I was right about liberals all along!

(Read this!)

Instead of engaging in a healthy conversation, they resort to calling President Bush a "twat" and calling me a "blatant dip-shit." While both may be true, all I was looking for was some input from liberals discussing what they see as the status of our progress in Iraq. Is it NOT moving forward with progress?

From my perspective, and in my opinion, it appears as though the progress is overwhelmingly positive (though it still may be to early to truly be able to judge, I admit). Overall, and generally speaking, it appears as though Iraq is moving closer and closer to standing on it's own two feet, free of a murderous and ruthless dictator, and friendly in the region and in the world.

I'm not anticipating any gems of insight from ANY liberals at this point, just read the responses to my previous post. They're suffering, I suppose, seeing as how they:

1) lost the election;
2) nobody really cared what the celebrities thought; and
3) despite all the predictions of doom and death, we're progressing in a positive direction in Iraq.

This, in addition to legislation that appears to have cleared the way for drilling in the ANWR (which, personally, I oppose) for example, must really be taking it's toll on those once oh-so-outspoken liberals. Maybe they're working hard and saving up money for a Honda Insight or Toyota Prius.

Seriously, who in their RIGHT mind would purchase this hideous excuse for a car? The only group of people I can think of is liberals...and that explains it.

Liberals: What say you now?

2005-03-05T08:33:00.000-05:00

Finally, it appears as though our hard work in the middle east is paying off, and the soldiers who gave their lives for this cause have not died in vain. If you've been keeping up with the events taking place in the middle east alot has happened:

1) A successful Iraqi election
2) Saudi elections
3) Progress in the Palestine/Israel problem (or at least more hope)
4) Syria has begun to bow to international pressure to pull out of Lebanon
5) Libya has moved away from it's nuclear ambitions

So what happened to John Kerry supporters, and liberals in general? Why is it that they seem to be able to find the cloud in every silver lining? Why can't they admit that elections in Iraq were a resounding success? Millions of Iraqis, despite the continued threats from insurgents, turned out to vote. Doesn't that say something?

President Bush also came back from a successful European tour, during which our realtionship with Europe to a huge step in the positive direction. But I thought he had destroyed all hopes of continued mutual partnership with our Allies, and had lost all credibility in Europe? Why then, was his trip overwhelmingly positive in outcome?

Speak up liberals! I am curious as to what you're bashing Bush about now...

2005-02-05T18:48:00.000-05:00

This is my cat Moose. He is taking a nap. He kept me company while I was in Frederick doing my training thing. Isn't he cute? Don't let the cuteness fool you. He is a vicious, vicious beast.

Oil in the ANWR?

2005-01-14T17:00:00.000-05:00

You all know how the environmentalists feel. However, there IS another side to the debate that gets little or no exposure:

An excerpt from an email I sent:

<<
Not that I am pro-drilling in the ANWR, but there IS an opposing point of view:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=617

Proposed site map:
http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

Caribou (for example):
http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/faces-caribou.pdf
http://arctic.fws.gov/cariboumaps.htm
>>

The United States and Humanitarian Aid

2004-12-28T16:47:00.000-05:00

With the tragedy that has occurred in Asia, and the controversy spurred when criticism arose about the "stinginess" of American Humanitarian Aid, I decided to look into the real amount, in dollars that the United States has given in foreign aid and how it compares with the rest of the world...keep in mind, that this is merely a scratch of the surface...

In terms of dollars, as of 2003, the United States has given far more than any other country (almost doubling the next closest nation's contributions). In "Official Development Assistance" (A decent benchmark according to globalissues.org), The U.S. has contributed almost 16 billion dollars. Japan (the next highest) in comparison, gave just under 9 billion. (for more, go to globalissues.org)

While that may appear to be quite impressive, in terms of the percentage of our GNP that gets diverted to the ODA fund, it is a mere 0.14%. Some countries (such as Norway) give almost a full 1.0%. The agreed-upon percentage rate that participating countries decided was 0.7% (nearly all of the countries involved fail to hit this mark).

I think it is time for the U.S. to step up it's game in terms of foreign aid. We should not only be giving the most in pure dollars, but we should also be leading the pack in terms of the percentage of our GNP that is used towards foreign aid. That would serve as a beacon to the rest of the world showing how awesome we are.

Now, I know there are alot of ins and outs concerning this topic, for example:

-The amount of private donations and aid that American individuals make far exceed the amount the government gives out officially.
-The amount of aid and support we lend to the other nations in terms of man-power and machinery is as important as money.
-You COULD consider our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan to be "foreign aid."

However, I think that the statistics involved in official contributions to ODA, for example, is something that can be compared to other nations on a level playing field, and it is one category in which we should far outpace any other nation in the world.

In conclusion: Our government IS stingy in terms of foreign aid. We should be kicking some ass! I think we should send 10 BILLION DOLLARS to the part of the world that was affected by this Tsunami, right off the bat, no questions asked...

Iran and Nukes?

2004-12-12T11:55:00.000-05:00

This situation scares me. Iran has known and well-established ties to terrorist organizations. Iran is trying to enrich weapons-grade uranium, probably for use in a nuclear device. I don't think Iran would detonate a nuclear weapon itself because the retaliatin would be enormous, we'd annihilate them. It is much more likely that Iran would try to build a small nuclear device and try to discreetly deliver it to a terrorist organization to use against Western interests.

How can we handle this scary situation? There are few options, some I have heard myself are described below:

Political pressure and talks headed by the EU. Because Iran doesn't trust the US or Israel, the best solution for the problem is successful talks between Iran and the European Union. However, the scope of these talks is limited, and positive results are difficult to verify. These should be (and are) ongoing as we speak. Lets hope that it results in a definitive, and verifiable positive outcome(Iran's total disengagement from its nuclear aspirations).

Blockade of Iran. If Iran refuses to abandon its drive for nuclear weapon materials, a blockade may be a useful tool (Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?). We could essentialy isolate Iran from the rest of the world to pressure it into abandoning its nuclear programs. We could, in theory, block of it's seaports in Persian Gulf, seal off much of it's land borders with Iran and Afghanistan in particular, and monitor it's airspace. We already have a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, so this is something that could be set into motion almost immediately.

Lastly, we need to establish a doctrine in the U.S. that holds nuclear powers responsible for it's nuclear devices. If a country's device falls into a terrorist's hands, and it is traced back to that country, it will bear the responsibility for the device's detonation. For example, if al-Qaeda were to obtain a nuclear device from Iran, and detonated it in Israel, Iran would be held accountable, and that response should be massive. The response would obviously be aimed at destroying the infrastructure used in developing that weapon including (but not limited to) the manufacturing centers, and the government itself.

A combination of the above is probably already established. Are there any other options? If you can think of one, let me know.

Some people may say that we have no right to interfere with Iran's soverign right to produce nuclear weapons, since we have the largest arsenal of WMD's in the world. That is crap, total and absolute crap. Remember: THERE IS NO MORAL EQUIVALENCY BETWEEN THE U.S. AND ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. Period. They try to kill innocent people, we do not. We value life, they don't. We value freedom, they don't. THAT, is the difference.

The whole armor thing...

2004-12-11T19:56:00.000-05:00

So I'm sure you've heard about the visit Rumsfeld took to Kuwait to have a question-and-answer session with the guys over there doing the dirty work. I'm sure you only knew about the trip (as I did) when you heard that report about the soldier asking Rumsfeld about the delay in armoring Humvees and other vehicles. Supposedly 1 in 3 humvees is not "up-armored." I'm glad 2 of the 3 are, but there is no excuse for that last one.

Is there any excuse for this? Yeah, I know they all underestimated the tenacity of the insurgency, but we are the U.S. of A!?!? Can't we build more than the 450 armored humvees a month that they are currently on pace for? To put this in perspective, General Motors sold more than 300,000 new cars last month. Couldn't we build a couple of factories in Texas or something to build more armored humvees? (I know it takes longer to build an armored humvee than a Cavalier, but still)

Our men and women in uniform have the right to go to war with the best possible equipment available. We are the strongest nation in the world economically and industrially and there is no excuse for ANY lack of armor in a battle zone. Period.

Why did we get stuck with them?

2004-11-30T17:05:00.000-05:00

Here's a curveball, why on earth, out of all the people that are US Citizens do we get stuck with John Kerry and GWB? There has to be somebody better. Honestly, I guess we were stuck with George W. because he was obviously the incumbent, but going all the way back to the primaries (in 2000 for Bush and this year for Kerry) how did the powers that be come to think that they were the best nomination for their party?

Bush: Isn't our president a reflection of us? Shouldn't one of his qualities be the ability to speak english? C'mon, he even admits he doesn't have a great grasp of the language...

Kerry: With all that ammunition he had at his disposal against Bush: economic issues, the rough road in Iraq, etc, he couldn't beat him? What a waste, you'd think he'd have done a better job, he choked just as bad as the Yankees did, he just didn't sell himself at all - to those swing voters I mean.

Why is it that some regular guy who's out there fighting for us like John McCain be nominated? If it were John McCain vs. John Kerry or John McCain vs. George W. Bush don't you think McCain would have crushed them? Isn't it obvious? I know, I know, McCain isn't bought by the RNC or DNC or big corporations, or lobbying groups, or unions etc...but it just seems to me that someone like that is the best man for the job, not the two knuckleheads we had to choose between this year...

Frustrating...there's always next election I guess...

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

2004-11-25T13:51:00.000-05:00

I am thankful that George W. Bush is still our President, what are you thankful for?

Have a great holiday!

NBA Brawl: As the saying goes...

2004-11-21T10:14:00.000-05:00

..."You can take the boy out of the ghetto, but you can't take
the ghetto out of the boy."

Ron Artest proves he is nothing but a thug. Same goes for Jermaine O'neal. You'd think they'd be able to control themselves when they're at "work" but apparently not. Yeah the fans threw soda and stuff onto the court, but there is absolutely NO excuse for the actions that several NBA players took when they charged into the stands to confront fans and punch them in the face. Many of those fans had small children with them.

You are being paid MILLIONS of dollars to play a game, you know what can happen amongst the fans, let the security guards take care of it! It is not your job to go charge the fans and throw punches. I hope the NBA levies the stiffest penalties possible against Ron Artest and Jermaine O'neal in particular. That is the type of behavior that is learned on the streets of Queensbridge, NY, don't bring it to the fans in Ann Arbor, Michigan. There is NO PLACE for it.

Think about it like this: I work at the Newark Airport. If someone threw a soda at my head, and I ran out there and charged the passengers at the baggage claim, do you think I'd have a job the next day? I assume not.

I hope they're expelled from the NBA, I know it won't happen, because money is involved...but that is what they deserve.

On a related note, President Bush has added Ron Artest to the Axis of Evil.

Update:

The Suspensions were handed out as follows:

Pacers:
Ron Artest: Remainder of Season
Jermaine O'neal: 25-game suspension
Stephen Jackson: 30-game suspension

Pistons:
Ben Wallace: 5-game suspension

Considering the regular season length is approximately 85 games, these are fairly stiff penalties (almost half the season!). They are good, but the NBA should have gone further in my opinion.

4 More Years! Yay! (Part II)

2004-11-19T21:01:00.000-05:00

The Economy

Do you think that it is possible that President Bush relaxed all of those clean air and water regulations to keep our economy afloat after 9/11? Or that there was another logical explanation to relax those Clinton-era regulations? Or is it just for money? There has to be some justification for it.

I am of the group that thinks it is a credible possibility that Bush had reduced those regulations because they were very costly to maintain for the companies they (the regulations) directly affected. Maybe our country would have been faced with a 1920's type depression after the two buildings collapsed, which also happened to represent and house the components of a great portion our powerful economy.

Our economy is worth protecting. I think it is a lynchpin in our success, our standard of living, and a promising future. Without it, we have nothing. Very important programs become expendable when we lose that economy.

I used to work for the State of NJ in a program responsible for the rearing of beneficial insects to protect agriculture and the environment, do you think that this program would have been maintained had the economy taken a slump? Perhaps not. Do you think we would be thinking about the development of hydrogen cars had the economy slipped into a severe recession? Perhaps not.

Think about the "dot com", tech, internet wave that crashed shortly before President Bush took office. Think about all of the jobs that have gone overseas (because it is just plain cheaper to pay them over there). Think about the affect that the 9/11 attacks must have had on investors for example, all negative impacts on our economy that Bush had dealt to him.

Furthermore, bin Laden has expressly stated that a goal of al-Qaeda's is to severely weaken or destroy the American economy. President Bush, from what I have seen, has tried to protect it from this exact threat. I think that some of Bush's policies were an attempt to soften the toll 9/11 would have and had taken on the economy. He may have relaxed pollution restrictions so that the corporations it involved could afford to keep people on the job, he slashed taxes (especially on the higher income bracket - namely small business) to keep people at work and keep them active in our economy.

I know the side-effects were somewhat disturbing, who can deny that? I know the deficit is astronomical, yes I know jobs were lost (they're coming back steadily), but there are alot of contributing factors to this. It is not JUST President Bush, and if you suggest that, you should really re-consider, and try to investigate the other side.

Had Bush not taken the steps he had taken, perhaps we would have nothing to be thankful for this holiday season. Be glad we CAN complain about the deficit, and the temporary (as I see it) loss of jobs, and the temporary (again, as I see it) relaxation of pollution standards.

At least most of us will not struggle to put a Turkey on the table this Thursday.

Just a thought...

Just say "NO!"

2004-11-17T17:54:00.000-05:00

Okay, just to spice it up, I decided to change gears and do a public service announcement here on my blog, hopefully some kids will see it and take it to heart.

"Marijuana affects memory, judgment and perception even in the short-term, as was found in a study conducted by Pope and Yurgelun-Todd published in the Journal of the American Medical Association." --freevibe.com

So look out kids! Don't think it doesn't affect you!

2004-11-15T19:09:00.000-05:00

Me in Maine

My first day of work...

2004-11-15T18:40:00.000-05:00

Okay, I'm not going to say where it is I work, but it is for the Federal Government. Holy shit were they ever disorganized today. I think my department is going through some very big growing pains in that they totally restructured and re-vamped the entire organization. I have been dealing with this through the whole application process.

First, with human resources: They haven't changed my mailing address (which I notified them about in MAY) and keep sending me very important documents via FedEx to my old address, and I NEVER GET THEM, then they email me when they get returned and ask what happened. I've told them 4 TIMES that my address has changed.

And today: I get there, go to one guy to take care of paperwork, and the person who normally does them isn't there, so I get sent somewhere else on the opposite side of the town, and when I get there, the guy who I am supposed to see and who is "expecting" me, is nowhere to be found, I wait around while they figure it out, then they finally send me to where I can get stuff done, and get this, I have to watch damn videos and shit the WHOLE DAY! It sucked. I hope it gets better, it HAS to get better, once I get out in the field I will feel better.

Aside from the confusion and disorganization, my co-workers are awesome. Every last one of them is very personable, very laid back, and very friendly. I look forward to the new bonds I will forge in the coming weeks.

No politics today, sorry to disappoint...I just needed to take a breather, it was getting quite heated...I'm sure you've all been there...

My liberal friends should read this...

2004-11-13T19:12:00.000-05:00

Here's an article I found...I think my liberal friends should read it.

The Whys and Lies of Conservatism

Campaign of fear?

2004-11-13T18:16:00.000-05:00

You know what I have noticed? I have been listening to liberals complain about how the Bush administration is using fear as a tactic to garner support...but what is funny is that Liberals seem to do the same exact thing. Here are some examples that I have encountered (feel free to add your own):

Abortion: If you support Bush you had better hope your [girlfriend/sister/mother] doesn't get raped or molested by their father and be forced into giving birth because abortion is unavailable; or face the horrors of a coathanger abortion in the alley outside their home.

War in Iraq: If you support the war in Iraq you better pray long and hard that they don't draft you into service because at the rate this war is going a draft is going to be re-instated.

The Environment: If you vote for Bush you can kiss the Earth goodbye. Global warming is our most important and pressing concern. If you don't see that you must be stupid. We're all gonna die when Bush destroys the environment and we have no air or water to consume.

Sound familiar anyone?

Michael Moore is a college dropout.

4 More Years! Yay! (Part I)

2004-11-13T13:01:00.000-05:00

I voted for President Bush. Not because I hate Kerry. Not because I hate the opinions of people in Russia and France. Not because I hate the environment. Not because I love Jesus. Not because I am Republican or Conservative. I voted for the President because I believe he is the right man for the job right now.

My first installment, the War on Terror:

Something changed on 9-11 in America. Do you remember how you felt when you witnessed live on TV the collapse of the 2 tallest buildings in New York City? Do you remember the look on the rescue workers' faces when they discovered another fallen comrade amidst the rubble. I was there. I helped serve food to the men and women involved in the recovery effort as part of a McDonald's effort to support the cause. I spoke with a firefighter whose strength impressed me, but I could see the emotional and physical fatigue on his face.

We had ignored Terrorism until that point in time. We thought we were isolated by two expansive oceans. We were wrong. Never would we have thought that that could have happened at home.

President Bush is the first world leader to take an active role on fighting this new kind of terrorism. He didn't wait for the approval of [insert one or all of the following: the UN, France, Germany, Russia, China]. He went ahead and took out the Taliban in Afghanistan, and basically dismantled Al Qaeda. Then he asked himself: "What can I do next, to prevent more Terrorism in America?" He thought about it for a minute or two then said: "That's it! I can invade Iraq!" He'd been wanting to do that anyways, and now was the perfect time. These are what I consider to be his justifications for invading Iraq and taking out Saddam Hussein (in no particular order):

Saddam was a bad man.
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam dislikes the United States.
Al Qaeda dislikes the United States.
The Middle East has the Earth by the balls in terms of oil.
Saddam issued a hit on George H.W. Bush.
Saddam reached out to Al Qaeda in hopes of building an alliance.
The world was turning a blind-eye on Saddams misappropriation of money in the oil-for food program.
Saddam had bad intentions.
Saddam's previous behavior had destabilized the Middle East.
Terrorism comes primarily from the Middle East.
Saddam smiled when he heard 3000 Americans had died on 9-11.
Democracy and Freedom don't have a strong foothold in the Middle East.
Iraq was a rogue nation, in a rogue region, where it was feasible to begin a democracy.
Iraqis needed to be free from the murderous dictator who encouraged murder and rape.
The Middle East needs to be set in the right direction in order to cull terror.
(Don't take some of the items on the list too seriously)

Ask yourself these questions and you will find it tough to disagree with going into Iraq if you value the lives of those people who died on 9-11:

Did Saddam Hussein have the potential for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons?
Did Al Qaeda want to bring said weapons to the U.S. to kill innocent Americans?
If there was ONE country in the world that would supply WMD to terrorists which would it be?

You see, Iraq, in my opinion, was THE MOST LIKELY PLACE where weapons (capable of killing and injuring thousands more Americans) and Terrorists could come together. Period.

We have to do SOMETHING. Appeasing the Terrorists has never worked. They CANNOT be reasoned with. Freedom is the best answer. When people have hope, and freedom, and security, they tend to value their life and not strive for violence. Do I wish there was a better way? Yes. Is there? No.

My First Post

2004-11-12T23:12:00.000-05:00

Well today I start my blog. I have been thinking about it for a while and just came across the website through Google and decided to dive in. To start, I am 24 years old, white, college graduate, with a upper middle-class background. I am starting my first "real" job this monday with the federal government. I live at home right now until I settle in to my job, at which point I will begin the apartment/roommate search. I have lived on my own while at school, and have had the loving support of my parents through it all, both financially and emotionally; that's not to say I haven't worked hard. In fact, my work ethic is one of the things I am proud of most.

According to one friend who disagrees with me on politics, I have been coddled and spoiled my entire life and have no experience to draw on when it comes to forming political opinions. Apparently you have to have had a rough life and challenging or negative experiences to be able to think coherently, and to be able to perceive the world in which we live in a clear manner.

Because my parents apparently have it good and I have been coddled my whole life and not personally exposed to the harsh realities that sometimes occur in life, I have a disadvantage. That disadvantage being that my thoughts have no basis in reality, but come from a protected bubble of love and comfort. Just a warning.

Please stay tuned...and don't take this too seriously.