^.^
Since two topics have piqued my interest at this time, I have decided to discuss them both, so here goes;
Don Imus Gets Fired from CBS for Using Hip-Hop Language
Radio shock0jock Don Imus has been known for saying some outrageous things throughout his career as a New York-based radio talk show host. However, Imus has been fired from his job at CBS over a remark that he made about the women's college basketball team at Rutgers, whom he referred to as: "nappy-headed hos" Now, for those of you who aren't down with the brotha' language, a "ho" is the African-American slang term for a woman, and it can be found sprinkled all over the Black culture, and all over hip-hop, the Black "music".
Now, even with the fact that Don Imus has been in the business of rubbing people the wrong way for a while, if not outright insulting them...and I certainly don't agree with going out of your way to insult someone (which Liberalistas seem to claim he did), two points have been raised by this incident...
First, the issue of whom to apologize to for this sort of thing. I have heard arguments on both sides of this issue. On the one hand, there was Ann Coulter, who on FOX News said that Imus should stop spologizing to Liberalista Black :leaders" such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, an instead, apologize to the Rutgers womens basketball team itself. When asked what the difference was between what she proposed for Imus, and the actions she herself took in relation to some of the widows of the 9/11 wictims, Coulter replied that in the case of the "Jersey Gals", these were people who had stepped out onto the public stage and started making public statements supporting a contender in the race for President. The Rutgers girls simply played a game of basketball. On the other hand, a co-worker said that anyone who puts on a uniform and plays a sport is putting themselves out ther as a role model, and thereby putting themselves out in the arena of ideas to be supported and praised, or laughed at and ridiculed.
It might be narrow of me, but I tend to support Ann's view of the matter, simply because of the relative importance of the figures involved. If the "Jersey Gals" or any other peacenik group decides to support a Presidental candidate, that is much more important to me and you and the rest of the country than a group of innocent girls playing a basketball game. In the case of the former, if they are playing on the public stage, you can as a journalist, or editor, call them of things ON THAT STAGE. This is the very basis of the entire blogging atmosphere, where public people make public statements and then other people get to make similarly public comments back. In this arena, if you get bashed back for something you said, you either take the heat, or get out of the kitchen. Girls playing basketball simply are not in this league.
Imus should apologize directly to the team, and leave it at that.
However, the second point is a bit more interesting. Why is it that a White guy gets canned for calling Black women "nappy-headed hos", but Black rappers get away with the same kind of language, on the very same radio netowrk that carries Imus' show? Where is Jackson and Sharpton with the moral outrage? If nothing else, this incident again exposes the hypocrisy fo the Liberalista Black "leadership" in this country. They should either denounce and condemn *all* uses of words such as "nigga" and "ho", and start attaching real stigmas to the kind of ghetto society that has given rise to the absolute trash that makes up most of the ghetto Black "culture", or they should keep their stupid mouths shut.
There is something strange about a society where one culture continually condemns another part of that culture for using demeaning terms about them (and rightly so), but then uses those same terms within their own culture as terms of endearment.
African-Americans will tell us that they use the term "nigga" because they came from the slave culture and they use it as a way to "own" the term...to make it theirs. The next time an African-American uses that term, ask him or her where the "owning of the language" was in the 1800s, when the N word first got its use. If the African-American doesn't kill you for asking such a question, please report back to me on their response.
To wrap up this item, Don Imus was to go to the mansion of the governor of New Jersye to meet with the team from Rutgers, and apparently the team showed up. There has been no news about whether the meeting went forward however, because while on his way there, the governor of the state of New Jersey was in an auto accident, and is listed as critical but stable in an area hospital.
The Duke Boys Are Innocent - I Hope They SUE!
I have been waiting for this day for a LONG time, the day when justice would finally be served to the three DUke University lacrosse players who were falsely accused of raping an African-American woman.
However, despite the woman's confused and changing stories about the events on the night in question, despite her obviously altered mental state because of whatever she drank at the party that she went to, despite all of the bungles that the original prosecutor in the case made, it has taken about a YEAR for the accused in this case to be declared innocent.
The charges against the Duke men have been dropped, and their lawyers have not ruled out the possibility of a lawsuit against a number of people, including perhaps the district attorney who so flubbed up this case that a jury of two-year olds would have dismissed the case, as well as the city that allowed this farce of a case to continue forward.
What you have coming out of this is not the story of a Bloack woman raped by three White men at a frat party, but rather the story of three men who have had their names dragged through the mud for at least several months while the prosecutor, Mike Nifong, used the case to get himself re-elected, and then simply strung the case along for as long as he could. If I were involve, either as the men themselves, or as their lawyers, within five minutes of the state attorney general's announcement of the dismissal of the charges, I would have announced that I was filing a lawsuit against both Nifong, and the city of Durham.
The other angle again comes back to the response of the Black community, both in Durham itself, and in the nation as a whole. In Durham, the community there was disappointed that the case didn't go forward, citing it as yet another example of where White guys have gotten away with raping Black women, and saying that the outcome would have been different had the situation been reversed. While the case might be made somewhere, to insist on continuing the prosecution of someone who has been proven to be innocent would be an extreme miscarriage of justice. Let's say that such a prosecution went forward and got a conviction...that case could be immediately appealed, and overturned on those very grounds, and then the list of people being sued would be a lot longer. The problem here is that African-Americans have become too used to playing the role of the victim, even when they don't deserve it. The accuser in this case has no story that she can back up, and to put ANYONE through the wrenching spectacle of a trial just to soothe racial issues is audacious as it is stupid.
However, we are not done. While Mike Nifong called the Duke men hooligans, and while the press reports referred to them as "worse than Hitler", where was the Black "leadership" on this issue? Did they stand on the side of waiting until the facts were heard, or did they leap into the case, immediately taking the side of the accuser, the victim of a horrible assault against both her womanhood and her race.
I'd be willing to bet it was the second option, knowing the modus operandi of the Black "leaders" such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If these men in fact jumped to the defense of the accuser without allowing the justice system time to come to the right conslusion, then they owe the Duke men a huge apology. To not do so contributes more to the public slander and farce that this case became.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Selling Our Soldiers for Pork!
^.^
Alright, I usually don't bother covering such things as the impending doom that results from legislation that is being contemplated by Congress...because one chamber of the Congress or the other usually doesn't like it...or the Persident may very well veto the measure...either way, the proposed bill will probably die.
So, what is different in this case, the case of the proposed emergency funding bill for the soldiers in Iraq? As I heard first from NPR, then from one of my friends, and finally from Glenn Beck on his show today, the problem is that all sorts of offers are being made to Congressmen if they will not vote for the emergency funding...
Here are some of the goodies being offered, if only the Congressmen being approached will simply forget their consciences, and vote against the troops... (items taken from the Washington Times (3-20-07))...
- $3.7 billion in farm subsidies for drought relief in Colorado.
- $25 million for California spinach growers.
- $75 million for peanut storage.
- $500 million for wildfire suppression in the US West.
- $120 million to assist Atlantic coast fishermen.
- $2.9 billion in additional Gulf Coast hurricane relief.
- $2.4 billion spread amongst programs such as social problems, money for rural schools in the US Northwest, health insurance for poor children, energy assistance for poor families, and other programs...
And as if this were not enough, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also threw in the goodie of a minimum wage increase...once again, you have to vote against funding the troops. Troops in one hand...all the goodies in the other...you can't have both.
What has happened is that the Liberalista Democrats have appended an amendment to the emergency spending bill which calls for the troops in Iraq to be withdrawn by September of next year. Once again, you either vote for the amendment, or you don't get the goodies.
In response to this, President Bush has asked that Congress send him a "clean" bill, one without strings attached. His statement was as follows:
"They have a responsibility to pass a clean bill that does not use funding for our troops as leverage to get special-interest spending for their districts," said Mr. Bush, whose initial request funded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as about $3.4 billion in hurricane relief. "They have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay."
As I told my friend, these issues, the funding of these projects, and the funding of our troops, should not be a part of the same discussion. People who support the troops in the field should not have to choose between that support, and funding for things to help with affairs in their districts.
Now, as it stands, the Liberalista Democrats are going to be stymied because there is no support for a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. All of this haggling over the bill means nothing because there is no support for the bill in the Senate, and if it manages to pass the Senate, President Bush will veto the thing.
Democrats should stop playing politics with the emergency spending bill and get it passed cleanly so that our troops have the money they need to function in the field, where they face life-threatening situations on a daily basis. It would be the right thing to do.
The problem is that politicians on both sides of the aisle don't always do the right thing.
I might very well start writing Congressional representatives in the states targetted by this latest deluge of pork.
John B.
Blogger Guy
PS: Over the next few days, I will be contacting the following Congressional members:
Wayne T. Gilchrest R-MD
Roscoe G. Bartlett R-MD
Sam Farr D-CA
Sanford D. Bishop Jr. D-GA
Henry C. Johnson Jr. D-GA
Jim Marshall D-GA
John Barrow D-GA
David Scott D-GA
Charles Boustany Jr. R-LA
Marilyn N. Musgrave R-CO
Thomas G. Tancredo R-CO
Barbara Cubin R-WY
and I will be commenting to them on this issue. If I get any response other than a standard "thank you for contacting us" note, I will post it here.
Oh, and I just saw this from The Hill, the DC newspaper that writes about Congressional matters:
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding the implied threat of lost committee seats over the heads of Democratic Caucus members who may vote against her $124 billion Iraq war supplemental bill."
Alright, I usually don't bother covering such things as the impending doom that results from legislation that is being contemplated by Congress...because one chamber of the Congress or the other usually doesn't like it...or the Persident may very well veto the measure...either way, the proposed bill will probably die.
So, what is different in this case, the case of the proposed emergency funding bill for the soldiers in Iraq? As I heard first from NPR, then from one of my friends, and finally from Glenn Beck on his show today, the problem is that all sorts of offers are being made to Congressmen if they will not vote for the emergency funding...
Here are some of the goodies being offered, if only the Congressmen being approached will simply forget their consciences, and vote against the troops... (items taken from the Washington Times (3-20-07))...
- $3.7 billion in farm subsidies for drought relief in Colorado.
- $25 million for California spinach growers.
- $75 million for peanut storage.
- $500 million for wildfire suppression in the US West.
- $120 million to assist Atlantic coast fishermen.
- $2.9 billion in additional Gulf Coast hurricane relief.
- $2.4 billion spread amongst programs such as social problems, money for rural schools in the US Northwest, health insurance for poor children, energy assistance for poor families, and other programs...
And as if this were not enough, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also threw in the goodie of a minimum wage increase...once again, you have to vote against funding the troops. Troops in one hand...all the goodies in the other...you can't have both.
What has happened is that the Liberalista Democrats have appended an amendment to the emergency spending bill which calls for the troops in Iraq to be withdrawn by September of next year. Once again, you either vote for the amendment, or you don't get the goodies.
In response to this, President Bush has asked that Congress send him a "clean" bill, one without strings attached. His statement was as follows:
"They have a responsibility to pass a clean bill that does not use funding for our troops as leverage to get special-interest spending for their districts," said Mr. Bush, whose initial request funded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as about $3.4 billion in hurricane relief. "They have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay."
As I told my friend, these issues, the funding of these projects, and the funding of our troops, should not be a part of the same discussion. People who support the troops in the field should not have to choose between that support, and funding for things to help with affairs in their districts.
Now, as it stands, the Liberalista Democrats are going to be stymied because there is no support for a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. All of this haggling over the bill means nothing because there is no support for the bill in the Senate, and if it manages to pass the Senate, President Bush will veto the thing.
Democrats should stop playing politics with the emergency spending bill and get it passed cleanly so that our troops have the money they need to function in the field, where they face life-threatening situations on a daily basis. It would be the right thing to do.
The problem is that politicians on both sides of the aisle don't always do the right thing.
I might very well start writing Congressional representatives in the states targetted by this latest deluge of pork.
John B.
Blogger Guy
PS: Over the next few days, I will be contacting the following Congressional members:
Wayne T. Gilchrest R-MD
Roscoe G. Bartlett R-MD
Sam Farr D-CA
Sanford D. Bishop Jr. D-GA
Henry C. Johnson Jr. D-GA
Jim Marshall D-GA
John Barrow D-GA
David Scott D-GA
Charles Boustany Jr. R-LA
Marilyn N. Musgrave R-CO
Thomas G. Tancredo R-CO
Barbara Cubin R-WY
and I will be commenting to them on this issue. If I get any response other than a standard "thank you for contacting us" note, I will post it here.
Oh, and I just saw this from The Hill, the DC newspaper that writes about Congressional matters:
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding the implied threat of lost committee seats over the heads of Democratic Caucus members who may vote against her $124 billion Iraq war supplemental bill."
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Hillary Running for Dogcatcher?
^.^
At some point last week, I received an automated email from Newsmax with blurbs about some of the items in the news. The item leading the headlines was "Bill Clinton to N.Y. Times: Stop Picking on Hillary", and it was printed at Newsmax.com on March 16th.
The lead paragraph goes like this:
"Bill Clinton has lashed out against an old ally, the New York Times, saying the paper wasn’t giving his wife Hillary "a fair shake.”
The story then details that at a fund-raiser at the Trump Tower in New York, former President Bill Clinton spent most of two hours attacking the New York Times, because according to him, the Times was attacking Hillary for her vote in favor of the war in Iraq. According to another attendee, the former President noted that the Times did not go after Senator (and Presidental candidate) Barack Obama when he side-stepped the issue of whether he would have voted in favor of the Iraq war.
Please note that I have referred to Bill Clinton as a "former President" twice now in that last paragraph...it's kinda important.
Let me point out that on the one hand, I can certainly understand why Bill Clinton would be upset. We're talking about his wife after all, so there is the "don't pick on my wife" angle. There's also the fact that she's a woman, which as I said recently does not mean that she can not or should not run for President, but it does cause an almost automatic "don't pick on the girl" reaction from a lot of people. And of course, if the allegation, story, or whatever is outright WRONG, all sorts of other things come into play...but that's not the case here.
On the other hand, Bill Clinton, as a former President, should know EXACTLY what that job entails, and he should know EXACTLY how hard it is to get that job, and how much people are going to slam anyone who goes for this particular brass ring.
In case he's forgotten, people should remind Mr. Clinton that the office of President is not like running for dogcatcher, and we are not electing the leader of the Emerald City, or some other mythical place where there is not much in the way of violence or unpleasantness.
Mr. Clinton's major complaint with the Times is that it treats Hillary unfairly...well sir, I think the American people got out of the "fairness to our leaders" business about the time that President Johnson extended our involvement in Vietnam one time too many, and after President Nixon was found to be behind the break-in at the Watergate. Ever since 1975, the American people have looked somewhat suspiciously at their Presidents...and this does not count the fact that in most cases, their suspicion has been rewarded with at least the shadow of malfeasance. Can we say Iran-Contra, the October Surprise, Monica-gate, and any number of the conspiracy theories that people accuse the Bush (43) administration of being involved in...
So YES, Americans might very well be unfair to our Presidents. How about the fact that the economy is doing decently, and the war in Iraq is actually producing good results, if you get past the Liberalista spin in the media... You don't see G.W. Bush getting credit for that. Unfairness works both ways.
And that's just on the home front. I don't think our allies will give us much grief about having a woman President, especially in the post-Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Corazon Aquino, etc world we are now in. However, I also don't buy the idea that our enemies will simply give Hillary a pass because she is a woman. While they might respect the United States because woman at the helm or not, we can still incinerate them off the face of the planet in a moment's notice, do you honestly think that the insane evil imp running Iran at the moment really cares about being fair to Hillary?
Hell no, folks! He's out to maintain or bolster his national interests, and he'd be stupid not to (just like everyone else in the world is out for their own national interests...hence keeping historians like me in business...).
Because the world is not Camelot, or Oz, we need to elect Presidents who have been toughened by the electoral experience. This is why Guido the Average Joe won't be running in 2012. This is why respected media types like Rush Limbaugh don't get in, even though they have excellent insight on things political, economic, and diplomatic...they realize that their lives might be ruined in the process.
Hillary Clinton being treated unfairly should be taken as part of the game, and it is good that WE treat her, and all of the other candidates as unfairly as we wish...because at least when we do it, no real harm comes to the country. ALL of the candidates had best get used to it, because when our leaders have to deal with the Evil Imp of Iran or one of the other mega-baddies on the world stage, there won't be time for a crash course in the real world of politics.
John B.
Blogger Guy
At some point last week, I received an automated email from Newsmax with blurbs about some of the items in the news. The item leading the headlines was "Bill Clinton to N.Y. Times: Stop Picking on Hillary", and it was printed at Newsmax.com on March 16th.
The lead paragraph goes like this:
"Bill Clinton has lashed out against an old ally, the New York Times, saying the paper wasn’t giving his wife Hillary "a fair shake.”
The story then details that at a fund-raiser at the Trump Tower in New York, former President Bill Clinton spent most of two hours attacking the New York Times, because according to him, the Times was attacking Hillary for her vote in favor of the war in Iraq. According to another attendee, the former President noted that the Times did not go after Senator (and Presidental candidate) Barack Obama when he side-stepped the issue of whether he would have voted in favor of the Iraq war.
Please note that I have referred to Bill Clinton as a "former President" twice now in that last paragraph...it's kinda important.
Let me point out that on the one hand, I can certainly understand why Bill Clinton would be upset. We're talking about his wife after all, so there is the "don't pick on my wife" angle. There's also the fact that she's a woman, which as I said recently does not mean that she can not or should not run for President, but it does cause an almost automatic "don't pick on the girl" reaction from a lot of people. And of course, if the allegation, story, or whatever is outright WRONG, all sorts of other things come into play...but that's not the case here.
On the other hand, Bill Clinton, as a former President, should know EXACTLY what that job entails, and he should know EXACTLY how hard it is to get that job, and how much people are going to slam anyone who goes for this particular brass ring.
In case he's forgotten, people should remind Mr. Clinton that the office of President is not like running for dogcatcher, and we are not electing the leader of the Emerald City, or some other mythical place where there is not much in the way of violence or unpleasantness.
Mr. Clinton's major complaint with the Times is that it treats Hillary unfairly...well sir, I think the American people got out of the "fairness to our leaders" business about the time that President Johnson extended our involvement in Vietnam one time too many, and after President Nixon was found to be behind the break-in at the Watergate. Ever since 1975, the American people have looked somewhat suspiciously at their Presidents...and this does not count the fact that in most cases, their suspicion has been rewarded with at least the shadow of malfeasance. Can we say Iran-Contra, the October Surprise, Monica-gate, and any number of the conspiracy theories that people accuse the Bush (43) administration of being involved in...
So YES, Americans might very well be unfair to our Presidents. How about the fact that the economy is doing decently, and the war in Iraq is actually producing good results, if you get past the Liberalista spin in the media... You don't see G.W. Bush getting credit for that. Unfairness works both ways.
And that's just on the home front. I don't think our allies will give us much grief about having a woman President, especially in the post-Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Corazon Aquino, etc world we are now in. However, I also don't buy the idea that our enemies will simply give Hillary a pass because she is a woman. While they might respect the United States because woman at the helm or not, we can still incinerate them off the face of the planet in a moment's notice, do you honestly think that the insane evil imp running Iran at the moment really cares about being fair to Hillary?
Hell no, folks! He's out to maintain or bolster his national interests, and he'd be stupid not to (just like everyone else in the world is out for their own national interests...hence keeping historians like me in business...).
Because the world is not Camelot, or Oz, we need to elect Presidents who have been toughened by the electoral experience. This is why Guido the Average Joe won't be running in 2012. This is why respected media types like Rush Limbaugh don't get in, even though they have excellent insight on things political, economic, and diplomatic...they realize that their lives might be ruined in the process.
Hillary Clinton being treated unfairly should be taken as part of the game, and it is good that WE treat her, and all of the other candidates as unfairly as we wish...because at least when we do it, no real harm comes to the country. ALL of the candidates had best get used to it, because when our leaders have to deal with the Evil Imp of Iran or one of the other mega-baddies on the world stage, there won't be time for a crash course in the real world of politics.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Sex Ed
^.^
Forget Sex Ed classes! Some students in an Indianapolis middle school have been taking the "birds and the bees" to all new places, namely the shop class.
This story is being reported by local radio talk shows and it gained national attention on Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor" on today's show.
Getting both the print version from the FOX News website, and after listening to the story on The Factor, I have got to officially declare that some of our schools have become basically the equivalent of multi-million dollar bunny hutches where our sixth-grade children can *breed*.
Before you hit that button and fire off a hate-filled email, let me fill you in on some of the details.
The local talk-show host covering this story stated that the shop classroom where this incident took place is an L-shaped room, where part of the room could be obscured from the view of the teacher. Add to that at least one student distracting the teacher, and with all of the clatter of the workshop, and you can see *how* this happened.
The problem then becomes the reaction of the school district, which has covered up the actions they may have taken against these students. We're talking covered up to the point that we're only hearing about this incident NOW.
Now, on the issue of the school district, apparently there is a board meeting of the school board here within a week or two, and The Factor is planning on being there. I can't wait to see the fur flying at that meeting, because I can also see a ton of parents descending on that building like a pack of frenzied alley cats. The idea that the school district has been mum on how this sort of thing could have been allowed to happen at the middle school, as well as actions taken against the students and perhaps even the teacher and administration of the school can only send the message that having sex in school is totally acceptable.
Those of you who think that sexual encounters in school are a rare thing, you must have been in an ice cave in Antartica for the last decade or so. On another Blogger blog, I counted the number of instances of women teachers having sex with male students. There were 16 articles, and all of them were instances of female teachers having sex with male students. I am certain that this was not a scientific survey of all instances of teacher/student sex, but one of the things that really caught me was the fact that so many of these stories seem to float under the radar.
The underlying issue is that parents are missing in action in the lives of their children. I am not saying that parents are the complete and only answer, nor am I saying that they are infallible...after all, some parents are totally WHACKED, and I can speak from expeience. However, once again speaking from experience, I can say that if parents aren't in the picture, and if other family members aren't there, people *will* learn about sex, and they'll get their education in ways that parents won't approve of.
While I think that the parents in East Indianapolis will have some very valid questions for the school board, the members of that board will have at least one equally biting question.
Where were you?
John B.
Blogger Guy
Forget Sex Ed classes! Some students in an Indianapolis middle school have been taking the "birds and the bees" to all new places, namely the shop class.
This story is being reported by local radio talk shows and it gained national attention on Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor" on today's show.
Getting both the print version from the FOX News website, and after listening to the story on The Factor, I have got to officially declare that some of our schools have become basically the equivalent of multi-million dollar bunny hutches where our sixth-grade children can *breed*.
Before you hit that button and fire off a hate-filled email, let me fill you in on some of the details.
The local talk-show host covering this story stated that the shop classroom where this incident took place is an L-shaped room, where part of the room could be obscured from the view of the teacher. Add to that at least one student distracting the teacher, and with all of the clatter of the workshop, and you can see *how* this happened.
The problem then becomes the reaction of the school district, which has covered up the actions they may have taken against these students. We're talking covered up to the point that we're only hearing about this incident NOW.
Now, on the issue of the school district, apparently there is a board meeting of the school board here within a week or two, and The Factor is planning on being there. I can't wait to see the fur flying at that meeting, because I can also see a ton of parents descending on that building like a pack of frenzied alley cats. The idea that the school district has been mum on how this sort of thing could have been allowed to happen at the middle school, as well as actions taken against the students and perhaps even the teacher and administration of the school can only send the message that having sex in school is totally acceptable.
Those of you who think that sexual encounters in school are a rare thing, you must have been in an ice cave in Antartica for the last decade or so. On another Blogger blog, I counted the number of instances of women teachers having sex with male students. There were 16 articles, and all of them were instances of female teachers having sex with male students. I am certain that this was not a scientific survey of all instances of teacher/student sex, but one of the things that really caught me was the fact that so many of these stories seem to float under the radar.
The underlying issue is that parents are missing in action in the lives of their children. I am not saying that parents are the complete and only answer, nor am I saying that they are infallible...after all, some parents are totally WHACKED, and I can speak from expeience. However, once again speaking from experience, I can say that if parents aren't in the picture, and if other family members aren't there, people *will* learn about sex, and they'll get their education in ways that parents won't approve of.
While I think that the parents in East Indianapolis will have some very valid questions for the school board, the members of that board will have at least one equally biting question.
Where were you?
John B.
Blogger Guy
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Judge Not...
^.^
Now, after all of my latest posts, I make value judgements, and I say we should do such and such, and why...because I believe it's the best thing for the country, or for humanity in general.
Now, I can hear some of you out there... "Hey John, aren't you a Christian, and doesn't the Bible tell you that you should not judge people?" Yep! The Big J says so in Matthew 7:1, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
However, there is a difference between judging a PERSON, and judging their thoughts, actions, and opinions. If we were not allowed to form Christian-based value judgements, then why did Jesus clear out all of the money-changers in the Temple? (Matthew 21:12-13)
To put it simply, the Bible is full of value judgements...have you taken a look at the Ten Commandments? Each of the dictates contained there is a value judgement...you know, murder is bad, stealing things is bad, lusting after someone's wife is bad... Now, when you go and start talking about *people*, you have to be careful. A person who steals is a thief...that's a fact. However, people are in generally good people...until it's an unmitigated fact that they're not.
The biggest standard in judging people is that we as Christians is that we "love the sinner, and hate the sin." Thus we can and should condemn homosexuality as an abomination to God, (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24), however Jesus never condemned the SINNER, he offered them repentence. It's in that vein that Christians should act...we condemn the SIN, not the SINNER.
However, there is the other extreme to judging the SINNER, and that is when people decide that THEY can decide what is truth. They don't want anyone to make value judgements whatsoever. If you believe that your beliefs are the TRUTH, then they are, and who am I to tell you that you are wrong.
I guess this means that Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich buddies had their own truths too, and we should respect them because we should not impose our truths on others. Just a reminder, these are the people who came up with that wonderful set of truths encapsulated in the book "101 Ways to Cook Humans."
Yeah, for those of you who figure you can find your own truths, let's see how fast you change your mind when you confront someone who has decided that *his* truth is that you don't exist anymore. I'll place bets on how quick you find God.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Now, after all of my latest posts, I make value judgements, and I say we should do such and such, and why...because I believe it's the best thing for the country, or for humanity in general.
Now, I can hear some of you out there... "Hey John, aren't you a Christian, and doesn't the Bible tell you that you should not judge people?" Yep! The Big J says so in Matthew 7:1, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
However, there is a difference between judging a PERSON, and judging their thoughts, actions, and opinions. If we were not allowed to form Christian-based value judgements, then why did Jesus clear out all of the money-changers in the Temple? (Matthew 21:12-13)
To put it simply, the Bible is full of value judgements...have you taken a look at the Ten Commandments? Each of the dictates contained there is a value judgement...you know, murder is bad, stealing things is bad, lusting after someone's wife is bad... Now, when you go and start talking about *people*, you have to be careful. A person who steals is a thief...that's a fact. However, people are in generally good people...until it's an unmitigated fact that they're not.
The biggest standard in judging people is that we as Christians is that we "love the sinner, and hate the sin." Thus we can and should condemn homosexuality as an abomination to God, (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24), however Jesus never condemned the SINNER, he offered them repentence. It's in that vein that Christians should act...we condemn the SIN, not the SINNER.
However, there is the other extreme to judging the SINNER, and that is when people decide that THEY can decide what is truth. They don't want anyone to make value judgements whatsoever. If you believe that your beliefs are the TRUTH, then they are, and who am I to tell you that you are wrong.
I guess this means that Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich buddies had their own truths too, and we should respect them because we should not impose our truths on others. Just a reminder, these are the people who came up with that wonderful set of truths encapsulated in the book "101 Ways to Cook Humans."
Yeah, for those of you who figure you can find your own truths, let's see how fast you change your mind when you confront someone who has decided that *his* truth is that you don't exist anymore. I'll place bets on how quick you find God.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Baby For Sale!
^.^
I recently found a story on the Glenn Beck show, and this just brings the illegal alien chaos to a whole new level. The link to the story is: http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1172653200/1
Now, for those who don't want to read the entire article, here's the gist:
An illegal alien, Nicole Uribe-Lopez, and a rather sleezy-looking couple were arrested in Pueblo, CO for selling a five-month old child. The woman came to this country, leaving children at home in Mexico, and she came here for the tired old excuse, "I wanted to provide a better life for my family."
So of course, once she gets here, she turns her vagina into what Glenn Beck referred to as simply a "vending machine". She originally wanted $10,000, but these sleezeballs that were trying to buy the child managed to deal Uribe-Lopez down to a lousy $1500. Once the deal was done, Uribe-Lopez took $500 of it and bought a car.
Glenn Beck proposed that we jail illegal alien slimeballs and send Mexico the bill. I have a better idea...
See, the problem we have is that no one is taking the illegal alien problem seriously. Not the Democrat Liberalistas who want to throw open the gates and let anyone with a whim come in. You know, these people were behind the whole push for multiculturalism and all of that other de-Americanization of the country. If you are looking for tough policy from the Bush administration, SORRY! President Bush is signing on with the Liberalistas who now run Congress, and want to throw open the gates and let anyone with a whim come in.
My solution is along the lines of Glenn's idea...put illegal aliens in prison. They should go directly to Jail, no passing GO, no collecting $200...especially since they might use it as a down-payment on a car... However, Glenn then says we should send a message to Mexico by sending them the bill for the expenses of keeping these dregs of society behind bars. All of the room and board expenses should be picked up by the government in Mexico City, Glenn says.
My solution is different.
See, since no one in *this* country is paying much attention to the problem, what needs to happen is that we should jail every illegal alien we can find, regardless of whether we have adequate room in our jails. Do what Joe Arpaio does in Maricopa County, Arizona...construct tent cities...lots of them. Then build the damn prisons! Then put *more* illegal aliens in the tent cities...THEN BUILD MORE PRISONS!!
Now, of course, at some point, the cost of building prisons and caring for these illegal aliens will become too much for the federal government. Either we will be paying more for federal prisons than we do on Social Security, or the prison system will break down under its own sheer weight.
Once the choice is doing something about the illegal aliens slipping into this country in the first place, or repairing a prison system that is bleeding all sorts of criminals into the community and paralyzing the federal government's budget...I think the federal government will get off its butt and DO SOMETHING about the problem of illegal aliens.
If you think the United States is the only one complaining, you are wrong. Glenn referred to a website called Wetback Wives, where wives of illegal aliens have pleaded with the US government to DO SOMETHING about the border! Illegal immigration is huritng families in Mexico as well as in the US.
Anyway, this is my idea on what we can do with the illegal aliens, before we dump them back across the border.
John B.
Blogger Guy
I recently found a story on the Glenn Beck show, and this just brings the illegal alien chaos to a whole new level. The link to the story is: http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1172653200/1
Now, for those who don't want to read the entire article, here's the gist:
An illegal alien, Nicole Uribe-Lopez, and a rather sleezy-looking couple were arrested in Pueblo, CO for selling a five-month old child. The woman came to this country, leaving children at home in Mexico, and she came here for the tired old excuse, "I wanted to provide a better life for my family."
So of course, once she gets here, she turns her vagina into what Glenn Beck referred to as simply a "vending machine". She originally wanted $10,000, but these sleezeballs that were trying to buy the child managed to deal Uribe-Lopez down to a lousy $1500. Once the deal was done, Uribe-Lopez took $500 of it and bought a car.
Glenn Beck proposed that we jail illegal alien slimeballs and send Mexico the bill. I have a better idea...
See, the problem we have is that no one is taking the illegal alien problem seriously. Not the Democrat Liberalistas who want to throw open the gates and let anyone with a whim come in. You know, these people were behind the whole push for multiculturalism and all of that other de-Americanization of the country. If you are looking for tough policy from the Bush administration, SORRY! President Bush is signing on with the Liberalistas who now run Congress, and want to throw open the gates and let anyone with a whim come in.
My solution is along the lines of Glenn's idea...put illegal aliens in prison. They should go directly to Jail, no passing GO, no collecting $200...especially since they might use it as a down-payment on a car... However, Glenn then says we should send a message to Mexico by sending them the bill for the expenses of keeping these dregs of society behind bars. All of the room and board expenses should be picked up by the government in Mexico City, Glenn says.
My solution is different.
See, since no one in *this* country is paying much attention to the problem, what needs to happen is that we should jail every illegal alien we can find, regardless of whether we have adequate room in our jails. Do what Joe Arpaio does in Maricopa County, Arizona...construct tent cities...lots of them. Then build the damn prisons! Then put *more* illegal aliens in the tent cities...THEN BUILD MORE PRISONS!!
Now, of course, at some point, the cost of building prisons and caring for these illegal aliens will become too much for the federal government. Either we will be paying more for federal prisons than we do on Social Security, or the prison system will break down under its own sheer weight.
Once the choice is doing something about the illegal aliens slipping into this country in the first place, or repairing a prison system that is bleeding all sorts of criminals into the community and paralyzing the federal government's budget...I think the federal government will get off its butt and DO SOMETHING about the problem of illegal aliens.
If you think the United States is the only one complaining, you are wrong. Glenn referred to a website called Wetback Wives, where wives of illegal aliens have pleaded with the US government to DO SOMETHING about the border! Illegal immigration is huritng families in Mexico as well as in the US.
Anyway, this is my idea on what we can do with the illegal aliens, before we dump them back across the border.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Mainstream African-Americans
^.^
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) announced his bid for President in the 2008 election this week, and immediately stepped in a big warm pile of political doo-doo, when he referred to fellow President campaigner, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean."
Now, the Liberalista media types are blowing the comment all out of proportion, and Biden himself apologized, saying he was trying to compliment Obama for being a fresh face on the campaign trail, the latest thing, the newest political flavor of the month. Those attacking Biden for the comment are claiming that he made a racist comment.
Actually, Biden's comment was dead on...it's just that the media is not focused on the right word in the statement. They focus on "articulate and bright and clean."
I think Biden was totally correct and should not have to apologize for anything, and in fact, he made an insightful statement.
Because rather than focusing on "articulate", and "bright", and "clean", I focus on the other descriptive term: "mainstream".
What the Liberalistas fail to deal with is the fact that none of *their* buddies can be honestly characterized as within the mainstream of our society. Do you believe that Jesse Jackson is mainstream after some of the remarks he has made (the ones against Jews being the most infamous)? How about Al Sharpton? Carol Moseley Brawn? How about New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, who said that New Orleans should be rebuilt as a "chocolate" city...is he mainstream? Can someone point me to a Liberalista leader who is a mainstream African-American?
I believe the terms Liberalista and mainstream are incompatible with each other.
Now, I am no shill for Joe Biden. I plan to take a good look at Biden, along with all of the other candidates for the election in 2008, and I'll share my views with you. However, no matter your political stripe, Senator Joe Biden should not be attacked for exposing a truth, even if that truth hurts.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) announced his bid for President in the 2008 election this week, and immediately stepped in a big warm pile of political doo-doo, when he referred to fellow President campaigner, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean."
Now, the Liberalista media types are blowing the comment all out of proportion, and Biden himself apologized, saying he was trying to compliment Obama for being a fresh face on the campaign trail, the latest thing, the newest political flavor of the month. Those attacking Biden for the comment are claiming that he made a racist comment.
Actually, Biden's comment was dead on...it's just that the media is not focused on the right word in the statement. They focus on "articulate and bright and clean."
I think Biden was totally correct and should not have to apologize for anything, and in fact, he made an insightful statement.
Because rather than focusing on "articulate", and "bright", and "clean", I focus on the other descriptive term: "mainstream".
What the Liberalistas fail to deal with is the fact that none of *their* buddies can be honestly characterized as within the mainstream of our society. Do you believe that Jesse Jackson is mainstream after some of the remarks he has made (the ones against Jews being the most infamous)? How about Al Sharpton? Carol Moseley Brawn? How about New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, who said that New Orleans should be rebuilt as a "chocolate" city...is he mainstream? Can someone point me to a Liberalista leader who is a mainstream African-American?
I believe the terms Liberalista and mainstream are incompatible with each other.
Now, I am no shill for Joe Biden. I plan to take a good look at Biden, along with all of the other candidates for the election in 2008, and I'll share my views with you. However, no matter your political stripe, Senator Joe Biden should not be attacked for exposing a truth, even if that truth hurts.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Monday, January 29, 2007
Misconceptions About the Bush Iraq Plan
^.^
I have been listening today about Hillary R. Clinton, who today told people that the President misused the authority she and the rest of Congress gave him to conduct the war in Iraq.
Now, I want you to do two things... First, re-read that first statement. After that, go read the US Constitution and tell me where the Congress can simply vote the President authority to deploy troops into a conflict.
Note, we are not talking about a declaration of war, which Congress clearly has the authority to do.
See, I have been amazed by people in Congress, who think that they can get in the way of the President's current policy in Iraq, which will include the deployment of an additional 21,000 US soldiers.
If you listen to the news, you are able to spot our representatives in Congress in various mis-statements about what they can do, or what Congress can do, or what influence they have over the President and his policices.
Let's look at a couple...
1: Congress authorized President Bush to invade Iraq, and that authorization was based on lies, and therefore was a misuse of Congressional authority. (This was the statement that Hillary Clinton has been recently putting out to the public to explain her vote *for* the Iraq war.)
Congress does not authorize the President to conduct war unless they sign a declaration of war. In the case of the vote on the Iraq war, the US Congress voted to support the President as a show of solidarity on the issue. Just as in so many other votes on this issue, the Iraq war vote in Congress had no legal force upon the President...it was a show of support.
2: The Iraq Study Group report should be fully-implemented as it has the force of a Congressionally-passed piece of legislation.
Last year, Congress commissioned the Iraq Study Group to do fact-finding related to their work, and compile a report on the subject of strategy in Iraq. This happened, and last month, the ISG released their report, which contained a large number of recommendations. The President supported the work of the ISG, but largely put the work of the ISG aside in favor of the policy of "the surge".
This last weekend, former Secretary of Defense William Perry told the Commonwealth Club of California that the ISG report had no legal force on the President. Basically, when it comes right down to it, the ISG report simply was a long list of opinions that the President was free to pick and choose from. He chose to use very few of them.
3: Any vote against the "surge" policy will force the President to reconsider the policy.
Well, once again, unless the US Constitution has changed since 2001, Congress can not force the President to pull back a deployment of troops. Congress has one option in this event, and they won't do it because they would rightly be accused of being soft on the war on terror.
Congress can de-fund the war in Iraq.
If they do this, the US Army would quickly run out of cash reserves and would be put in the crisis situation of not bveing able to pay for operations. They would be at the mercy of the enemy, who would see such a move as perhaps the ultimate move of weakness on our part. This is why even the most flamingest Liberalista will *not* vote to de-fund the US operation in Iraq.
Congress has neither the power to change the President's policy, nor the willpower to stop in in the way that they can...through the power of the purse.
John B.
Blogger Guy
I have been listening today about Hillary R. Clinton, who today told people that the President misused the authority she and the rest of Congress gave him to conduct the war in Iraq.
Now, I want you to do two things... First, re-read that first statement. After that, go read the US Constitution and tell me where the Congress can simply vote the President authority to deploy troops into a conflict.
Note, we are not talking about a declaration of war, which Congress clearly has the authority to do.
See, I have been amazed by people in Congress, who think that they can get in the way of the President's current policy in Iraq, which will include the deployment of an additional 21,000 US soldiers.
If you listen to the news, you are able to spot our representatives in Congress in various mis-statements about what they can do, or what Congress can do, or what influence they have over the President and his policices.
Let's look at a couple...
1: Congress authorized President Bush to invade Iraq, and that authorization was based on lies, and therefore was a misuse of Congressional authority. (This was the statement that Hillary Clinton has been recently putting out to the public to explain her vote *for* the Iraq war.)
Congress does not authorize the President to conduct war unless they sign a declaration of war. In the case of the vote on the Iraq war, the US Congress voted to support the President as a show of solidarity on the issue. Just as in so many other votes on this issue, the Iraq war vote in Congress had no legal force upon the President...it was a show of support.
2: The Iraq Study Group report should be fully-implemented as it has the force of a Congressionally-passed piece of legislation.
Last year, Congress commissioned the Iraq Study Group to do fact-finding related to their work, and compile a report on the subject of strategy in Iraq. This happened, and last month, the ISG released their report, which contained a large number of recommendations. The President supported the work of the ISG, but largely put the work of the ISG aside in favor of the policy of "the surge".
This last weekend, former Secretary of Defense William Perry told the Commonwealth Club of California that the ISG report had no legal force on the President. Basically, when it comes right down to it, the ISG report simply was a long list of opinions that the President was free to pick and choose from. He chose to use very few of them.
3: Any vote against the "surge" policy will force the President to reconsider the policy.
Well, once again, unless the US Constitution has changed since 2001, Congress can not force the President to pull back a deployment of troops. Congress has one option in this event, and they won't do it because they would rightly be accused of being soft on the war on terror.
Congress can de-fund the war in Iraq.
If they do this, the US Army would quickly run out of cash reserves and would be put in the crisis situation of not bveing able to pay for operations. They would be at the mercy of the enemy, who would see such a move as perhaps the ultimate move of weakness on our part. This is why even the most flamingest Liberalista will *not* vote to de-fund the US operation in Iraq.
Congress has neither the power to change the President's policy, nor the willpower to stop in in the way that they can...through the power of the purse.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)