Several failed attempts have transpired to allow an "up or down" vote in the Senate on John Bolton.
All have failed - due to DEMOCRATIC FILIBUSTERS.
The President has sent a nominee for the UN postion to the Senate - and he's asked them to perform their part of the "advice and consent" process.
They have failed to do that.
Make no mistake - the President - MONTHS AGO -- sent his nominee, John Bolton to the Senate and has asked them for an answer. They haven't given him one. Chris Dodd says he wants another nominee - who made Chris Dodd the President?
Folks, the procedure to get a "new nominee" is simple - you vote on the guy - and if he loses the vote - the President sends another nominee. That's how it's done. It's not done by Filibustering. That produces nothing but a log-jam - it doesn't produce another nominee.
A Filibuster is not an answer. A Filibuster is nothing more than saying "Wait one and we'll get back with you". The President has been waiting for the Senate to "get back" with him for MONTHS now!
Folks, you can tell from my writing - I'm not a college educated guy. I'm certainly not an expert on the Senate or the Constitution - but it appears that even a redneck coonass like me knows a bit more than Chris Dodd and Chuckie Schumer do!
For instance - I know that Democracy means - rule by the majority.
And I also know that if the Senate wants another candidate for the UN ambassador position - all they have to do is vote John Bolton down and the President will happily send them another!
But the Democrats won't allow that to happen.
Soooo, you asked for it - you got it. The show must go on now. President Bush should appoint John Bolton as UN Ambassador now in a "recess appointment". Clinton appointed over 140 "recess appointments" - and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I look forward to seeing John Bolton in the UN! I guarantee you he'll shake things up there - and he should! Welcome aboard John!
Sunday, July 31, 2005
MARTHA IN HOT WATER AGAIN?
The most dangerous criminal of our lifetime is at it again ...
Martha Stewart has been caught red handed in a "monkey pose" in a Yoga class.
Somehow this is in violation of her home arrest - or her parole - I don't know, and don't really care.
Neither should the government. When will the fed's get the message that enough is enough?
I would like to give all the feds who performed that state-of-the-art, cloak-n-dagger, INTENSE investigation on Martha Stewart - A BIG THANKS!
For the prosecutors who prosecuted her case - and put this evil woman behind bars - HERE'S A BIG THANKS TO YOU TOO!
I'd also like to thank the prison guards who guarded one of "America's Most Wanted" - and Dangerous criminals - Martha Stewart.
And I'd also like to thank whoever is assigned to watch her during her home arrest. Boy, catching her in a "monkey pose" at the yoga parlor was quite observant!
To all you guys, and the guys behind the scenes -- THANKS!!
Can we move on now? Can we leave the woman in peace? Here's a thought - how about taking Martha Stewart law enforcement assets - and divert them toward finding terrorist cells in this country? We can't seem to keep track of dangerous pediphiles when they cross state lines but we have no problem keeping tabs on Martha whenever she crosses the street.
For cryin' out loud guys!
This has just become too weird!
And for all of you guys who BOUGHT MARTHA STEWART STOCK last year at this time when the price per share was eight bucks -- YOU LUCKY BASTARDS!
$30 a share now!
Martha Stewart has been caught red handed in a "monkey pose" in a Yoga class.
Somehow this is in violation of her home arrest - or her parole - I don't know, and don't really care.
Neither should the government. When will the fed's get the message that enough is enough?
I would like to give all the feds who performed that state-of-the-art, cloak-n-dagger, INTENSE investigation on Martha Stewart - A BIG THANKS!
For the prosecutors who prosecuted her case - and put this evil woman behind bars - HERE'S A BIG THANKS TO YOU TOO!
I'd also like to thank the prison guards who guarded one of "America's Most Wanted" - and Dangerous criminals - Martha Stewart.
And I'd also like to thank whoever is assigned to watch her during her home arrest. Boy, catching her in a "monkey pose" at the yoga parlor was quite observant!
To all you guys, and the guys behind the scenes -- THANKS!!
Can we move on now? Can we leave the woman in peace? Here's a thought - how about taking Martha Stewart law enforcement assets - and divert them toward finding terrorist cells in this country? We can't seem to keep track of dangerous pediphiles when they cross state lines but we have no problem keeping tabs on Martha whenever she crosses the street.
For cryin' out loud guys!
This has just become too weird!
And for all of you guys who BOUGHT MARTHA STEWART STOCK last year at this time when the price per share was eight bucks -- YOU LUCKY BASTARDS!
$30 a share now!
Friday, July 29, 2005
WOW!!
The external fuel tanks for the space shuttle are assembled by Lockheed Martin down here in New Orleans.On the way home from work I was listening to the am talk radio station when several former Lockheed employees called up to explain WHY this foam insulation on the external fuel tank is constantly falling off and causing damage to heat shield tiles on the shuttle.
These guys claim that, back in 1997, NASA was forced to "go green" by the Clinton Administration. Several of these callers blamed Al Gore for it - but essentially NASA had to "switch" to a non-freon based foam formula for the insulation on the external tanks. Apparently, according to these callers - that foam has had problems adhering to the external tank since day one.
I found these claims hard to believe so, when I got home, I did an Internet search and found this ...
Shuttle Foam Loss Linked to EPA Regs ...
According to this article, NASA has known for years that this new "green" foam causes up to eleven times more damage to heat shield tiles than the old, freon-based foam formula.
The article quotes an engineer who says that, using the old freon-based formula - shuttles would return from missions with damage to about 40 of it's 26,000 ceramic tiles.
However, after the shift to the new "green" foam in 1997 - many more damaged tiles were noted. Specifically, the report cites 308 damaged tiles to COLUMBIA after she returned from a space mission in 1997. Additionally 132 of those "hits" were greater than one inch in diameter. The engineer called this "significant" damage.
If we knew about this problem back in 1997 - why didn't someone at NASA stand up and tell folks - to heck with political correctness - we need to protect our shuttle crews - we need to use foam that adheres to what it's stuck to!
If this report is true - it means that the loss of COLUMBIA - with all her crew - can possibly be indirectly attributed to NASA's insistence to use the non-freon based "green" foam.
And, even in light of the loss of COLUMBIA - NASA still refused to go back to the freon-based foam - and launched DISCOVERY and her entire crew this week using a foam formula that they knew they had problems with???
Folks, I don't know what the truth here is but - NASA OWES SOME ANSWERS NOW!
They need to get someone out there answering these allegations. I, for one, want to know if this is really true!
LOUISIANA WETLANDS ...
“Louisiana’s wetlands are twice the size of the Everglades National Park, funnel more oil into the United States than the Alaska pipeline, sustain one of the nation’s largest fisheries, and provide vital hurricane protection for New Orleans. And they’re disappearing under the Gulf of Mexico at the rate of 33 football fields a day.”
--National Geographic Magazine, October, 2004
The above quote is not a misprint - 33 FOOTBALL FIELDS PER DAY! Sliding off into the Gulf of Mexico.
The price to correct this situation is $14 BILLION DOLLARS. And to date, Louisiana has lost more than 1.2 million acres of coast.
Most of the rest of the country thinks this is singularly a LOUISIANA problem. Most say that Louisiana taxpayers can foot the entire bill for correcting this situation. Yeah, right - can YOUR state afford $14 Billion dollars for anything? No? Well neither can Louisiana.
Finally, the Bush administration is starting to come around - but they need to do more.
If YOU think that the erroding Louisiana coastline is not YOUR problem - consider the following ...
1. The Port of New Orleans is at the center of the world’s busiest port complex — Louisiana’s Lower Mississippi River. Its proximity to the American Midwest via a 14,500-mile inland waterway system makes New Orleans the port of choice for the movement of cargoes such as steel, grain, containers and manufactured goods.
2. The Port of New Orleans is the only deepwater port in the United States served by six class one railroads. This gives port users direct and economical rail service to or from anywhere in the country.
3. The Port of New Orleans isn't the only port in jeopardy with the loss of the wetlands. Louisiana has FIVE other deep water ports and the combined tonnage of shipping through these ports ranks NUMBER ONE in the nation.
4. If the recent approval of the CAFTA treaty is going to increase trade between the United States and Central America - the VAST bulk of that increase will transit through New Orleans.
5. Louisiana currently has 17 operating oil refineries that account for 16 percent of the nation's oil refining capability. At a time when most American's are complaining about the price of gas - while at the same time refusing to authorize building any more refineries in THEIR state - Louisiana refineries have continued to "chug away" at pouring gas into the U.S. economy. If any new refineries are ever built in the U.S. - many of the first ones will probably be here in Louisiana. If you want to compare Louisiana to California - California, which has MUCH larger land mass -- has 21 refineries (4 more than Louisiana) - they also rank #1 in the nation for gas consumption.
6. Eighteen percent of U.S. oil production originates in, is transported through, or is processed in Louisiana coastal wetlands with a value of $6.3 billion a year.
7. Almost 24 percent of U.S. natural gas production originates in or is processed in Louisiana’s coastal wetlands with a value of $10.3 billion a year.
8. Louisiana's commercial and recreational fisheries produce 25 to 35% of the nation's total catch.
I could go on - but those are the high points. Note that I didn't even get into any of the "green" reasons why the wetlands need to be preserved. For the liberals out there - I probably should have done that. However, I'm a conservative and I care more about concrete economic issues that are relevant to our national survival. And the fact is, these wetlands are critical to our NATION's survival. Look at the numbers folks! This is where the oil is! And if you eat or drink anything but water today - the chances are certain - you're going to put something in your mouth that was handled by a "Coon Ass" down here in Louisiana at one time or another.
And I won't get into the Internet porn industry either - but Mardi Gras in New Orleans is a big producer of that stuff too.
Hey folks, I'm not a Louisiana native - I've only lived here a year and if the place washes away - I can move somewhere else. And I don't care about the "Sportsman Paradise" stuff either. I could care less how many species of protazoa will go extinct from the loss of these wetlands. I'm concerned here as an AMERICAN - because the U.S. can't afford the economic loss that would come with losing these wetlands.
What can you do? Email your Congressman and Senators and tell them to stop considering throwing money at wasteful things like stem cell research and the "big dig" in Boston. Tell 'em to fund the restoration of these wetlands -- NOW!
They also need to know that, unfortunately, the politicians in Louisiana are pretty much crooked. There are a few good ones - the Republicans like Dave Vitter and Gov. Blanco. The guys at the working level though - will steal you blind! So don't just GIVE Louisiana a bunch of money because it'll be squandered and you'll get nothing in return for it. DEMAND FEDERAL OVERSIGHT! This is a national problem and it should be managed by the federal government - probably the Corps of Engineers.
--National Geographic Magazine, October, 2004
The above quote is not a misprint - 33 FOOTBALL FIELDS PER DAY! Sliding off into the Gulf of Mexico.
The price to correct this situation is $14 BILLION DOLLARS. And to date, Louisiana has lost more than 1.2 million acres of coast.
Most of the rest of the country thinks this is singularly a LOUISIANA problem. Most say that Louisiana taxpayers can foot the entire bill for correcting this situation. Yeah, right - can YOUR state afford $14 Billion dollars for anything? No? Well neither can Louisiana.
Finally, the Bush administration is starting to come around - but they need to do more.
If YOU think that the erroding Louisiana coastline is not YOUR problem - consider the following ...
1. The Port of New Orleans is at the center of the world’s busiest port complex — Louisiana’s Lower Mississippi River. Its proximity to the American Midwest via a 14,500-mile inland waterway system makes New Orleans the port of choice for the movement of cargoes such as steel, grain, containers and manufactured goods.
2. The Port of New Orleans is the only deepwater port in the United States served by six class one railroads. This gives port users direct and economical rail service to or from anywhere in the country.
3. The Port of New Orleans isn't the only port in jeopardy with the loss of the wetlands. Louisiana has FIVE other deep water ports and the combined tonnage of shipping through these ports ranks NUMBER ONE in the nation.
4. If the recent approval of the CAFTA treaty is going to increase trade between the United States and Central America - the VAST bulk of that increase will transit through New Orleans.
5. Louisiana currently has 17 operating oil refineries that account for 16 percent of the nation's oil refining capability. At a time when most American's are complaining about the price of gas - while at the same time refusing to authorize building any more refineries in THEIR state - Louisiana refineries have continued to "chug away" at pouring gas into the U.S. economy. If any new refineries are ever built in the U.S. - many of the first ones will probably be here in Louisiana. If you want to compare Louisiana to California - California, which has MUCH larger land mass -- has 21 refineries (4 more than Louisiana) - they also rank #1 in the nation for gas consumption.
6. Eighteen percent of U.S. oil production originates in, is transported through, or is processed in Louisiana coastal wetlands with a value of $6.3 billion a year.
7. Almost 24 percent of U.S. natural gas production originates in or is processed in Louisiana’s coastal wetlands with a value of $10.3 billion a year.
8. Louisiana's commercial and recreational fisheries produce 25 to 35% of the nation's total catch.
I could go on - but those are the high points. Note that I didn't even get into any of the "green" reasons why the wetlands need to be preserved. For the liberals out there - I probably should have done that. However, I'm a conservative and I care more about concrete economic issues that are relevant to our national survival. And the fact is, these wetlands are critical to our NATION's survival. Look at the numbers folks! This is where the oil is! And if you eat or drink anything but water today - the chances are certain - you're going to put something in your mouth that was handled by a "Coon Ass" down here in Louisiana at one time or another.
And I won't get into the Internet porn industry either - but Mardi Gras in New Orleans is a big producer of that stuff too.
Hey folks, I'm not a Louisiana native - I've only lived here a year and if the place washes away - I can move somewhere else. And I don't care about the "Sportsman Paradise" stuff either. I could care less how many species of protazoa will go extinct from the loss of these wetlands. I'm concerned here as an AMERICAN - because the U.S. can't afford the economic loss that would come with losing these wetlands.
What can you do? Email your Congressman and Senators and tell them to stop considering throwing money at wasteful things like stem cell research and the "big dig" in Boston. Tell 'em to fund the restoration of these wetlands -- NOW!
They also need to know that, unfortunately, the politicians in Louisiana are pretty much crooked. There are a few good ones - the Republicans like Dave Vitter and Gov. Blanco. The guys at the working level though - will steal you blind! So don't just GIVE Louisiana a bunch of money because it'll be squandered and you'll get nothing in return for it. DEMAND FEDERAL OVERSIGHT! This is a national problem and it should be managed by the federal government - probably the Corps of Engineers.
MYTHS ABOUT EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
Whilst I'm on the topic today of embryonic stem cell research, I'd like to point out a couple of liberal myths about the topic ...
MYTH 1: EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IS ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES.
Absolutely FALSE. Any bio-med company - or any company or private individual for that matter can conduct stem cell research with no restrictions here in the U.S.
Down here in Louisiana, you can only kill a few deer each year during hunting season - but there is no "limit" on the number of embryo's you can create and then destroy through stem cell "research". This goes for all 50 states. Absolutely no restrictions on this type of research. The question that everyone is fighting about is whether or not the U.S. GOVERNMENT should give taxpayer dollars to SUBSIDIZE embryonic stem cell research.
I'm sure that Bill Frist doesn't want to give one penny of taxpayer money to save the Louisiana wetlands - and preserve the biggest commericial port on the east coast - NEW ORLEANS. But he is willing to throw tax dollars at stem cell research.
MYTH 2: EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IS PROMISING ...
Who says?
First of all, can anyone think of a single thing it's produced for us so far with the exception of an extremely long monotonous political debate? If so - please leave a comment for me because I can't think of one.
Second, if it's sooooo promising - then why do we have to throw tax dollars out there to support it? Pfizer developed VIAGRA without tax subsidies - and they did it because they knew it would make 'em a bunch of money - that's the way the capitalist system of supply and demand works. Surely, if embryonic stem cell research is so promising, any bio-med corporation that uses it to develop a cure for something like paralysis or alzhiemers is going to make a TON of money! So if it's so promising, why aren't we allowing the capitalist system to function as it's designed to? Why do we have to throw taxpayer dollars at it? The answer, clearly - is that it is NOT very promising at this point - at least not enough to stimulate the capitalists in the bio-med industry to invest THEIR MONEY in it. So why are we going to invest ours?
This whole debate is about whether or not the U.S. government is going to throw money at a dubious science with little guarantee that there will be a return on that investment. It's about whether or not we're going to force PRO-LIFE taxpayers to swallow another horse pill to compromise their principles on a science that they spiritually and morally object to outright - with little guarantee that it will do anything to help mankind.
Additionally, there are FEW controls on this research - few ethical standards for conducting this research that are agreed upon by the scientific community at large. We're going to throw money to the private sector and let them run rampant. How far they go with this research, is up to them. Before we throw money at these scientists - shouldn't we at least force them to draw up a set of ethical rules they promise to live by while conducting this research?
We don't hear alot in the mainstream media about the real facts. Ask any typical American on the street whether or not embryonic stem cell research is legal in the United States or not - and most of them will tell you it's illegal. This is the way the liberal media has distorted the issue.
But for the liberal media - it's perfectly fine to lie and distort the truth in order to reach their objectives.
MYTH 1: EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IS ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES.
Absolutely FALSE. Any bio-med company - or any company or private individual for that matter can conduct stem cell research with no restrictions here in the U.S.
Down here in Louisiana, you can only kill a few deer each year during hunting season - but there is no "limit" on the number of embryo's you can create and then destroy through stem cell "research". This goes for all 50 states. Absolutely no restrictions on this type of research. The question that everyone is fighting about is whether or not the U.S. GOVERNMENT should give taxpayer dollars to SUBSIDIZE embryonic stem cell research.
I'm sure that Bill Frist doesn't want to give one penny of taxpayer money to save the Louisiana wetlands - and preserve the biggest commericial port on the east coast - NEW ORLEANS. But he is willing to throw tax dollars at stem cell research.
MYTH 2: EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IS PROMISING ...
Who says?
First of all, can anyone think of a single thing it's produced for us so far with the exception of an extremely long monotonous political debate? If so - please leave a comment for me because I can't think of one.
Second, if it's sooooo promising - then why do we have to throw tax dollars out there to support it? Pfizer developed VIAGRA without tax subsidies - and they did it because they knew it would make 'em a bunch of money - that's the way the capitalist system of supply and demand works. Surely, if embryonic stem cell research is so promising, any bio-med corporation that uses it to develop a cure for something like paralysis or alzhiemers is going to make a TON of money! So if it's so promising, why aren't we allowing the capitalist system to function as it's designed to? Why do we have to throw taxpayer dollars at it? The answer, clearly - is that it is NOT very promising at this point - at least not enough to stimulate the capitalists in the bio-med industry to invest THEIR MONEY in it. So why are we going to invest ours?
This whole debate is about whether or not the U.S. government is going to throw money at a dubious science with little guarantee that there will be a return on that investment. It's about whether or not we're going to force PRO-LIFE taxpayers to swallow another horse pill to compromise their principles on a science that they spiritually and morally object to outright - with little guarantee that it will do anything to help mankind.
Additionally, there are FEW controls on this research - few ethical standards for conducting this research that are agreed upon by the scientific community at large. We're going to throw money to the private sector and let them run rampant. How far they go with this research, is up to them. Before we throw money at these scientists - shouldn't we at least force them to draw up a set of ethical rules they promise to live by while conducting this research?
We don't hear alot in the mainstream media about the real facts. Ask any typical American on the street whether or not embryonic stem cell research is legal in the United States or not - and most of them will tell you it's illegal. This is the way the liberal media has distorted the issue.
But for the liberal media - it's perfectly fine to lie and distort the truth in order to reach their objectives.
FRIST BITES THE BULLET ...
Senate majority leader Bill Frist's fortunes have been waning lately - and now they are about to completely fade into obscurity.
First of all, Bill Frist hasn't been able to do much as the leader of the Senate. He's been pretty ineffective in getting the Bush judicial nominees to the senate floor for a vote.
He's been unable to fight off Democratic filibusters and unable to pull of the "nuclear option" to end them.
He's constantly been "chumped" by Sen. John McCain, who is now the "defacto" Senate Leader.
Two attempts to bring John Bolton's UN ambassador nomination to the floor of the Senate - have failed.
He's been so impotent as a Senate majority leader that, as a doctor, I'm surprised he hasn't written himself a prescription for Viagra by now.
Frist REALLY, REALLY wants to run for President in '08 - but his political fortunes are so low right now - there's no way he'd get through even one primary.
It's time's like this that define a man - when he's down and out. What he does to pull himself up by his bootstraps and stand on his own two feet tell you a lot about the character of the man.
So what is Frist doing to "pull himself up"?
Well, he's decided to PANDER TO THE AMERICAN LEFT and give in to embryonic stem cell research!
Frist is now prostituting his principles in order to make himself a more pallatable candidate for the LEFT.
But he doesn't want to lose support on the right either. Here's a statement from him ...
"I am pro-life, I believe that human life begins at conception. I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be supported and encouraged".
Those two sentences above are completely in conflict with one another - and any time you see a statement like this it's either coming from a very confused person or a politician out to grab votes.
Frist says that an embryo is "human life" - and he then says that he supports conducting experiments on that "human life"?
That's scary folks. I can see a liberal who doesn't believe in God - who thinks we are all nothing more than an accident - supporting embyonic stem cell research. To such a person, he doesn't think we're destroying human life when we conduct such experiments.
But for a PRO-LIFE conservative, one who believes that life begins at conception - how can that guy condone experimenting on what he believes is HUMAN LIFE?
That position seems pervertedly evil to me.
We've seen the end of Bill Frist - the pro-life base of the Republican party is not so dumb they aren't going to see through this glaring, and quite frankly frightening, inconsistency in Frist's position.
When a guy is down in his fortunes - that's when you really see the character of the man. Frist is now in the midst of such a test - and he just failed the exam.
First of all, Bill Frist hasn't been able to do much as the leader of the Senate. He's been pretty ineffective in getting the Bush judicial nominees to the senate floor for a vote.
He's been unable to fight off Democratic filibusters and unable to pull of the "nuclear option" to end them.
He's constantly been "chumped" by Sen. John McCain, who is now the "defacto" Senate Leader.
Two attempts to bring John Bolton's UN ambassador nomination to the floor of the Senate - have failed.
He's been so impotent as a Senate majority leader that, as a doctor, I'm surprised he hasn't written himself a prescription for Viagra by now.
Frist REALLY, REALLY wants to run for President in '08 - but his political fortunes are so low right now - there's no way he'd get through even one primary.
It's time's like this that define a man - when he's down and out. What he does to pull himself up by his bootstraps and stand on his own two feet tell you a lot about the character of the man.
So what is Frist doing to "pull himself up"?
Well, he's decided to PANDER TO THE AMERICAN LEFT and give in to embryonic stem cell research!
Frist is now prostituting his principles in order to make himself a more pallatable candidate for the LEFT.
But he doesn't want to lose support on the right either. Here's a statement from him ...
"I am pro-life, I believe that human life begins at conception. I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be supported and encouraged".
Those two sentences above are completely in conflict with one another - and any time you see a statement like this it's either coming from a very confused person or a politician out to grab votes.
Frist says that an embryo is "human life" - and he then says that he supports conducting experiments on that "human life"?
That's scary folks. I can see a liberal who doesn't believe in God - who thinks we are all nothing more than an accident - supporting embyonic stem cell research. To such a person, he doesn't think we're destroying human life when we conduct such experiments.
But for a PRO-LIFE conservative, one who believes that life begins at conception - how can that guy condone experimenting on what he believes is HUMAN LIFE?
That position seems pervertedly evil to me.
We've seen the end of Bill Frist - the pro-life base of the Republican party is not so dumb they aren't going to see through this glaring, and quite frankly frightening, inconsistency in Frist's position.
When a guy is down in his fortunes - that's when you really see the character of the man. Frist is now in the midst of such a test - and he just failed the exam.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
WHY I LOVE MY TELECASTER ...
This has nothing to do with politics - and might be more than a little weird. Who cares ...
Leo Fender invented the TELECASTER way back in the late 1940's - and I believe he put it on the market in 1950. Here we are - 55 years later - and the telecaster is still around, still made pretty much the same way it always has been.
Buck Owens played a Telecaster - and still does. Buck's right hand man, Don Rich, played a Telecaster too. Muddy Waters played a Tele. Albert Collins played a Tele. Keith Richards plays a Tele. John Five (ex-Marilyn Manson guitarist) plays a Tele. Danny Gatton played a Tele. Marty Stuart plays a Tele. Some say that Jimmy Page played a Tele on the solo for "Stairway to Heaven" - though I've seen that claim disputed occasionally.
The point here is that the Tele is the ultimate Rock-N-Roll guitar. You can reproduce the intro to Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode" perfectly on a tele. The tele doesn't stop there though. It's probably the only guitar that sounds good on any country recording.
Yes, Kenny Chesney plays a Les Paul - a big metallic blue Les Paul with a huge "don't ask - don't tell" white star painted right on the front of it. I don't like Kenny Chesney - he plays carribean music - NOT COUNTRY!
The Telecaster is ugly - it's not much more than a heavy slab of wood with some pickups drilled in. The body has hard edges - when you hold that puppy on stage - it digs excruciatingly into your rib cage. It's heavy - most of 'em are anyway - so you need to have a well constructed and sturdy back to weild that baby for any amount of time. These are all reasons I love my Telecaster.
A Tele has TWO knobs - a volume control and a tone control. You don't even need them though - just crank both of them all the way up and leave them alone. I know guys who just tack-weld them in the max position and forget about them. There's one pickup switch on a tele - with three positions. You have three pickup configuration choices - Bridge, Neck, or Neck + Bridge. Easy to remember - the Tele is the epitome of simplicity.
A Tele plays PERFECTLY OUT OF TUNE - always. This is the key to both real Rock-N-Roll and Country music. Both types of music sound sterile being played though a perfectly intoned instrument like a Les Paul. Don't believe me? Listen to Kenny Chesney. No matter how good of a guitar tech you are - the Tele will whip you everytime by playing out of tune - by just the right amount. This a big reason I love my Telecaster.
The Telecaster is the AK-47 of the music industry. Cheap, tough, and lethal! You can run over a Tele with a pickup truck, pick it up - and it'll still play out of tune. You never saw Pete Townsend smash a Tele did you? That's because a Tele would have whipped his you-know-what! And if you've ever seen Ted Nugent - when he breaks out his BOW - that isn't a Tele that he's firing an arrow into. Oh no, that would be a Gibson Byrdland - which is nothing more than an expensive Les Paul. No arrow would penetrate a Telecaster body.
Only one guitar can produce a "Tele Twang" - yep, you guessed it - it's a Telecaster. If the crowd you're playing to is unappreciative - simply turn up the tone on your amp and assault the crowd's ears with an "ice pick" tone that will perferate their ear drums. This is one big reason I love my Telecaster. It's also a big reason that PUNK BANDS prefer Teles.
A Tele has TWO - SINGLE COIL PICKUPS - just like Leo made 'em '55 years ago. Single Coils pick up any 60 cycle hum produced by any electrical equipment within 100 miles. They pick up truckers on CB radios - and just about any local talk show on the am radio dial. These are all reasons I love my Telecaster. There is nothing like the sound of air traffic control bleeding through your pickups while you're in the middle of a ripping guitar solo.
Did I mention that Telecasters are Cheap?
Telecasters have a BOLT ON neck. If you break a neck (which is impossible) - you unbolt the broken one and slap on a new one. Try doing this with a Les Paul there Kenny!
All of the hardware on a Telecaster can be purchased right at Home Depot or Lowes. Lose a screw - no problem - you'll find something at the hardware store that will work. Try that with a Les Paul there Kenny!
Telecasters are made by Mexicans. Fender has a plant in Mexico and one in the U.S. in California - matters not - they are all made by Mexicans and Mexicans KNOW guitars. Mexican's produce REAL GUITARS with character. For this reason, no two Teles are alike. Fender also has a plant in Japan. The Japanese are absolutely precise when manufacturing their Teles - and every guitar they make sounds like a Les Paul.
What about a STRATOCASTER you say?
A Strat is nothing more than a feminized version of the Telecaster without the twang. Strats are great - I don't have one - but my daughter does.
So there you have it - that's why I LOVE MY TELECASTER!!
ADDENDUM: I thought up more reasons why I love my Telecaster...
Imagine George Bush in a rock band playing a LES PAUL.
Doesn't work does it? Now put a TELE in his hands ...
Right on!
Same goes for a lot of conservatives ... Trent Lott, Karl Rove, George Allen, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich - they would all be Tele guys. Fred Thompson is so "Tele" that if he even tried to pick up a bright shiney new Les Paul it would instantly turn into a beat up old Telecaster.
John Kerry and a Telecaster don't mix. In fact, I saw Kerry twice on the campaign trail last year playing a guitar and both times he was playing a Gibson ES-335 (hollow version of a Les Paul). This may be a key reason he lost the election.
Can anyone picture Howard Dean playing a Tele? I can't. Ruth Bader Ginsburg? She's definitely Les Paul.
So the Tele is definitely a conservative guitar. There are exceptions of course - Bruce Springsteen is liberal and he plays a tele (but not very well). Cheryl Crow and Melissa Etheridge play tele's sometimes - there are always weird exceptions to every rule.
But the bottom line is - a Telecaster is to music what Dale Earnhart is to Nascar. And I guess that means that a Les Paul is to music what Jeff Gordon is to Nascar.
That's the gist of it.
Leo Fender invented the TELECASTER way back in the late 1940's - and I believe he put it on the market in 1950. Here we are - 55 years later - and the telecaster is still around, still made pretty much the same way it always has been.
Buck Owens played a Telecaster - and still does. Buck's right hand man, Don Rich, played a Telecaster too. Muddy Waters played a Tele. Albert Collins played a Tele. Keith Richards plays a Tele. John Five (ex-Marilyn Manson guitarist) plays a Tele. Danny Gatton played a Tele. Marty Stuart plays a Tele. Some say that Jimmy Page played a Tele on the solo for "Stairway to Heaven" - though I've seen that claim disputed occasionally.
The point here is that the Tele is the ultimate Rock-N-Roll guitar. You can reproduce the intro to Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode" perfectly on a tele. The tele doesn't stop there though. It's probably the only guitar that sounds good on any country recording.
Yes, Kenny Chesney plays a Les Paul - a big metallic blue Les Paul with a huge "don't ask - don't tell" white star painted right on the front of it. I don't like Kenny Chesney - he plays carribean music - NOT COUNTRY!
The Telecaster is ugly - it's not much more than a heavy slab of wood with some pickups drilled in. The body has hard edges - when you hold that puppy on stage - it digs excruciatingly into your rib cage. It's heavy - most of 'em are anyway - so you need to have a well constructed and sturdy back to weild that baby for any amount of time. These are all reasons I love my Telecaster.
A Tele has TWO knobs - a volume control and a tone control. You don't even need them though - just crank both of them all the way up and leave them alone. I know guys who just tack-weld them in the max position and forget about them. There's one pickup switch on a tele - with three positions. You have three pickup configuration choices - Bridge, Neck, or Neck + Bridge. Easy to remember - the Tele is the epitome of simplicity.
A Tele plays PERFECTLY OUT OF TUNE - always. This is the key to both real Rock-N-Roll and Country music. Both types of music sound sterile being played though a perfectly intoned instrument like a Les Paul. Don't believe me? Listen to Kenny Chesney. No matter how good of a guitar tech you are - the Tele will whip you everytime by playing out of tune - by just the right amount. This a big reason I love my Telecaster.
The Telecaster is the AK-47 of the music industry. Cheap, tough, and lethal! You can run over a Tele with a pickup truck, pick it up - and it'll still play out of tune. You never saw Pete Townsend smash a Tele did you? That's because a Tele would have whipped his you-know-what! And if you've ever seen Ted Nugent - when he breaks out his BOW - that isn't a Tele that he's firing an arrow into. Oh no, that would be a Gibson Byrdland - which is nothing more than an expensive Les Paul. No arrow would penetrate a Telecaster body.
Only one guitar can produce a "Tele Twang" - yep, you guessed it - it's a Telecaster. If the crowd you're playing to is unappreciative - simply turn up the tone on your amp and assault the crowd's ears with an "ice pick" tone that will perferate their ear drums. This is one big reason I love my Telecaster. It's also a big reason that PUNK BANDS prefer Teles.
A Tele has TWO - SINGLE COIL PICKUPS - just like Leo made 'em '55 years ago. Single Coils pick up any 60 cycle hum produced by any electrical equipment within 100 miles. They pick up truckers on CB radios - and just about any local talk show on the am radio dial. These are all reasons I love my Telecaster. There is nothing like the sound of air traffic control bleeding through your pickups while you're in the middle of a ripping guitar solo.
Did I mention that Telecasters are Cheap?
Telecasters have a BOLT ON neck. If you break a neck (which is impossible) - you unbolt the broken one and slap on a new one. Try doing this with a Les Paul there Kenny!
All of the hardware on a Telecaster can be purchased right at Home Depot or Lowes. Lose a screw - no problem - you'll find something at the hardware store that will work. Try that with a Les Paul there Kenny!
Telecasters are made by Mexicans. Fender has a plant in Mexico and one in the U.S. in California - matters not - they are all made by Mexicans and Mexicans KNOW guitars. Mexican's produce REAL GUITARS with character. For this reason, no two Teles are alike. Fender also has a plant in Japan. The Japanese are absolutely precise when manufacturing their Teles - and every guitar they make sounds like a Les Paul.
What about a STRATOCASTER you say?
A Strat is nothing more than a feminized version of the Telecaster without the twang. Strats are great - I don't have one - but my daughter does.
So there you have it - that's why I LOVE MY TELECASTER!!
ADDENDUM: I thought up more reasons why I love my Telecaster...
Imagine George Bush in a rock band playing a LES PAUL.
Doesn't work does it? Now put a TELE in his hands ...
Right on!
Same goes for a lot of conservatives ... Trent Lott, Karl Rove, George Allen, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich - they would all be Tele guys. Fred Thompson is so "Tele" that if he even tried to pick up a bright shiney new Les Paul it would instantly turn into a beat up old Telecaster.
John Kerry and a Telecaster don't mix. In fact, I saw Kerry twice on the campaign trail last year playing a guitar and both times he was playing a Gibson ES-335 (hollow version of a Les Paul). This may be a key reason he lost the election.
Can anyone picture Howard Dean playing a Tele? I can't. Ruth Bader Ginsburg? She's definitely Les Paul.
So the Tele is definitely a conservative guitar. There are exceptions of course - Bruce Springsteen is liberal and he plays a tele (but not very well). Cheryl Crow and Melissa Etheridge play tele's sometimes - there are always weird exceptions to every rule.
But the bottom line is - a Telecaster is to music what Dale Earnhart is to Nascar. And I guess that means that a Les Paul is to music what Jeff Gordon is to Nascar.
That's the gist of it.
RIGHT ON WALTER!!
Here's a great article from one my favorite political observers ... Walter E. Williams.
Will We Defend Ourselves?
He's right on the money when he says that if there is another attack on the U.S ...
"If that day ever comes, you can bet the rent money that the Dick Durbins, the Nancy Pelosis and others who've undermined and attacked our interrogation efforts, complaining about our not treating international cutthroats humanely, will blame the attack on President Bush. The last thing they'll do is blame themselves for sabotaging our efforts to get intelligence that might stymie terrorist plans."
Good article Walt!
Will We Defend Ourselves?
He's right on the money when he says that if there is another attack on the U.S ...
"If that day ever comes, you can bet the rent money that the Dick Durbins, the Nancy Pelosis and others who've undermined and attacked our interrogation efforts, complaining about our not treating international cutthroats humanely, will blame the attack on President Bush. The last thing they'll do is blame themselves for sabotaging our efforts to get intelligence that might stymie terrorist plans."
Good article Walt!
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
TEN REASONS WHY HILLARY CAN'T MAKE IT
Folks, I've been watching with complete amusement this completely media driven effort to "draft" Hillary as the next Democratic nominee for President!
Folks, this is FUNNY. First of all, the whole thing is driven by the liberals in the media who are upset that the Democratic party can't seem to pick a nominee that can make it to Pennsylvania Ave. So these liberal media elites have decided to "help out" the Dems and pick one on their own.
And the candidate they've picked is Hillary!
Find a negative story about Hillary anywhere in the "mainstream" media - go ahead - I dare you. It doesn't exist. So for the next three years - be prepared to be inundated with "good news" stories on Hillary!
Too Funny Folks!
And it's also a mistake.
Fact is, the liberal elites in the media are no better at picking candidates than the Democratic National Convention is. The "selection" of Hillary makes this glaringly obvious. Here's why ...
1. If you want to MOTIVATE the Republican base - if you really want to do Karl Rove's job for him - then select someone like Hillary to run against the Republican nominee. I dare say, there is no candidate on earth you could pick who is more HATED by the Republican right than Hillary is. They will turn out in DROVES to vote against her. They remember - all to well - the Clinton administration. They don't want a repeat.
2. If Hillary is the pick for the Dems - this means that the Republicans don't have to worry about their base - and that leaves the Republicans free to nominate anyone they wish too. Sen. John McCain isn't well liked among the Republican base - but the base will still turn out in swarms to vote for him over Hillary.
3. With the Republicans nominating a more "leftish" candidate - like McCain or whoever - that means that candidate is then going to SUCK UP DEMOCRATIC VOTES LIKE A VAMPIRE! The Hillary campaign will be bleeding from almost every major artery.
4. Hillary - ain't Bill. She carries all the baggage of Bill Clinton - but little of the muscle he had. Bill Clinton was, and still is, a MASTER COMMUNICATOR. Hillary isn't. Bill could function in any situation - you couldn't surprise him. His reaction and aswers to questions were always polished and had the appearance of sincerity - even if he was lieing - even if the question was unexpected. This is the exact opposite of Hillary. Hillary can be "pushed" - and very easily - to the point of visible frustration. Y'all haven't seen much of this lately - because she's ONLY A SENATOR right now. A Senator can pick and choose her battles. A Senator can hide in the weeds when a topic comes up that they'd rather not address - or don't think they can address in a satisfactory manner. A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CANNOT. A presidential candiate has to run the "gauntlet" of ALL issues - and they have to do it with little preparation in many cases. Campaigns are intense - you can't just tell someone "I'll have an opinion on this tomorrow". It doesn't work that way.
Additionally, every presidential candidate has to break out his "war face" every now and then - and if you've ever seen Hillary's - then you know that hers isn't pretty. By "war face" - I mean like the time that Bob Dole looked accross the table and told George H.W. Bush, straight to his face, "STOP LIEING ABOUT MY RECORD!". You could tell that old Bob was upset - and in charge. On the flip side of that - Dan Quale has a poor "war face". Great guy and I love Dan to death - but when he gets upset he looks like a wimpy high school boy trying to be something he's not - and it's hard to describe - but he also looks a little mentally unbalanced when he puts on that "war face". Same thing goes for Al Gore (looks very mentally unbalanced - 'cause he is) - and it goes in spades for Hillary also!
5. Hillary will have to fight the fact that she would be asking Americans to make her the first woman president. Now, although I think we're ready for a woman in the Oval Office - Hillary is not the one. And Americans will quickly conclude that she isn't the one. The first woman that is elected President will likely have a military background - in order to alleviate any doubts about her ability to function as commander in chief. Hillary has no such background and will get MURDERED on the commander in chief issue - ESPECIALLY if she's unfortunate to run against a Republican war hero - like John McCain. (Incidentally folks - I'm not on the McCain bandwagon and do not wish to see him as President. As of the moment - I'm a George Allen man myself).
6. American's won't elect a "Chump" to the White House - and Bill Clinton turned Hillary into a "chump" in the eyes of the American public. He did this by cheating on her numerous times and deceiving her - and then sending her out in public to defend him. Most women will tell you that they would have kicked Bill Clinton to the curb after ONE affair - yet Hillary allowed herself to be deceived numerous times and even went on television once to falsely accuse a "vast right wing conspiracy" of tarnishing her husband. Later, we found out it was her husband's own sexual addictions that were getting him in trouble. All of the truth has come out on that stuff - and Hillary was on the wrong side of truth - that's proven. Americans hold a subconcious opinion that Hillary is gullible - easily fooled - and they don't want a gullible president - especially when there is a war going on.
7. Hillary has little "elected" experience - but a mile long political record. The only office I believe she's ever held is that of a U.S. Senator. So she lacks experience in elected office - yet she has a long political record that will be dragged out and used against her. The first thing that comes to mind is her little "venture" into health care right at the beginning of her husband's presidency. That was a complete mess and it ended up with Bill completely retreating from health care reform for the remainder of his TWO terms in office! All of his health care reform dreams were completely dashed due to Hillary's mishandling of the issue - and the PUBLIC RELATIONS effort behind it. Expect all that bloody mess to come up again during any Hillary bid for the presidency.
8. She's a "powder monkey" - but hasn't fired the "cannon". This reason is much akin to reason (7) above. A "powder monkey" - in old time British Navy vernacular is a person who fetches powder for the cannon crew. That's really all that Hillary has done. She can't get elected any more than Karl Rove could get elected. She has been a "background" support type of player for almost all her adult life. That's a safe role - in that role, you can quickly jump back into the invisible background whenever the temperature gets too hot. Americans elect people who have experience on the "cannon crew" - who've been on the front lines. She hasn't - in fact, she doesn't even have much experience in "appointed" positions either.
9. She hasn't been reelected to the Senate yet. She may face a STIFF contest here next year folks. I predict she'll win it - but it could be bloody. It should be bloody - the Republicans are going to be going after her with everything they have. She may emerge with some critical wounds and that doesn't bid well for a run for president only two years later. And worse - if she loses that reelection - she's out of the running completely. Sooo, talk of a Hillary candidacy in 2008 is, in my opinion - way premature. Even her husband Bill agrees with this and has even said as much several times already.
10. HER HUSBAND IS BILL CLINTON. Rumor has it that Bill has been a very naughty boy since he left the White House. Expect his "sexual adventures" to come up again, and again over the course of any Hillary campaign. This is going to make Americans on both the left and the right ask themselves ... "Do we really want another four years of this?".
Additionally, Bill Clinton carries the gravity vector of a BLACK HOLE. You can't ignore him - he sucks in anything that approaches within his field of influence - anything that comes close to him. Hillary won't be able to run a campaign with Bill Clinton only as a "background player". That's impossible. Bill will upstage her and this will make Americans question ... "Who is really running for president here?". The whole thing will just be too weird.
There they are folks - ten reasons why Hillary can't be elected. I should be jumping for joy right? I mean that means the next president will be a Republican if the Dems run Hillary right?
Well, yes it does - but I'm not happy about it. I don't want to see just any Republican in the White House ...
A Hillary nomination means a Republican who is left of center will be nominated by the Republican party - and that probably means John McCain (even as old as he is). The reason for this is simple - the Republicans won't have to work to please the base because a Hillary campaign will do everything for them. The strategy for Republicans then will be to SIPHON Democratic votes from Hillary. Suddenly, the more moderate Republicans will be in charge and they aren't going to pick someone like Rick Santorum or George Allen for the top of the GOP ticket.
I'm not happy about that prospect folks. That's a little fearful to me. I'm a classic member of the Republican base and jumping into a voting booth and pulling the lever for someone like John McCain is like swallowing Castor Oil! However, just like everyone else over here on the right, I'll hold my nose and do it if Hillary runs!
That's why I'm hoping that the Dem's wise up here before they run off and nominate Hillary - she won't do them any good - she can't win. And if the Dem's want to see McCain as president - they can join the Republican party and vote for him - it'll be a lot less painful for them than the agony of another defeat when Hillary's ship sails to the bottom!
Folks, this is FUNNY. First of all, the whole thing is driven by the liberals in the media who are upset that the Democratic party can't seem to pick a nominee that can make it to Pennsylvania Ave. So these liberal media elites have decided to "help out" the Dems and pick one on their own.
And the candidate they've picked is Hillary!
Find a negative story about Hillary anywhere in the "mainstream" media - go ahead - I dare you. It doesn't exist. So for the next three years - be prepared to be inundated with "good news" stories on Hillary!
Too Funny Folks!
And it's also a mistake.
Fact is, the liberal elites in the media are no better at picking candidates than the Democratic National Convention is. The "selection" of Hillary makes this glaringly obvious. Here's why ...
1. If you want to MOTIVATE the Republican base - if you really want to do Karl Rove's job for him - then select someone like Hillary to run against the Republican nominee. I dare say, there is no candidate on earth you could pick who is more HATED by the Republican right than Hillary is. They will turn out in DROVES to vote against her. They remember - all to well - the Clinton administration. They don't want a repeat.
2. If Hillary is the pick for the Dems - this means that the Republicans don't have to worry about their base - and that leaves the Republicans free to nominate anyone they wish too. Sen. John McCain isn't well liked among the Republican base - but the base will still turn out in swarms to vote for him over Hillary.
3. With the Republicans nominating a more "leftish" candidate - like McCain or whoever - that means that candidate is then going to SUCK UP DEMOCRATIC VOTES LIKE A VAMPIRE! The Hillary campaign will be bleeding from almost every major artery.
4. Hillary - ain't Bill. She carries all the baggage of Bill Clinton - but little of the muscle he had. Bill Clinton was, and still is, a MASTER COMMUNICATOR. Hillary isn't. Bill could function in any situation - you couldn't surprise him. His reaction and aswers to questions were always polished and had the appearance of sincerity - even if he was lieing - even if the question was unexpected. This is the exact opposite of Hillary. Hillary can be "pushed" - and very easily - to the point of visible frustration. Y'all haven't seen much of this lately - because she's ONLY A SENATOR right now. A Senator can pick and choose her battles. A Senator can hide in the weeds when a topic comes up that they'd rather not address - or don't think they can address in a satisfactory manner. A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CANNOT. A presidential candiate has to run the "gauntlet" of ALL issues - and they have to do it with little preparation in many cases. Campaigns are intense - you can't just tell someone "I'll have an opinion on this tomorrow". It doesn't work that way.
Additionally, every presidential candidate has to break out his "war face" every now and then - and if you've ever seen Hillary's - then you know that hers isn't pretty. By "war face" - I mean like the time that Bob Dole looked accross the table and told George H.W. Bush, straight to his face, "STOP LIEING ABOUT MY RECORD!". You could tell that old Bob was upset - and in charge. On the flip side of that - Dan Quale has a poor "war face". Great guy and I love Dan to death - but when he gets upset he looks like a wimpy high school boy trying to be something he's not - and it's hard to describe - but he also looks a little mentally unbalanced when he puts on that "war face". Same thing goes for Al Gore (looks very mentally unbalanced - 'cause he is) - and it goes in spades for Hillary also!
5. Hillary will have to fight the fact that she would be asking Americans to make her the first woman president. Now, although I think we're ready for a woman in the Oval Office - Hillary is not the one. And Americans will quickly conclude that she isn't the one. The first woman that is elected President will likely have a military background - in order to alleviate any doubts about her ability to function as commander in chief. Hillary has no such background and will get MURDERED on the commander in chief issue - ESPECIALLY if she's unfortunate to run against a Republican war hero - like John McCain. (Incidentally folks - I'm not on the McCain bandwagon and do not wish to see him as President. As of the moment - I'm a George Allen man myself).
6. American's won't elect a "Chump" to the White House - and Bill Clinton turned Hillary into a "chump" in the eyes of the American public. He did this by cheating on her numerous times and deceiving her - and then sending her out in public to defend him. Most women will tell you that they would have kicked Bill Clinton to the curb after ONE affair - yet Hillary allowed herself to be deceived numerous times and even went on television once to falsely accuse a "vast right wing conspiracy" of tarnishing her husband. Later, we found out it was her husband's own sexual addictions that were getting him in trouble. All of the truth has come out on that stuff - and Hillary was on the wrong side of truth - that's proven. Americans hold a subconcious opinion that Hillary is gullible - easily fooled - and they don't want a gullible president - especially when there is a war going on.
7. Hillary has little "elected" experience - but a mile long political record. The only office I believe she's ever held is that of a U.S. Senator. So she lacks experience in elected office - yet she has a long political record that will be dragged out and used against her. The first thing that comes to mind is her little "venture" into health care right at the beginning of her husband's presidency. That was a complete mess and it ended up with Bill completely retreating from health care reform for the remainder of his TWO terms in office! All of his health care reform dreams were completely dashed due to Hillary's mishandling of the issue - and the PUBLIC RELATIONS effort behind it. Expect all that bloody mess to come up again during any Hillary bid for the presidency.
8. She's a "powder monkey" - but hasn't fired the "cannon". This reason is much akin to reason (7) above. A "powder monkey" - in old time British Navy vernacular is a person who fetches powder for the cannon crew. That's really all that Hillary has done. She can't get elected any more than Karl Rove could get elected. She has been a "background" support type of player for almost all her adult life. That's a safe role - in that role, you can quickly jump back into the invisible background whenever the temperature gets too hot. Americans elect people who have experience on the "cannon crew" - who've been on the front lines. She hasn't - in fact, she doesn't even have much experience in "appointed" positions either.
9. She hasn't been reelected to the Senate yet. She may face a STIFF contest here next year folks. I predict she'll win it - but it could be bloody. It should be bloody - the Republicans are going to be going after her with everything they have. She may emerge with some critical wounds and that doesn't bid well for a run for president only two years later. And worse - if she loses that reelection - she's out of the running completely. Sooo, talk of a Hillary candidacy in 2008 is, in my opinion - way premature. Even her husband Bill agrees with this and has even said as much several times already.
10. HER HUSBAND IS BILL CLINTON. Rumor has it that Bill has been a very naughty boy since he left the White House. Expect his "sexual adventures" to come up again, and again over the course of any Hillary campaign. This is going to make Americans on both the left and the right ask themselves ... "Do we really want another four years of this?".
Additionally, Bill Clinton carries the gravity vector of a BLACK HOLE. You can't ignore him - he sucks in anything that approaches within his field of influence - anything that comes close to him. Hillary won't be able to run a campaign with Bill Clinton only as a "background player". That's impossible. Bill will upstage her and this will make Americans question ... "Who is really running for president here?". The whole thing will just be too weird.
There they are folks - ten reasons why Hillary can't be elected. I should be jumping for joy right? I mean that means the next president will be a Republican if the Dems run Hillary right?
Well, yes it does - but I'm not happy about it. I don't want to see just any Republican in the White House ...
A Hillary nomination means a Republican who is left of center will be nominated by the Republican party - and that probably means John McCain (even as old as he is). The reason for this is simple - the Republicans won't have to work to please the base because a Hillary campaign will do everything for them. The strategy for Republicans then will be to SIPHON Democratic votes from Hillary. Suddenly, the more moderate Republicans will be in charge and they aren't going to pick someone like Rick Santorum or George Allen for the top of the GOP ticket.
I'm not happy about that prospect folks. That's a little fearful to me. I'm a classic member of the Republican base and jumping into a voting booth and pulling the lever for someone like John McCain is like swallowing Castor Oil! However, just like everyone else over here on the right, I'll hold my nose and do it if Hillary runs!
That's why I'm hoping that the Dem's wise up here before they run off and nominate Hillary - she won't do them any good - she can't win. And if the Dem's want to see McCain as president - they can join the Republican party and vote for him - it'll be a lot less painful for them than the agony of another defeat when Hillary's ship sails to the bottom!
DEATH OF MULTI-CULTURALISM
Great article here from JANET ALBRECHTSEN over at The Australian ...
Read it here ...
I'm excited that these kinds of arguements are finally gaining some main-stream acceptance. Fact is, we are a freedom-loving, democratically ruled nation. We should be proud of that. Nothing wrong with looking down on people who are intolerant of democratic ways, intolerant of the rights of women and religious, ethnic, and racial minorities.
Nothing wrong with looking down on people who embrace terrorism.
And I especially like the part where she says - if you don't embrace democracy - then get out of our country!
Read it here ...
I'm excited that these kinds of arguements are finally gaining some main-stream acceptance. Fact is, we are a freedom-loving, democratically ruled nation. We should be proud of that. Nothing wrong with looking down on people who are intolerant of democratic ways, intolerant of the rights of women and religious, ethnic, and racial minorities.
Nothing wrong with looking down on people who embrace terrorism.
And I especially like the part where she says - if you don't embrace democracy - then get out of our country!
WHAT WOULD YOU DO ...
So, you are the head of Scotland Yard and, a few weeks ago, four Islamofacist suicide bombers detonated their bombs and killed around 60 of your fellow countrymen in the London tube and on a double-decker bus. A week later, four other guys attempt to do the same thing - but their equipment fails and they are forced to run off in chaos.
Now you have four suicide bombers on the loose - men who you know have already resigned themselves to death and almost certainly will make the attempt again.
Suddenly, one of your officers informs you that one of the failed terrorists has been captured - but only one - and he is now in your custody for questioning.
BOMB SUSPECT ARRESTED...
But when your officers question him - he refuses to speak. Every indication you have - tells you that the other three are out there somewhere - about to attack again - and you know this because your officers are finding A LOT of explosive material in the raids they've been making lately.
Soooo, there you are - a suspect in custody, who won't talk. Three others on the lamb bent on another attack. Your wife and kids ride the tube everyday to work and school. You're fearful they will harmed in the next attack - it certainly is a possibilty. But even if they aren't - untold numbers of your countrymen will be.
And the little jerk in custody won't talk. What do you do? Torture?
Let me tell you folks - if I were the head of Scotland Yard - that little jerk would be singing like a canary.
By any means necessary.
Now you have four suicide bombers on the loose - men who you know have already resigned themselves to death and almost certainly will make the attempt again.
Suddenly, one of your officers informs you that one of the failed terrorists has been captured - but only one - and he is now in your custody for questioning.
BOMB SUSPECT ARRESTED...
But when your officers question him - he refuses to speak. Every indication you have - tells you that the other three are out there somewhere - about to attack again - and you know this because your officers are finding A LOT of explosive material in the raids they've been making lately.
Soooo, there you are - a suspect in custody, who won't talk. Three others on the lamb bent on another attack. Your wife and kids ride the tube everyday to work and school. You're fearful they will harmed in the next attack - it certainly is a possibilty. But even if they aren't - untold numbers of your countrymen will be.
And the little jerk in custody won't talk. What do you do? Torture?
Let me tell you folks - if I were the head of Scotland Yard - that little jerk would be singing like a canary.
By any means necessary.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
MITT DRAWS FIRE FROM GAYS
Homosexual marriage is legal in the state of Massachusetts and ...
In 2004 - 80,000 children were born in the state of Massachusetts. Sixty-one (61) of those children were born to homosexual couples.
Put another way - of all the babies born in Massachusetts last year - .07 percent were born to homosexual couples.
So when the hospitals asked the governor what they should do with the birth certificates of children born to homosexual couples - the governor came up with a pretty good solution ...
"Cross out the words 'mother' and 'father' and fill in the names of the homosexual couple."
Sounds like a great solution right? I mean, why print up thousands of special birth certificates for an extreme minority of the births? Just black out the words "mother" and "father" and fill in the names of the homosexual parents.
"Wrong Move!" Says the homosexual special intrest lobby in Massachusetts!
Continuing to play the role of "victim" - a role they have become expert in - the homosexual lobby is now demanding the words "mother" and "father" be ELIMINATED from the birth certificates! Appears the homosexuals believe that those words "stigmatize" their children.
According to the homosexual lobby - the terms "mother" and "father" should be eliminated from birth certificates and replaced with "parent A" and "parent B". It also appears they want this change made to ALL birth certificates - even those of children born to heterosexual couples.
Really?
What bunk! By the time these children even see these birth certificates they'll be grown! Surely they'll be able to deal with the fact that their "parents" were homosexual and understand full well why the state crossed the "mother/father" words out. If they haven't come to terms with the fact that their parents are homosexuals by that point - they have greater problems than two crossed out words on their birth certificate!
And all of you liberals out there REALLY believed the homosexual lobby when they said that "same sex" marriage wasn't about destroying traditional marriage. You believed 'em - we conservatives told you - "give 'em an inch - they'll take a mile". We told you that this was all about eliminating traditional values and notions of what a real "family" is. We all told you - you didn't believe us.
And this business with birth certificates - it's only the TIP of the iceberg because, folks, Pandora's Box is now open!
The next thing that the homosexual lobby will be after is to eliminate the WORDS "mother" and "father" from our speaking vocabulary!
I mean, isn't it unfair that we ask children questions like ... "Who is your father young man?" Doesn't that stigmatize the children of homosexuals when they're forced to answer ... "I don't really have one?"
Wouldn't it be much better to just ask them ... "Who is your Parent "A" young man?"
Additionally, we shouldn't appear to "endorse" traditional marriage in our public school systems - therefore, we need to get rid of "mother/father" terms in our school curriculum. For instance ...
"George Washington told his father 'I cannot tell a lie'" ...
should be changed to ...
"George Washington told parent A, 'I cannot tell a lie'"...
Yeah, I hear y'all laughin' out there now - trust me - it's coming! And it'll get even worse than that!
In 2004 - 80,000 children were born in the state of Massachusetts. Sixty-one (61) of those children were born to homosexual couples.
Put another way - of all the babies born in Massachusetts last year - .07 percent were born to homosexual couples.
So when the hospitals asked the governor what they should do with the birth certificates of children born to homosexual couples - the governor came up with a pretty good solution ...
"Cross out the words 'mother' and 'father' and fill in the names of the homosexual couple."
Sounds like a great solution right? I mean, why print up thousands of special birth certificates for an extreme minority of the births? Just black out the words "mother" and "father" and fill in the names of the homosexual parents.
"Wrong Move!" Says the homosexual special intrest lobby in Massachusetts!
Continuing to play the role of "victim" - a role they have become expert in - the homosexual lobby is now demanding the words "mother" and "father" be ELIMINATED from the birth certificates! Appears the homosexuals believe that those words "stigmatize" their children.
According to the homosexual lobby - the terms "mother" and "father" should be eliminated from birth certificates and replaced with "parent A" and "parent B". It also appears they want this change made to ALL birth certificates - even those of children born to heterosexual couples.
Really?
What bunk! By the time these children even see these birth certificates they'll be grown! Surely they'll be able to deal with the fact that their "parents" were homosexual and understand full well why the state crossed the "mother/father" words out. If they haven't come to terms with the fact that their parents are homosexuals by that point - they have greater problems than two crossed out words on their birth certificate!
And all of you liberals out there REALLY believed the homosexual lobby when they said that "same sex" marriage wasn't about destroying traditional marriage. You believed 'em - we conservatives told you - "give 'em an inch - they'll take a mile". We told you that this was all about eliminating traditional values and notions of what a real "family" is. We all told you - you didn't believe us.
And this business with birth certificates - it's only the TIP of the iceberg because, folks, Pandora's Box is now open!
The next thing that the homosexual lobby will be after is to eliminate the WORDS "mother" and "father" from our speaking vocabulary!
I mean, isn't it unfair that we ask children questions like ... "Who is your father young man?" Doesn't that stigmatize the children of homosexuals when they're forced to answer ... "I don't really have one?"
Wouldn't it be much better to just ask them ... "Who is your Parent "A" young man?"
Additionally, we shouldn't appear to "endorse" traditional marriage in our public school systems - therefore, we need to get rid of "mother/father" terms in our school curriculum. For instance ...
"George Washington told his father 'I cannot tell a lie'" ...
should be changed to ...
"George Washington told parent A, 'I cannot tell a lie'"...
Yeah, I hear y'all laughin' out there now - trust me - it's coming! And it'll get even worse than that!
THE CASE FOR PROFILING ...
I'm all for catching the BAD GUYS.
So when it comes to catching bad guys - I'm all for giving law enforcement the tools they need to catch them.
This means that I'm FOR profiling. Behavioral profiling, economic profiling, social profiling - any-kind-of-tried-and-true profiling.
And that includes RACIAL and RELIGIOUS profiling - if it's proven to be effective.
Let's not kid ourselves, we already perform racial profiling to one degree or another. For instance, let's take serial killers and pediphiles. Fact is - 99% of these guys are white males (I got that statistic from an FBI agent who investigates stuff like that).
When law enforcement is confronted with a serial murder or a pediphile murder - they start looking for a white male - they aren't looking for an African American female.
Now, I'm a white male - and I'm pretty disgusted by that 99% statistic. I wish that statistic weren't true - it really upsets me. But I can't deny it. And why would I insist that law enforcement officials ignore that statistic just because I don't like it?
I may be a white male - but I'm a law abiding one - and I want to CATCH THE BAD GUYS. So my message to cops is to get out there and put these white male serial killers and pediphiles in JAIL! And keep 'em there. If that means you have to stop me on the street and ask me questions - because I fit the profile - you have my permission! I have nothing to fear - I'm an innocent law abiding guy. The only people who have anything to fear from being "profiled" are guilty people!
The same holds true for terrorists - where both racial and religious profiling would benefit law enforcement. Not all terrorists are of middle eastern decent (though most are) - but ALL of the one's we're fighting right now ARE MUSLIM!!
Let's get on with the fight here and do this right. You can't fight terrorists with one arm tied behind your back! The advantage and odds are on the side of the terrorists - why are we "surrendering" any of the few advantages we DO have?
If you're a honest, freedom loving, law abiding MUSLIM - how can you deny that these terrorists - all of them - aren't also MUSLIM? And why would you want to risk another 9-11 just so that you aren't personally inconvienienced by a police officer asking you a few questions here and there and searching your bag?
Hey, there's a war on folks - you want to WIN it?
I saw something about six months ago that stunned me in an airport ...
A U.S. Soldier - in Tri-Color desert camoflage and boots, with field pack - receiving one of those "high-intensity" TSA searches at an airline terminal checkpoint. If you travel, you've seen guys just like him many times in the airport - and you know where those guys are headed to - or coming from - Iraq or Afghanistan.
This soldier had a valid Military ID - was dressed for war - and had written orders from the department of the Army to go to Iraq.
Let me ask you something folks - how many of the terrorist suicide bombers fit the profile of this soldier?
Answer - none!
So why was TSA wasting their time searching this guy - who was obviously not a terrorist - but one of our precious guys designated to go out and WHACK these terrorists? Well, the answer is - political correctness. TSA isn't allowed to profile - so they have to waste their time checking guys like this soldier!
Incredible - and every time an Islamic extremist sees us do something ridiculous like this they smile quietly to themselves and know that they are going to win this war - because WE are going to help them do it with our political correctness.
Let's get real here folks!
So when it comes to catching bad guys - I'm all for giving law enforcement the tools they need to catch them.
This means that I'm FOR profiling. Behavioral profiling, economic profiling, social profiling - any-kind-of-tried-and-true profiling.
And that includes RACIAL and RELIGIOUS profiling - if it's proven to be effective.
Let's not kid ourselves, we already perform racial profiling to one degree or another. For instance, let's take serial killers and pediphiles. Fact is - 99% of these guys are white males (I got that statistic from an FBI agent who investigates stuff like that).
When law enforcement is confronted with a serial murder or a pediphile murder - they start looking for a white male - they aren't looking for an African American female.
Now, I'm a white male - and I'm pretty disgusted by that 99% statistic. I wish that statistic weren't true - it really upsets me. But I can't deny it. And why would I insist that law enforcement officials ignore that statistic just because I don't like it?
I may be a white male - but I'm a law abiding one - and I want to CATCH THE BAD GUYS. So my message to cops is to get out there and put these white male serial killers and pediphiles in JAIL! And keep 'em there. If that means you have to stop me on the street and ask me questions - because I fit the profile - you have my permission! I have nothing to fear - I'm an innocent law abiding guy. The only people who have anything to fear from being "profiled" are guilty people!
The same holds true for terrorists - where both racial and religious profiling would benefit law enforcement. Not all terrorists are of middle eastern decent (though most are) - but ALL of the one's we're fighting right now ARE MUSLIM!!
Let's get on with the fight here and do this right. You can't fight terrorists with one arm tied behind your back! The advantage and odds are on the side of the terrorists - why are we "surrendering" any of the few advantages we DO have?
If you're a honest, freedom loving, law abiding MUSLIM - how can you deny that these terrorists - all of them - aren't also MUSLIM? And why would you want to risk another 9-11 just so that you aren't personally inconvienienced by a police officer asking you a few questions here and there and searching your bag?
Hey, there's a war on folks - you want to WIN it?
I saw something about six months ago that stunned me in an airport ...
A U.S. Soldier - in Tri-Color desert camoflage and boots, with field pack - receiving one of those "high-intensity" TSA searches at an airline terminal checkpoint. If you travel, you've seen guys just like him many times in the airport - and you know where those guys are headed to - or coming from - Iraq or Afghanistan.
This soldier had a valid Military ID - was dressed for war - and had written orders from the department of the Army to go to Iraq.
Let me ask you something folks - how many of the terrorist suicide bombers fit the profile of this soldier?
Answer - none!
So why was TSA wasting their time searching this guy - who was obviously not a terrorist - but one of our precious guys designated to go out and WHACK these terrorists? Well, the answer is - political correctness. TSA isn't allowed to profile - so they have to waste their time checking guys like this soldier!
Incredible - and every time an Islamic extremist sees us do something ridiculous like this they smile quietly to themselves and know that they are going to win this war - because WE are going to help them do it with our political correctness.
Let's get real here folks!
WHAT THE WORLD OWES PALESTINIANS AND THE LEFT
Every once in awhile I come accross a great article that just speaks the truth so succinctly, so perfectly.
Here's one by Dennis Prager over at RealClearPolitics ...
What The World Owes Palestinians and The Left
Here's one by Dennis Prager over at RealClearPolitics ...
What The World Owes Palestinians and The Left
Monday, July 25, 2005
SHE'S BAAAAAAAAAACKK!
The year 2005 will go down in history as the "Year of the Retread".
Not only is Hollywood reaching back into the past to retread old movies and TV series like Willy Wonka and the Dukes of Hazard ...
But the liberals are reaching into the past and dusting off some fairly discredited old warhorses from their past also!
The Clinton Administration gets hauled out for another round as the liberal press pushes Hillary as a possible presidential candiate in 2008 ...
A less spritely Jane Fonda has topped off her geritol tank and is ready to take on another evil war (Iraq). She'll be pontificating again soon on the evils of war and Ted Turner's sexual habits to anyone who will listen. Oh boy - as if we all didn't have enough of that the first time around!
But Hillary and Jane ain't all ...
Anita Hill, our favorite little cherub faced "victim" from the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings has popped the top on another can of Coke for a quick caffeine fix and a charge at President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee - John C. Roberts.
Here we go folks!
Although Anita looks like she's shed some pounds since her first 15 minutes of fame back in 1991 - she hasn't shed any of her famous disdain for conservative Supreme Court Justices! No Sireee!
And the woman who fought so hard to keep an African American justice off the court is now saying that John C. Roberts is the wrong man for the Supreme Court because he's a White Male!
No Dorothy, we aren't in Vegas anymore - that shuffling sound is the RACE CARD being dealt! Double down whilst you can!
I'm telling you folks - it just doesn't get any better than this! When I read about Anita getting back into the act here I just laughed my you-know-what silly! This all has a SILVER LINING though - because all of those classic Anita Hill jokes we slaved to come up with 14 years ago can now be RETREADED and used again!
Here's a little trip down memory-lane ...
1. Have you heard of the new ANITA HILL COMPUTER VIRUS? It lies dormant for 10 years before attacking!
2. How did Anita Hill learn her job? Hands on Training.
3. How did Anita Hill describe Clarence Thomas? As a HANGING Judge!
I tell ya folks - life is wonderful isn't it? I mean - fact is so often stranger (and funnier) than fiction. Just when you thought you'd heard and seen it all! As long as liberals exist - I never want to die!
Not only is Hollywood reaching back into the past to retread old movies and TV series like Willy Wonka and the Dukes of Hazard ...
But the liberals are reaching into the past and dusting off some fairly discredited old warhorses from their past also!
The Clinton Administration gets hauled out for another round as the liberal press pushes Hillary as a possible presidential candiate in 2008 ...
A less spritely Jane Fonda has topped off her geritol tank and is ready to take on another evil war (Iraq). She'll be pontificating again soon on the evils of war and Ted Turner's sexual habits to anyone who will listen. Oh boy - as if we all didn't have enough of that the first time around!
But Hillary and Jane ain't all ...
Anita Hill, our favorite little cherub faced "victim" from the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings has popped the top on another can of Coke for a quick caffeine fix and a charge at President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee - John C. Roberts.
Here we go folks!
Although Anita looks like she's shed some pounds since her first 15 minutes of fame back in 1991 - she hasn't shed any of her famous disdain for conservative Supreme Court Justices! No Sireee!
And the woman who fought so hard to keep an African American justice off the court is now saying that John C. Roberts is the wrong man for the Supreme Court because he's a White Male!
No Dorothy, we aren't in Vegas anymore - that shuffling sound is the RACE CARD being dealt! Double down whilst you can!
I'm telling you folks - it just doesn't get any better than this! When I read about Anita getting back into the act here I just laughed my you-know-what silly! This all has a SILVER LINING though - because all of those classic Anita Hill jokes we slaved to come up with 14 years ago can now be RETREADED and used again!
Here's a little trip down memory-lane ...
1. Have you heard of the new ANITA HILL COMPUTER VIRUS? It lies dormant for 10 years before attacking!
2. How did Anita Hill learn her job? Hands on Training.
3. How did Anita Hill describe Clarence Thomas? As a HANGING Judge!
I tell ya folks - life is wonderful isn't it? I mean - fact is so often stranger (and funnier) than fiction. Just when you thought you'd heard and seen it all! As long as liberals exist - I never want to die!
NASA - JUST DO IT BABY ...
Well shut my mouth for coming to NASA's defense in the wake of my last post - which condemned them for lack of VISION.
NASA is now getting some flak over their announcement to GO AHEAD and launch the shuttle tomorrow if they have a repeat of the intermittant fuel sensor problem that scuttled last week's launch.
Good on 'em! There are only like three other sensors that measure the same thing - triple redundancy. I don't understand why this problem held them up last week! Get this thing into orbit already!
So it's good to see that someone at the head of NASA has the cahonies to make a call to go!
NASA is now getting some flak over their announcement to GO AHEAD and launch the shuttle tomorrow if they have a repeat of the intermittant fuel sensor problem that scuttled last week's launch.
Good on 'em! There are only like three other sensors that measure the same thing - triple redundancy. I don't understand why this problem held them up last week! Get this thing into orbit already!
So it's good to see that someone at the head of NASA has the cahonies to make a call to go!
CAN DEMOCRATS STOOP ANY LOWER?
I invite everyone's attention to the following article (no really, click it - you're gonna love this one!)
Latest Outrage
Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll decided to "invite" herself to the funeral of Marine Corps Staff Seargeant Joseph Goodwin, 32 - who was killed in Iraq.
Sgt Goodrich's sister-in-law, Rhonda Goodrich says that he died "courageously in Iraq on July 10th - serving his country".
But the Lieutenant Governor, Catherine Baker Knoll decided to turn this hero's funeral into a political event by attending uninvited and passing out her business cards there. She is also said to have told some of the attendees that "our government is against the war". I guess the obvious interpretation there is that the Lieutenant Governor is speaking for the state of Pennsylvania and claiming that the state DOES NOT support the war.
Really?
So far, Catherine Baker Knoll has not apologized for her inappropriate conduct. Nor has she released any comment on it.
But the Governor of Pennsylvania - DEMOCRAT - Ed Rendell has tried to explain away the affair by stating "It's not the business of state government to support the war, but our state supports the men and women who are fighting this war" .
"It's not the business of the state government to support the war."
Oh really?
Does this mean that it IS the business of state government to OPPOSE it?
Folks, let's put an end to this myth that the liberal Democrats support the troops. Let's be honest here. They don't support the troops. The only time they "support" troops is when they can use their deaths to grind an axe against George W. Bush.
Teddy Kennedy claims to "support" the troops - but he's never even visited Iraq to see the troops nor ask the troops what their opinion of it is. If he did - he'd find that 70% of them, according to the latest Army Times poll - support the war effort. He would find that, according to that same poll, 70% of them also said they would vote for George Bush in the last election. Things are tough in Iraq, it's not sunshine and roses - but the troops over there believe that they are doing a good thing and want to see it through.
You get plenty of Rosie O'Donnel's opinion of the war on CNN. However, the opinion THAT COUNTS - namely the grunt on the ground in Iraq - goes unreported. Why? Because their opinon widely differs from Rosie's and the rest of the liberals - that's why.
But I digress here.
The point is here - the DEMOCRATIC leadership of the state of Pennsylvania has no right to make a political spectical out of a Marine's funeral. And to do so uninvited is even more agregious. The governor says that both he and the Lt. Gov will send letters of apology to the family. If I were the family, I'd call a news conference when I received those apology letters and allow the news media to film me BURNING THEM.
Latest Outrage
Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll decided to "invite" herself to the funeral of Marine Corps Staff Seargeant Joseph Goodwin, 32 - who was killed in Iraq.
Sgt Goodrich's sister-in-law, Rhonda Goodrich says that he died "courageously in Iraq on July 10th - serving his country".
But the Lieutenant Governor, Catherine Baker Knoll decided to turn this hero's funeral into a political event by attending uninvited and passing out her business cards there. She is also said to have told some of the attendees that "our government is against the war". I guess the obvious interpretation there is that the Lieutenant Governor is speaking for the state of Pennsylvania and claiming that the state DOES NOT support the war.
Really?
So far, Catherine Baker Knoll has not apologized for her inappropriate conduct. Nor has she released any comment on it.
But the Governor of Pennsylvania - DEMOCRAT - Ed Rendell has tried to explain away the affair by stating "It's not the business of state government to support the war, but our state supports the men and women who are fighting this war" .
"It's not the business of the state government to support the war."
Oh really?
Does this mean that it IS the business of state government to OPPOSE it?
Folks, let's put an end to this myth that the liberal Democrats support the troops. Let's be honest here. They don't support the troops. The only time they "support" troops is when they can use their deaths to grind an axe against George W. Bush.
Teddy Kennedy claims to "support" the troops - but he's never even visited Iraq to see the troops nor ask the troops what their opinion of it is. If he did - he'd find that 70% of them, according to the latest Army Times poll - support the war effort. He would find that, according to that same poll, 70% of them also said they would vote for George Bush in the last election. Things are tough in Iraq, it's not sunshine and roses - but the troops over there believe that they are doing a good thing and want to see it through.
You get plenty of Rosie O'Donnel's opinion of the war on CNN. However, the opinion THAT COUNTS - namely the grunt on the ground in Iraq - goes unreported. Why? Because their opinon widely differs from Rosie's and the rest of the liberals - that's why.
But I digress here.
The point is here - the DEMOCRATIC leadership of the state of Pennsylvania has no right to make a political spectical out of a Marine's funeral. And to do so uninvited is even more agregious. The governor says that both he and the Lt. Gov will send letters of apology to the family. If I were the family, I'd call a news conference when I received those apology letters and allow the news media to film me BURNING THEM.
Friday, July 22, 2005
TROOPS TELL TEDDY TO COOL IT
FOX NEWS is running a report that my favorite amphibious Senator - Teddy Kennedy, just recently visited the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
Apparently Teddy spoke with some troops from Massachusetts while he was there. They had some words for him ...
"COOL IT!"
Apparently the troops are unhappy that Teddy has been leading the charge to portray them as a wreckless crew of war criminals - who do nothing all day except dream up new methods to torture the detainees down there.
No doubt the troops also informed Teddy that the folks they are detaining down there - are dangerous terrorists bent on killing Americans - rather than the benign Middle Eastern sheep herders and rug weavers that Teddy has been trying to convince everyone back here that they are.
Teddy was unavailable for comment today when Fox News contacted his office!
Apparently Teddy spoke with some troops from Massachusetts while he was there. They had some words for him ...
"COOL IT!"
Apparently the troops are unhappy that Teddy has been leading the charge to portray them as a wreckless crew of war criminals - who do nothing all day except dream up new methods to torture the detainees down there.
No doubt the troops also informed Teddy that the folks they are detaining down there - are dangerous terrorists bent on killing Americans - rather than the benign Middle Eastern sheep herders and rug weavers that Teddy has been trying to convince everyone back here that they are.
Teddy was unavailable for comment today when Fox News contacted his office!
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THEM ...
"Depressed peoples of the world have no armies. They have no jets and no cruise missiles with which to strike back at the countries that oppress them. It is not unexpected that such people resort to suicide attacks on the innocent populations of thier oppressors. One man's terrorist ... is another man's freedom fighter."
This is the argument that liberal apologists are making these days to legitimize terrorism.
It's all bunk ...
Let me explain to the liberals out there who hold this view - there is no excuse for terrorism - and here's why...
First
Let's compare the terrorist suicide bombers of today to the Kamikaze's of World War II. They are very similar the two - with one striking difference - Kamikaze's attacked military targets - they were were terrifying - but they weren't terrorists.
Just after the military combat operations of the Iraq war ended, a lone Iraqi suicide bomber entered a mess tent for U.S. servicemen in Iraq and detonated - killing many American servicemen. I don't call that guy a terrorist. "Stupid" - yes, I'll call him that but I won't call him a terrorist because he targeted the military forces of his enemy.
For Rosie O'Donnel - George Bush is not a terrorist. The U.S. combat forces that he commands DOES NOT TARGET civilian populations. When civilians are killed today by U.S. military forces - it's an unintentional event - and it occurs exclusively as a result of collateral damage during attacks against enemy MILITARY targets or it's the result of an accident. In both cases - the U.S. has a policy to always either apologize or express deep regret to the civilian population suffering the loss and also promise that it will do everything in it's power to prevent it from happening again.
Terrorists TARGET exclusively civilian populations. And rather than apologize for their kills - they promise those civilian populations even more deaths.
Second ...
If it is legitimate for an oppressed people to resort to terroristic means - then by extension, it is also appropriate for NON-oppressed peoples to resort to it.
Why have an army or any military establishment then? If another country offends you - simply recruit some suicide bombers and send them out to blow up some enemy civilians. If all countries did this - the world would be chaos.
NASA - Born: July 29th, 1958 ; Died: December 14th, 1972
On 14 December, 1972, Eugene A. Cernan, commander of the Apollo 17 moon mission, stepped OFF the moon's surface and entered the lunar module Challenger. Then some short time later that day ...
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration .... DIED!
NASA's death was rivetingly captured on film. Here it is ... (warning - it's tough to watch) ...
Goodbye ...
As the lunar module Challenger fired her boosters and left the moon's surface - fading slowly into the black lunar sky - so did the vision and dream that was every bit of the life of NASA.
Not too long ago Eugene Cernan was quoted as saying ...
"Yes, I am the last man that walked on the moon and that is a dubious and disappointing honor. It's been far too long."
Captain Cernan turned 71 this year in March. I wish him many more good years of life but the fact is folks, in the not too distant future all of the heroic men that walked on the moon will be gone. That will leave us with NO ONE on this planet who has first hand experience of what walking on the moon was really like. No human being will remain who has gone any farther than near-earth orbit. All we will have left are the memories, and the faded video of our greatest technological acheivement - putting men on the moon.
My daughter is a senior in college this year - and she has never witnessed a man walk on the moon in her entire life.
In fact, since before my daughter was even born - NASA has done nothing with manned space flight except launch space shuttle missions. The only exciting thing happening at NASA these days is happening in their UNMANNED space division - and I have to admit - that is some pretty exciting stuff. It isn't Neil Armstong's footprint in the lunar dust though. It isn't Alan Shepard driving a golf ball "miles and miles and miles" across the moon's surface.
For those of you who are old enough to remember Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon - you can probably remember that ALL of us watching back here on Earth were just amazed.
However, when I now look back on that momentous event - and I consider the antiquated technology that was used to achieve it - I AM BREATHLESS.
There were no plasma screens back then. No pentium chips. No laptops. No integrated circuits, touchscreens, wireless networks, firmware - no artificial intelligence. I don't even think these men had a pocket calculator.
But it wasn't technology that allowed NASA to successfully put six pairs of men on the moon back then - it was sheer blue knuckled determination, drive, and most importantly - VISION.
I heard once, don't know if it's true - that according to the laws of physics, it's impossible for a bumble bee to fly.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration .... DIED!
NASA's death was rivetingly captured on film. Here it is ... (warning - it's tough to watch) ...
Goodbye ...
As the lunar module Challenger fired her boosters and left the moon's surface - fading slowly into the black lunar sky - so did the vision and dream that was every bit of the life of NASA.
Not too long ago Eugene Cernan was quoted as saying ...
"Yes, I am the last man that walked on the moon and that is a dubious and disappointing honor. It's been far too long."
Captain Cernan turned 71 this year in March. I wish him many more good years of life but the fact is folks, in the not too distant future all of the heroic men that walked on the moon will be gone. That will leave us with NO ONE on this planet who has first hand experience of what walking on the moon was really like. No human being will remain who has gone any farther than near-earth orbit. All we will have left are the memories, and the faded video of our greatest technological acheivement - putting men on the moon.
My daughter is a senior in college this year - and she has never witnessed a man walk on the moon in her entire life.
In fact, since before my daughter was even born - NASA has done nothing with manned space flight except launch space shuttle missions. The only exciting thing happening at NASA these days is happening in their UNMANNED space division - and I have to admit - that is some pretty exciting stuff. It isn't Neil Armstong's footprint in the lunar dust though. It isn't Alan Shepard driving a golf ball "miles and miles and miles" across the moon's surface.
For those of you who are old enough to remember Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon - you can probably remember that ALL of us watching back here on Earth were just amazed.
However, when I now look back on that momentous event - and I consider the antiquated technology that was used to achieve it - I AM BREATHLESS.
There were no plasma screens back then. No pentium chips. No laptops. No integrated circuits, touchscreens, wireless networks, firmware - no artificial intelligence. I don't even think these men had a pocket calculator.
But it wasn't technology that allowed NASA to successfully put six pairs of men on the moon back then - it was sheer blue knuckled determination, drive, and most importantly - VISION.
I heard once, don't know if it's true - that according to the laws of physics, it's impossible for a bumble bee to fly.
Don't tell the bumble bees that though.
And considering the technology NASA was working with back then - it should have been equally as impossible for them to put men on the moon. They succeeded because they refused to believe it was impossible.
For over 25 years now NASA has been sending astronauts into space on the space shuttle - an orbiter - not even capable of travelling to the moon let alone landing on it. Not capable of going anywhere as a matter of fact. The space shuttle is nothing more than a flashy pickup truck version of the Mercury space capsule that John Glen used to orbit the earth almost a half-century ago in 1962.
NASA's astronauts have orbited the earth - growing untold trillions of bacteria colonies in weightless experiments for the last 25 years. How exciting.
And now, they can't even get the space shuttle off the ground.
NASA doesn't belong in orbit - that's territory for civilian corporations. NASA should be pushing outward with manned space flights to Mars - coordinated and controlled from a manned "mission control" located somewhere on the moon.
NASA does not have the vision to do this.
NASA says - it's not the "vision" they lack to do these things - it's MONEY.
But I say that's wrong. People, and the government will invest money on a VISION. How did Stephen Jobs convince software companies to spend their resources creating software for his first Apple computer? How did he get corporations to back him when it was clear that he was no more than a garage operation with no chance of taking on the biggest computer corporation in the world - IBM??
It was VISION - he had one - and he communicated it. You can read about it in "The MacIntosh Way" - by Guy Kawasaki. But you won't find it at NASA these days.
33 years ago - NASA died. I hope that someday it'll be resurrected - but it will take men and women with VISION in order to do it.
For those with RealPlayer - click here to see a little of what the vision was like. Note the black and white video of Armstrong confirming what he believed would be in store for man's exploration of the moon. If we had only gone there ...
And considering the technology NASA was working with back then - it should have been equally as impossible for them to put men on the moon. They succeeded because they refused to believe it was impossible.
For over 25 years now NASA has been sending astronauts into space on the space shuttle - an orbiter - not even capable of travelling to the moon let alone landing on it. Not capable of going anywhere as a matter of fact. The space shuttle is nothing more than a flashy pickup truck version of the Mercury space capsule that John Glen used to orbit the earth almost a half-century ago in 1962.
NASA's astronauts have orbited the earth - growing untold trillions of bacteria colonies in weightless experiments for the last 25 years. How exciting.
And now, they can't even get the space shuttle off the ground.
NASA doesn't belong in orbit - that's territory for civilian corporations. NASA should be pushing outward with manned space flights to Mars - coordinated and controlled from a manned "mission control" located somewhere on the moon.
NASA does not have the vision to do this.
NASA says - it's not the "vision" they lack to do these things - it's MONEY.
But I say that's wrong. People, and the government will invest money on a VISION. How did Stephen Jobs convince software companies to spend their resources creating software for his first Apple computer? How did he get corporations to back him when it was clear that he was no more than a garage operation with no chance of taking on the biggest computer corporation in the world - IBM??
It was VISION - he had one - and he communicated it. You can read about it in "The MacIntosh Way" - by Guy Kawasaki. But you won't find it at NASA these days.
33 years ago - NASA died. I hope that someday it'll be resurrected - but it will take men and women with VISION in order to do it.
For those with RealPlayer - click here to see a little of what the vision was like. Note the black and white video of Armstrong confirming what he believed would be in store for man's exploration of the moon. If we had only gone there ...
Thursday, July 21, 2005
MORE (STRANGE) EXPLOSIONS IN LONDON ...
Apparently more "explosions" have gone off again in London. Three in "the tube" and one on the Number 26 double-decker bus.
But these are strange - very strange.
The modus-operandi appears to be the same as last weeks London bombings - which so far have killed 56 people. Four men were observed this time carrying backpacks that "exploded". And virtually the same target menu as before - three in the tube - one a double-decker bus.
But this time - no one was killed. And perhaps the injuries may be as low as .... ONE???
These four new "explosions" were very minimal - not like last week's.
When I first heard this - I was fearful. Lo-explosive detonations usually mean one thing - chemical, biological, or radiological (dirty bomb) agents.
However, the reports I've read from the BBC indicate that Police have tested for CBR and have found nothing. Now I'm seeing reports that the bombs were "dummies" - they were detonator explosions only - no high explosives involved.
That's weird.
Some reports also that these backpacks were actually "observed" exploding by some witnesses. I've seen one report where a witness observed a guy's backpack "explode" - then watched the guy swear at the backpack - as if it had somehow malfunctioned - then he apparently threw it down and ran off!
These reports are either incorrect - or they are indicative of some strange weirdness going on in Al Quaida central. Or, the explosions could have been nothing more than a very bad "practical joke" played by someone other than Al Quaida.
Keep an eye on this - something weird is going on over there I believe. And not just with this new round of very bizarre explosions - but also last week's too.
For instance, in the first explosions - some very strange things were found ...
But these are strange - very strange.
The modus-operandi appears to be the same as last weeks London bombings - which so far have killed 56 people. Four men were observed this time carrying backpacks that "exploded". And virtually the same target menu as before - three in the tube - one a double-decker bus.
But this time - no one was killed. And perhaps the injuries may be as low as .... ONE???
These four new "explosions" were very minimal - not like last week's.
When I first heard this - I was fearful. Lo-explosive detonations usually mean one thing - chemical, biological, or radiological (dirty bomb) agents.
However, the reports I've read from the BBC indicate that Police have tested for CBR and have found nothing. Now I'm seeing reports that the bombs were "dummies" - they were detonator explosions only - no high explosives involved.
That's weird.
Some reports also that these backpacks were actually "observed" exploding by some witnesses. I've seen one report where a witness observed a guy's backpack "explode" - then watched the guy swear at the backpack - as if it had somehow malfunctioned - then he apparently threw it down and ran off!
These reports are either incorrect - or they are indicative of some strange weirdness going on in Al Quaida central. Or, the explosions could have been nothing more than a very bad "practical joke" played by someone other than Al Quaida.
Keep an eye on this - something weird is going on over there I believe. And not just with this new round of very bizarre explosions - but also last week's too.
For instance, in the first explosions - some very strange things were found ...
- The terrorists responsible for the bombings all had purchased return tickets on the tube.
- They were observed on video cameras later to have been very calm, jovial, even joking before the bombings.
- Reports from some of the relatives indicate that the terrorist's behavior leading up to the blast were not at all in keeping with what you'd expect from a bunch of guy's going off to their deaths.
- One of the terrorists who committed suicide apparently had a new eight month old daughter and his wife was pregnant again???
- And probably the most telling thing to me - none of the terrorists screamed "Allahu Akbar!" -- God is Greatest -- before they blew themselves up?
So did these guys even know they were going off to their deaths?
It's going to take awhile to figure out all of this folks - but the story is going to be very, very interesting.
ADDENDUM: Now the BBC is reporting that perhaps explosives WERE found in the backpacks and are very similar to devices used in the last round of bombings. These explosives didn't go off this time though! If true - THIS IS A HUGE BREAK FOR SCOTLAND YARD! There are now 4 very much alive suicide bombers out there and Scotland Yard can use much of the same methodology they used to identify the first waive of terrorists to figure out who they are. When caught - these failed bombers will enable us to gain invaluable intelligence on how suicide bombers are recruited and trained as well as information on the logistics and planning and CHAIN OF COMAND behind them. My bet is - these guys are scrambling to get out of Britain as we speak - hopefully Scotland Yard can figure it all out before they do!
CHUCKY'S PARADIGM
Senator Charles "Chucky" Schumer is trying to change a Senate pardigm that has operated for years when it comes to the confirmation of judges - specifically Supreme Court Justices.
Under the current confirmation paradigm - asking a nominee's "opinion" on an issue is frowned upon because, Conservatives argue, judges should make rulings based on the written law - they should not allow their personal "opinions" to override the law when ruling on the issues that are brought before them.
The Liberals have a different view that Chucky is currently out in front championing. I call it "Chucky's Paradigm".
Chucky's paradigm holds that we shouldn't be afraid of a judge's opinion intruding into his rulings. In fact - we should embrace it. The Founding Fathers never really expected the CONSTITUTION to override contemporary LIBERAL opinion according to Chucky. The Constitution should be used more as a "guide" rather than looked upon as a set of hard and fast RULES. Chucky argues that there's no danger in allowing a justice to interject his personal opinion in his rulings as long as we make sure, before we appoint him - THAT HE HAS THE CORRECT OPINIONS.
In accordance with this - why shouldn't we expect a Supreme Court Nominee like John C. Roberts to answer a question concerning his personal opinion on a topic like ABORTION? Why shouldn't we expect him to answer questions on his opinion of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION? IMMIGRATION LAW? Why shouldn't we expect him to answer questions concerning his opinion on the existence of GOD? We DO want to know what those opinions are right? We want to make sure that he has the RIGHT opinions - because we're going to expect him to use those opinions when making determinations on FACTS OF LAW.
I think Chucky is on to something here. I think he might be right. For hundreds of years, we've been caught in some kind of weird "group think" where occupations like judges were supposed to follow the printed rules and make determinations based on those rules rather than interjecting their own personal opinions. But I think we've had it wrong all this time, and I'm thankful that Chucky caught this at this most opportune moment so that we can make a change here for the better. Starting with the confirmation of John C. Roberts.
In fact, a Supreme Court Justice is not the only occupation where we should probably make this "paradigm change".
There are many other occupations that exist in society that are very much like that of a judge.
Let's take Major League Baseball Umpires for example. We've been caught up for years in the paradigm that umpires don't write the rules - they merely make calls based on them. We always held the flawed notion that umpires shouldn't interject their personal opinion when making these calls - they should just make the appropriate call in accordance with the printed rules and let the chips fall where they may.
But this is flawed thinking isn't it folks? Shouldn't an umpire be allowed to use his personal thoughts and opinions when making these calls?
I'll give you a "for instance" ...
For instance, take two baseball teams -- let's say, the YANKEES and the CUBS. We all know that the YANKEES always have a great team - because they spend so much darned money to get the best players! We also know that, based on the fact that they are so rich and have such a good team - they're pretty arrogant too - aren't they?
But then you have a team like the CUB's. They rarely win. Don't have that much money to buy great players and when they do manage to get a good one - he's usually bought up within a season or two by the evil YANKEES! Booooooooo!
So lets say that the Yankees are playing the Cubs - it's the bottom of the NINTH, Yankees at bat - and the score is Yankees - 10; Cubs - 10. ONE OUT - and the Yankees have a man on third - could be the winning run...
The Yankee batter steps to the plate ... here's the pitch - SMACK!!!
It's a hard grounder to the Cub shortstop! THE WINNING RUN IS HEADED HOME!
Half way to the shortstop the ball takes a completely unexplainable bounce - straight up into the air - this thing looks like it's going to go right over the shortstop's head folks!
But no wait!! - the shortstop makes a HEROIC jump into the air that would make Michael Jordan envious! He tips the ball with the edge of his glove and now it's a "bobble contest" between the ball and the shortstop to see if he can gain control of it.
HE DOES!
But the Yankee runner is fast approaching the plate - the shortstop can't wait until his feet hit the ground - he has to throw NOW!
And ... in MID-AIR - the Cub shorty fires a bullet to home plate! The catcher catches the ball and tags the Yankee runner at the PRECISE MOMENT THE YANKEE RUNNER'S FOOT HITS HOME PLATE!
What a HUGE BUMMER! Under the current rules - the ump has no latitude. The rulebook says that the tie MUST GO TO THE RUNNER!
THOSE DARNED EVIL YANKEES WIN AGAIN!!!!!
Hey, that's not fair! They always win!
Under the current "paradigm" - we have to accept the rules and admit that our Cubs are defeated. We're forced to admit they're defeated - and we Cub fans aren't happy about it all.
However, if we use "Chucky's Paradigm" - the umpire can interject some "personal opinion" here and maybe we can have a different outcome?
For instance - I'd like to see that umpire empowered to say ...
"Well, the rulebook says that the tie goes to the runner. However, you Yankees are such a great team only because your owner has money. The Cubs are the underdogs here - and that shortstop made a superhuman effort to throw the runner out. His effort and play was so good in fact, how could I possibly rule that it was unsuccessful? Also, you Yankees always win - you can afford to take it on the chin here.
So there, Mr. Yankee runner -- YYYYEEEEERRRRRRRRR OUTTTTTTAAAAAA THERE!
Folks - isn't that a MUCH HAPPIER ENDING?
Why should we force umps to follow the rules - when we can trust them to use their opinions when making decisions? Now, before appointing an umpire - we'll need to make sure that he doesn't like the Yankees for this to work - but that's easy! Right?
And we'll also need to find a method to determine WHO will decide what kind of opinions are correct - and which ones aren't. Which ones will be allowed ... and which ones won't.
You could think of these guys as a kind of "thought police".
CHUCKY'S PARADIGM - THINK ABOUT IT.
Under the current confirmation paradigm - asking a nominee's "opinion" on an issue is frowned upon because, Conservatives argue, judges should make rulings based on the written law - they should not allow their personal "opinions" to override the law when ruling on the issues that are brought before them.
The Liberals have a different view that Chucky is currently out in front championing. I call it "Chucky's Paradigm".
Chucky's paradigm holds that we shouldn't be afraid of a judge's opinion intruding into his rulings. In fact - we should embrace it. The Founding Fathers never really expected the CONSTITUTION to override contemporary LIBERAL opinion according to Chucky. The Constitution should be used more as a "guide" rather than looked upon as a set of hard and fast RULES. Chucky argues that there's no danger in allowing a justice to interject his personal opinion in his rulings as long as we make sure, before we appoint him - THAT HE HAS THE CORRECT OPINIONS.
In accordance with this - why shouldn't we expect a Supreme Court Nominee like John C. Roberts to answer a question concerning his personal opinion on a topic like ABORTION? Why shouldn't we expect him to answer questions on his opinion of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION? IMMIGRATION LAW? Why shouldn't we expect him to answer questions concerning his opinion on the existence of GOD? We DO want to know what those opinions are right? We want to make sure that he has the RIGHT opinions - because we're going to expect him to use those opinions when making determinations on FACTS OF LAW.
I think Chucky is on to something here. I think he might be right. For hundreds of years, we've been caught in some kind of weird "group think" where occupations like judges were supposed to follow the printed rules and make determinations based on those rules rather than interjecting their own personal opinions. But I think we've had it wrong all this time, and I'm thankful that Chucky caught this at this most opportune moment so that we can make a change here for the better. Starting with the confirmation of John C. Roberts.
In fact, a Supreme Court Justice is not the only occupation where we should probably make this "paradigm change".
There are many other occupations that exist in society that are very much like that of a judge.
Let's take Major League Baseball Umpires for example. We've been caught up for years in the paradigm that umpires don't write the rules - they merely make calls based on them. We always held the flawed notion that umpires shouldn't interject their personal opinion when making these calls - they should just make the appropriate call in accordance with the printed rules and let the chips fall where they may.
But this is flawed thinking isn't it folks? Shouldn't an umpire be allowed to use his personal thoughts and opinions when making these calls?
I'll give you a "for instance" ...
For instance, take two baseball teams -- let's say, the YANKEES and the CUBS. We all know that the YANKEES always have a great team - because they spend so much darned money to get the best players! We also know that, based on the fact that they are so rich and have such a good team - they're pretty arrogant too - aren't they?
But then you have a team like the CUB's. They rarely win. Don't have that much money to buy great players and when they do manage to get a good one - he's usually bought up within a season or two by the evil YANKEES! Booooooooo!
So lets say that the Yankees are playing the Cubs - it's the bottom of the NINTH, Yankees at bat - and the score is Yankees - 10; Cubs - 10. ONE OUT - and the Yankees have a man on third - could be the winning run...
The Yankee batter steps to the plate ... here's the pitch - SMACK!!!
It's a hard grounder to the Cub shortstop! THE WINNING RUN IS HEADED HOME!
Half way to the shortstop the ball takes a completely unexplainable bounce - straight up into the air - this thing looks like it's going to go right over the shortstop's head folks!
But no wait!! - the shortstop makes a HEROIC jump into the air that would make Michael Jordan envious! He tips the ball with the edge of his glove and now it's a "bobble contest" between the ball and the shortstop to see if he can gain control of it.
HE DOES!
But the Yankee runner is fast approaching the plate - the shortstop can't wait until his feet hit the ground - he has to throw NOW!
And ... in MID-AIR - the Cub shorty fires a bullet to home plate! The catcher catches the ball and tags the Yankee runner at the PRECISE MOMENT THE YANKEE RUNNER'S FOOT HITS HOME PLATE!
What a HUGE BUMMER! Under the current rules - the ump has no latitude. The rulebook says that the tie MUST GO TO THE RUNNER!
THOSE DARNED EVIL YANKEES WIN AGAIN!!!!!
Hey, that's not fair! They always win!
Under the current "paradigm" - we have to accept the rules and admit that our Cubs are defeated. We're forced to admit they're defeated - and we Cub fans aren't happy about it all.
However, if we use "Chucky's Paradigm" - the umpire can interject some "personal opinion" here and maybe we can have a different outcome?
For instance - I'd like to see that umpire empowered to say ...
"Well, the rulebook says that the tie goes to the runner. However, you Yankees are such a great team only because your owner has money. The Cubs are the underdogs here - and that shortstop made a superhuman effort to throw the runner out. His effort and play was so good in fact, how could I possibly rule that it was unsuccessful? Also, you Yankees always win - you can afford to take it on the chin here.
So there, Mr. Yankee runner -- YYYYEEEEERRRRRRRRR OUTTTTTTAAAAAA THERE!
Folks - isn't that a MUCH HAPPIER ENDING?
Why should we force umps to follow the rules - when we can trust them to use their opinions when making decisions? Now, before appointing an umpire - we'll need to make sure that he doesn't like the Yankees for this to work - but that's easy! Right?
And we'll also need to find a method to determine WHO will decide what kind of opinions are correct - and which ones aren't. Which ones will be allowed ... and which ones won't.
You could think of these guys as a kind of "thought police".
CHUCKY'S PARADIGM - THINK ABOUT IT.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
JAMES DOOHAN DIES ...
I just had to stop today to do this ...
James Doohan died at 5:30am this morning in his home in Redmond, Washington. He was 85.
James Doohan was born on March 3rd, 1920 in Vancover, British Columbia.
At the age of 19 he joined the Canadian Army and became a lieutenant in the artillery. James was one of the soldiers who stormed Juno Beach at Normandy on D-Day. He took six bullets from a machine gun later that night. One blew off his right middle finger, four in his legs, and one in his chest.
James recovered from his wounds and became an actor.
Maybe you don't know who James Doohan is but I'll give you a hint that is guaranteed to clue you in ...
"Beam me up Scotty!"
James became the Scotish engineer on STAR TREK.
And as far as an acting career goes - Star Trek was just about it for James. He didn't care though - he embraced it. James was, personally, perhaps the warmest of all of the cast of Star Trek. He was a permanent fixture at most Star Trek conventions. He took THOUSANDS, perhaps tens of thousands of photos with fans whenever and wherever they requested one.
Try to find a photo of James on the Internet where he ISN'T smiling. It's tough to do.
And James was a family man too. Oh yes, he had NINE children and his youngest, Sarah, was born in 2000 when he was 80 years old.
In a 1998 interview, Doohan was asked if he ever got tired of hearing the line "Beam me up, Scotty."
"I'm not tired of it at all," he replied. "Good gracious, it's been said to me for just about 31 years. It's been said to me at 70 miles an hour across four lanes on the freeway. I hear it from just about everybody. It's been fun."
Yes it has James. We'll miss you!
James Doohan died at 5:30am this morning in his home in Redmond, Washington. He was 85.
James Doohan was born on March 3rd, 1920 in Vancover, British Columbia.
At the age of 19 he joined the Canadian Army and became a lieutenant in the artillery. James was one of the soldiers who stormed Juno Beach at Normandy on D-Day. He took six bullets from a machine gun later that night. One blew off his right middle finger, four in his legs, and one in his chest.
James recovered from his wounds and became an actor.
Maybe you don't know who James Doohan is but I'll give you a hint that is guaranteed to clue you in ...
"Beam me up Scotty!"
James became the Scotish engineer on STAR TREK.
And as far as an acting career goes - Star Trek was just about it for James. He didn't care though - he embraced it. James was, personally, perhaps the warmest of all of the cast of Star Trek. He was a permanent fixture at most Star Trek conventions. He took THOUSANDS, perhaps tens of thousands of photos with fans whenever and wherever they requested one.
Try to find a photo of James on the Internet where he ISN'T smiling. It's tough to do.
And James was a family man too. Oh yes, he had NINE children and his youngest, Sarah, was born in 2000 when he was 80 years old.
In a 1998 interview, Doohan was asked if he ever got tired of hearing the line "Beam me up, Scotty."
"I'm not tired of it at all," he replied. "Good gracious, it's been said to me for just about 31 years. It's been said to me at 70 miles an hour across four lanes on the freeway. I hear it from just about everybody. It's been fun."
Yes it has James. We'll miss you!
MADONNA GOES CONSERVATIVE
In an interview with Vogue magazine, Madonna says that she's fallen in love with England and the rural countryside life that she now shares with her husband, film director Guy Ritchie.I gotta admit - I think that long retro skirt takes the term "hotness" to another level - serioiusly don't you?
You can read about it here ...
Yes, Madonna is shedding her overtly sexual image in favor of that of a plodding English Dutchess!
And just in time too - at age 46 - she is factoring into fewer and fewer male fantasies these days. In this respect, the change is certainly wise for her career.
She now says she loves to hunt and fish, go horse riding, and look after her flock of chickens!
Wonder if that means she now has a hunting and fishing license and a lifetime membership in the NRA? Wonder if she EATS those chickens? I doubt it. - but at least she's on the right track!
Hey, look - I know I sound cynical and all - but I really wish Madonna the best. The real Madonna for me was always the cute little girl with the belly-button who danced around singing "You might be my Lucky Star!".
That girl - or at least the image of that girl - was extremely non-political and mostly non-controversial (except for the belly button and some nude photo's with hairy armpits that suddenly showed up out of nowhere from her "starving artist" days). Then something happened to her. Good luck figuring out what it was - but she turned into Satan's bride for many years - deliberately going out of her way to offend sensiblities and rattle the establishment. Hey, I'm all for a little of that every now and then - but Madonna made a career out of it.
Who amongst us walked away from watching "Truth or Dare" without the absolute knowledge that Madonna was off her rocker? Even libby wag Waren Beatty told her she was crazy!
When she appeared in "Leage of their Own" - we all thought -- "Wow! She's back! The extremely HOT yet innocent girl from our youth is back!". But that turned out to be only a temporary moment of sanity for her.
Now she seems to have grown up and settled down - or is this another temporary bout of sanity that will end as soon as she finds Guy bedded down in the barn with a British babe? We can only wait to find out.
But I'll say this - politics aside (I'm not delusional enough to actually believe that she's found COMPLETE enlightenment and is now a conservative!) - I wish Madonna well and hope she enjoys this new life of hers - and I hope all her hopes and dreams are fullfilled.
Hey, you know - even with all she's done - I still can't hate her for it. I still remember how smokin' hot she was in the first couple of videos she put out on MTV. What can I say? I'm a guy - and in those days - a very excitable guy. Hormones can forgive a lot.
IT'S JOHN C. ROBERTS!
Well, the President has announced Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement on the Supreme Court and it's ...
John C. Roberts from the D.C. Court of Appeals!
Respected attorney and jurist, noted scholar, family man. Background checked by the FBI no less than FIVE times in the past - revealing no skeletons. Huge thumbs up (16 to 3) from the Senate Judiciary committee in 2003 when he was nominated for his current position on the D.C. Court of Appeals and later confirmed by a voice vote (unanimous!) in the Senate.
Should be smooth sailing for Roberts through the confirmation process right?
HOLD ON TRIGGER!!
Not more than 2 minutes after the President had announced his pick last night - little Chucky Schumer was on the podium in front of the press to announce that he wouldn't support Roberts. Okay, well that's not exactly what Chucky said. Essentially Chucky held out hope that Roberts might still be fortunate enough to garner his support if Satan managed to somehow log a cold day in hell between now and when the confirmation hearings begin. Since Global Warming is an eternal fact in hell - I highly doubt we'll see Chucky signing on to the Roberts bandwagon!
Dicky Durbin wasn't as wishy-washy as Chucky though - and immediately fired out a statement that there is no way Roberts is going to crash the Supreme party without a fight! I like Dicky, there is just something about a guy who went from getting beat up by the girls in the glee club in High School - to United States Senator that makes me like him!
Teddie Kennedy has a statement on his website - basically non-committal. This is not unexpected though since Monday was the anniversary of Mary Jo Kopechne's death in Teddie's car at Chappaquiddick. Teddie typically takes a few days hiatus from spewing character attacks and denouncing other people's morals on the anniversary of his unfortunate spill off Dike's Bridge. Maybe it's because he feels like folks will think him a hypocrite or maybe it's because he's just mourning the loss of his cherry Oldsmobile Delta 88 to the waters of Chappaquiddick Island. However, come tomorrow - I'm sure he'll be out there in the public light swinging away!
Howard (YeeeeAAAAH!) Dean came out immediately following the Roberts announcement with another conspiracy theory ... namely that, although folks might think that it's the duty of the President to announce a nomination to the Supreme Court every time a justice retires - that wasn't why Bush was naming one! No Sir, the reason Bush announced a nominee was to get Karl Rove out of the media spotlight!
Wonder what he would have thought about my suggestion to the President that he nominate KARL ROVE to the vacant Supreme Court post?
YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!
Let the fun begin!
My prediction - this nomination splits the Democratic caucus almost completely in half. Chucky, Dicky, Teddie - and Howard Yee-Haw are left sitting on the far left wondering why everyone left the party! John C. Roberts gets confirmed - fairly easily but not without a lot of screaming from the left.
Take Charge!
John C. Roberts from the D.C. Court of Appeals!
Respected attorney and jurist, noted scholar, family man. Background checked by the FBI no less than FIVE times in the past - revealing no skeletons. Huge thumbs up (16 to 3) from the Senate Judiciary committee in 2003 when he was nominated for his current position on the D.C. Court of Appeals and later confirmed by a voice vote (unanimous!) in the Senate.
Should be smooth sailing for Roberts through the confirmation process right?
HOLD ON TRIGGER!!
Not more than 2 minutes after the President had announced his pick last night - little Chucky Schumer was on the podium in front of the press to announce that he wouldn't support Roberts. Okay, well that's not exactly what Chucky said. Essentially Chucky held out hope that Roberts might still be fortunate enough to garner his support if Satan managed to somehow log a cold day in hell between now and when the confirmation hearings begin. Since Global Warming is an eternal fact in hell - I highly doubt we'll see Chucky signing on to the Roberts bandwagon!
Dicky Durbin wasn't as wishy-washy as Chucky though - and immediately fired out a statement that there is no way Roberts is going to crash the Supreme party without a fight! I like Dicky, there is just something about a guy who went from getting beat up by the girls in the glee club in High School - to United States Senator that makes me like him!
Teddie Kennedy has a statement on his website - basically non-committal. This is not unexpected though since Monday was the anniversary of Mary Jo Kopechne's death in Teddie's car at Chappaquiddick. Teddie typically takes a few days hiatus from spewing character attacks and denouncing other people's morals on the anniversary of his unfortunate spill off Dike's Bridge. Maybe it's because he feels like folks will think him a hypocrite or maybe it's because he's just mourning the loss of his cherry Oldsmobile Delta 88 to the waters of Chappaquiddick Island. However, come tomorrow - I'm sure he'll be out there in the public light swinging away!
Howard (YeeeeAAAAH!) Dean came out immediately following the Roberts announcement with another conspiracy theory ... namely that, although folks might think that it's the duty of the President to announce a nomination to the Supreme Court every time a justice retires - that wasn't why Bush was naming one! No Sir, the reason Bush announced a nominee was to get Karl Rove out of the media spotlight!
Wonder what he would have thought about my suggestion to the President that he nominate KARL ROVE to the vacant Supreme Court post?
YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!
Let the fun begin!
My prediction - this nomination splits the Democratic caucus almost completely in half. Chucky, Dicky, Teddie - and Howard Yee-Haw are left sitting on the far left wondering why everyone left the party! John C. Roberts gets confirmed - fairly easily but not without a lot of screaming from the left.
Take Charge!
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
NIXON'S GHOST COMMISSIONED!
Welcome to the Nixon's Ghost blog!
Up and running!
This is a Conservative / Humor blog. Now I hear ya - "Nixon was neither conservative nor did he have a sense of humor". Well NIXON may not have - but NIXON'S GHOST is and does!
Feel free to leave a comment - but I have to caution liberals - no profanity or your comment will be deleted! Other than that, have FUN!
Take Charge ...
Up and running!
This is a Conservative / Humor blog. Now I hear ya - "Nixon was neither conservative nor did he have a sense of humor". Well NIXON may not have - but NIXON'S GHOST is and does!
Feel free to leave a comment - but I have to caution liberals - no profanity or your comment will be deleted! Other than that, have FUN!
Take Charge ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
