Although laughable, there is probably more truth than fiction in this piece on the difference between our political ideologies. That is why I could not resist blogging it.
Here is a little test that will help you decide the question: How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southern Conservatives? The answer can be found by posing the following scenario:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal. 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberals' Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to mychildren?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
Conservatives' Answer:
BANG!
Southern Conservatives' Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
TAXPAYERS FUND HIGHER EDUCATION'S RADICALISM
I am a firm supporter of and believer in free speech. However, I certainly do not want my tax dollars used to support a radical group's call for an "intifada" in the United States. And that is exactly what the Center for Race and Gender, an official unit of U.C. Berkeley, has called for.
This, in part, is how the university describes the center's mission:"The Center for Race and Gender is an interdisciplinary research and community outreach center at the University of California Berkeley dedicated to fostering explorations of race and gender and their intersections. It is virtually unique within the academic community in its focus on both race and gender. Its aim is to foster collegial support and exchange among faculty and students throughout the university and between the university and nearby communities of color."
But what follows in this blog is the promotion of a program sponsored by the center, and hence U.C. Berkeley, which has little to do with race and gender. It is just one example of the radical left-wing crap that is being dissemintated not only at Berkely, but at most of our nation's other institutions of higher learning.
Since U.C. Berkeley receives generous amounts of federal funding, in addition to the funds provided by California's taxpayers, I and every other American taxpayer is helping to pay for this disgaceful program. Here is the kind of crap - note the frequent reference to "colonial," a term favored by Marxist professors - that we are paying for:
UC Berkeley Lecturer Hatem Bazian will speak on Islamophobia.
He has called for an intifada in the United States :
"Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine , we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq , and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada in this country? Because it seem[s] to me, that we are comfortable in where we are, watching CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, and all these mainstream... giving us a window to the world while the world is being managed from Washington, from New York, from every other place in here in San Francisco: Chevron, Bechtel, [Carlyle?] Group, Halliburton; every one of those lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving individuals are in our country and we’re sitting here and watching the world pass by, people being bombed, and it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every— They’re gonna say some Palestinian being too radical — well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet!"
De-Constructing Islamophobia: Immigration, Globalization and Constructing the Other
Conference/Symposium April 25 – 26, 2008 every day Barrows Hall, Lipman Room, 8th Floor
Sponsor: Center for Race and Gender
The conference on "De-Constructing Islamophobia: Globalization, Immigration, and Constructing the Other" seeks to develop a theoretical framework through which we can understand the relationship between Islamophobia as the most recently articulated structural organizing principle and its implications in the unfolding colonial present.
In today’s world, Islam and Muslims are the feared "other" and the threat they pose is already connected to every local, regional and global process. The process of "othering Islam and Muslims" is already well under way with devastating consequences and a virtual state of siege has set-in, not only in the affected communities, but also in academic circles where the subject has yet to receive a comprehensive treatment. Islamophobia, as the present structural organizing principle, is employed by the power elite in order to extend and maintain the patterns of racial, gender, colonial, ethnic and religious discrimination.
In the past, the existing methodological approaches in race and gender studies remained distant from the subject and, up to this point, have not yet adjusted to incorporate a closer examination of "othering Islam and Muslims." The conference seeks to provide an open scholarly exchange, exploring new approaches to the study of the current period, de-constructing the organizing process that gave birth to Islamophobia, and studying its interconnectedness to existing and historical otherness in the areas of race, gender and "post-colonial" studies. The conference will explore and pose a number of questions that can be the springboard for further collaborative and multidisciplinary approaches to de-constructing Islamophobia. How should we approach Islamophobia and can we think of it within the field(s) of post-colonial studies and/or Ethnic Studies? What would be Islamophobia's impact on the move from a post-colonial approach into a de-colonization, and its centrality in the development of a new paradigm? What new or modified theoretical frameworks should be employed? Are existing academic fields with their current methodologies able to de-construct Islamophobia or do we need adjustment; and if it is needed then what, where and how?"
This, in part, is how the university describes the center's mission:"The Center for Race and Gender is an interdisciplinary research and community outreach center at the University of California Berkeley dedicated to fostering explorations of race and gender and their intersections. It is virtually unique within the academic community in its focus on both race and gender. Its aim is to foster collegial support and exchange among faculty and students throughout the university and between the university and nearby communities of color."
But what follows in this blog is the promotion of a program sponsored by the center, and hence U.C. Berkeley, which has little to do with race and gender. It is just one example of the radical left-wing crap that is being dissemintated not only at Berkely, but at most of our nation's other institutions of higher learning.
Since U.C. Berkeley receives generous amounts of federal funding, in addition to the funds provided by California's taxpayers, I and every other American taxpayer is helping to pay for this disgaceful program. Here is the kind of crap - note the frequent reference to "colonial," a term favored by Marxist professors - that we are paying for:
UC Berkeley Lecturer Hatem Bazian will speak on Islamophobia.
He has called for an intifada in the United States :
"Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine , we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq , and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada in this country? Because it seem[s] to me, that we are comfortable in where we are, watching CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, and all these mainstream... giving us a window to the world while the world is being managed from Washington, from New York, from every other place in here in San Francisco: Chevron, Bechtel, [Carlyle?] Group, Halliburton; every one of those lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving individuals are in our country and we’re sitting here and watching the world pass by, people being bombed, and it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every— They’re gonna say some Palestinian being too radical — well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet!"
De-Constructing Islamophobia: Immigration, Globalization and Constructing the Other
Conference/Symposium April 25 – 26, 2008 every day Barrows Hall, Lipman Room, 8th Floor
Sponsor: Center for Race and Gender
The conference on "De-Constructing Islamophobia: Globalization, Immigration, and Constructing the Other" seeks to develop a theoretical framework through which we can understand the relationship between Islamophobia as the most recently articulated structural organizing principle and its implications in the unfolding colonial present.
In today’s world, Islam and Muslims are the feared "other" and the threat they pose is already connected to every local, regional and global process. The process of "othering Islam and Muslims" is already well under way with devastating consequences and a virtual state of siege has set-in, not only in the affected communities, but also in academic circles where the subject has yet to receive a comprehensive treatment. Islamophobia, as the present structural organizing principle, is employed by the power elite in order to extend and maintain the patterns of racial, gender, colonial, ethnic and religious discrimination.
In the past, the existing methodological approaches in race and gender studies remained distant from the subject and, up to this point, have not yet adjusted to incorporate a closer examination of "othering Islam and Muslims." The conference seeks to provide an open scholarly exchange, exploring new approaches to the study of the current period, de-constructing the organizing process that gave birth to Islamophobia, and studying its interconnectedness to existing and historical otherness in the areas of race, gender and "post-colonial" studies. The conference will explore and pose a number of questions that can be the springboard for further collaborative and multidisciplinary approaches to de-constructing Islamophobia. How should we approach Islamophobia and can we think of it within the field(s) of post-colonial studies and/or Ethnic Studies? What would be Islamophobia's impact on the move from a post-colonial approach into a de-colonization, and its centrality in the development of a new paradigm? What new or modified theoretical frameworks should be employed? Are existing academic fields with their current methodologies able to de-construct Islamophobia or do we need adjustment; and if it is needed then what, where and how?"
50 SHOTS FIRED
Three New York City police detectives were just acquitted in a court trial (trial by a judge) for killing Sean Bell, an unarmed black man, on the eve of his wedding. The "victim" and two companions had gone to a topless club for his bachelor's party. The officers were working an undercover case against the club when they confronted the three men as they were leaving in their vehicle. Believing that one of the men had a gun and was about to use it against them, the officers opened fire, killing the groom-to-be and wounding his companions.
Much has been made in the press about the officers firing a total of 50 shots, with one officer firing 15 rounds and then reloading to fire 15 more. I have no intention of discussing the merits or details of the case. I do believe the judge rendered the right decision. Of course, the bride-to-be, her family and friends, the deceased's family and friends and many others, both blacks and whites, were incensed over the judge's decision. Al Sharpton loudly condemned the acquittal. My interest in this case concerns the 50 shots fired.
In recent years, several police shootings have been sensationalized by the media due to the number of shots fired by the cops. In 1999, four plain-clothed New York City police officers mistook Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant standing in front of his home, for a serial rapist. As they confronted the unarmed Diallo, one of the officers thought he had a gun and was going to shoot them. When he warned his fellow officers, they opened fire with a total of 41 shots, hitting Diallo 19 times, with one officer firing 16 rounds and then reloading to fire 15 more. A jury acquitted the officers of all charges, including murder.
In other cases where several officers confronted a suspect face-to-face with multiple shots, the media sensationalized the shootings when the "victim" was shot in the back, making it appear as if that was done deliberately. What the media refuses to acknowledge is the fact that when a person is hit by gunfire he is often spun around, which accounts for his getting hit in the back by some of the shots.
Why do officers fire so many rounds in a shooting incident? When officers fear an immediate threat to their lives, the "fight or flight" syndrome takes effect - and officers are expected to fight, not flee. Insitinctively they do not stop shooting until the perceived threat has passed. In the Bell case, the groom and his companions were inside a vehicle and the officers could not determine when and if the threat was over. In the Diallo case, the officers probably felt he continued to pose a threat until he hit the ground. With four officers engaged in rapid gunfire, he could have been readily hit 19 times before going down.
People expect police officers to be trained not to shoot at unarmed persons and trained to fire only one or two well-placed shots at a suspect. Such expectations are not realistic. Once, I happened to be near a shoot-out where a New York officer shot the gun out of a robber's hand. When I praised him for his accuracy, he replied: "Shit, I was really trying to hit the motherfucker between the eyes."
When an officer believes that an unarmed person is about to shoot him, you cannot blame the officer for immediately opening fire and to keep shooting until that person goes down. No amount or type of training can prevent an officer from going into a panic mode when he is placed in immediate fear of his life. And, during a street shoot-out, as opposed to a police firing range exercise, you cannot expect an officer to have the same confidence in hitting his target as he would have had in his training program. That's why he's unlikely to stop shooting until he feels sure his life is no longer in jeopardy.
When several officers are involved, a shooting frenzy is likely to follow the first shot fired by an officer. And, it is quite possible that some of the officer will mistake the shots they hear as coming from the unarmed suspect. It is very unfair to judge and condemn police officers for the number of shots they fire in an incident where they believe their lives are in imminent danger, whether the suspect is armed or not.
New York City is very fortunate that two of the three officers in the Bell shooting were black, thereby depriving Sharpton of his usual claptrap that white cops are murdering black men. Had all three cops been white, Sharpton's rants could easily have led to riots in the black community. The city is certain to be sued by Bell's family and by his fiancee. Rather than spend millions in legal costs, the city will probably settle out of court as it did in the Diallo case, where it paid his family $3 million.
The officers' ordeal in the Bell case is far from over. They will also be sued. Far worse though, they will be placed in double jeopardy if the U.S. Department of Justice acquiesces to the demands of Sharpton and other blacks that they now be tried for civil rights violations. (To its credit, in the Diallo shooting, the Justice Department refused Sharpton's demands that those officers be charged with civil rights violations.) As Bell's fiancee put it - this is not over!
Much has been made in the press about the officers firing a total of 50 shots, with one officer firing 15 rounds and then reloading to fire 15 more. I have no intention of discussing the merits or details of the case. I do believe the judge rendered the right decision. Of course, the bride-to-be, her family and friends, the deceased's family and friends and many others, both blacks and whites, were incensed over the judge's decision. Al Sharpton loudly condemned the acquittal. My interest in this case concerns the 50 shots fired.
In recent years, several police shootings have been sensationalized by the media due to the number of shots fired by the cops. In 1999, four plain-clothed New York City police officers mistook Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant standing in front of his home, for a serial rapist. As they confronted the unarmed Diallo, one of the officers thought he had a gun and was going to shoot them. When he warned his fellow officers, they opened fire with a total of 41 shots, hitting Diallo 19 times, with one officer firing 16 rounds and then reloading to fire 15 more. A jury acquitted the officers of all charges, including murder.
In other cases where several officers confronted a suspect face-to-face with multiple shots, the media sensationalized the shootings when the "victim" was shot in the back, making it appear as if that was done deliberately. What the media refuses to acknowledge is the fact that when a person is hit by gunfire he is often spun around, which accounts for his getting hit in the back by some of the shots.
Why do officers fire so many rounds in a shooting incident? When officers fear an immediate threat to their lives, the "fight or flight" syndrome takes effect - and officers are expected to fight, not flee. Insitinctively they do not stop shooting until the perceived threat has passed. In the Bell case, the groom and his companions were inside a vehicle and the officers could not determine when and if the threat was over. In the Diallo case, the officers probably felt he continued to pose a threat until he hit the ground. With four officers engaged in rapid gunfire, he could have been readily hit 19 times before going down.
People expect police officers to be trained not to shoot at unarmed persons and trained to fire only one or two well-placed shots at a suspect. Such expectations are not realistic. Once, I happened to be near a shoot-out where a New York officer shot the gun out of a robber's hand. When I praised him for his accuracy, he replied: "Shit, I was really trying to hit the motherfucker between the eyes."
When an officer believes that an unarmed person is about to shoot him, you cannot blame the officer for immediately opening fire and to keep shooting until that person goes down. No amount or type of training can prevent an officer from going into a panic mode when he is placed in immediate fear of his life. And, during a street shoot-out, as opposed to a police firing range exercise, you cannot expect an officer to have the same confidence in hitting his target as he would have had in his training program. That's why he's unlikely to stop shooting until he feels sure his life is no longer in jeopardy.
When several officers are involved, a shooting frenzy is likely to follow the first shot fired by an officer. And, it is quite possible that some of the officer will mistake the shots they hear as coming from the unarmed suspect. It is very unfair to judge and condemn police officers for the number of shots they fire in an incident where they believe their lives are in imminent danger, whether the suspect is armed or not.
New York City is very fortunate that two of the three officers in the Bell shooting were black, thereby depriving Sharpton of his usual claptrap that white cops are murdering black men. Had all three cops been white, Sharpton's rants could easily have led to riots in the black community. The city is certain to be sued by Bell's family and by his fiancee. Rather than spend millions in legal costs, the city will probably settle out of court as it did in the Diallo case, where it paid his family $3 million.
The officers' ordeal in the Bell case is far from over. They will also be sued. Far worse though, they will be placed in double jeopardy if the U.S. Department of Justice acquiesces to the demands of Sharpton and other blacks that they now be tried for civil rights violations. (To its credit, in the Diallo shooting, the Justice Department refused Sharpton's demands that those officers be charged with civil rights violations.) As Bell's fiancee put it - this is not over!
Monday, April 28, 2008
BUM RAP - FALSE ADVERTISING
For the last couple of weeks or so, I've been watching false advertising on my TV set and you'll never guess who was behind it. OK, give up? It's the Disney designed Space Center Theme Park at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. And what was the false advertising? MAN-EATING PIRRAHNA. The Space Center was promoting an exhibit by telling viewers to come and "see man-eating pirrahnas." Folks, there is no such thing as a man-eating pirrahna. Shame on those advertisers!
I've made eight extended sojourns to the Amazon and I am always amazed at the tall tales that come out of that area. Two animals in particular have long gotten a bum rap. I'm talking about Pirrahnas and Anacondas. Now, if you've ever seen them, you will agree that Pirrahnas and Anacondas are not cute and cuddly creatures. Pirrahnas have an ugly face with sharp protruding teeth that give these fish a very menacing look. Anacondas are huge slimy acquatic snakes.
Movies and books have portrayed both animals as very aggressive killers of man and beast. Pirrahnas have been pictured as skeletizing cows in minutes and man in seconds. Pirrahnas eat mostly other fish, not man or cows. Anacondas have been pictured leaping out of tall trees to snatch away some poor unsuspecting hiker or jungle explorer. Anacondas don't venture far from the streams and lakes in which they dwell. They will come out of the water to sun themselves and to catch rodents and other small animals for an occasional meal.
I was first exposed to Pirrahnas in 1991. I was wading in a river in the Venezuelan Amazon when I felt something nibbling at my ankles. I asked my guide what it could be and when he told me it was probably pirrahnas I almost shit. I quickly highstepped my way to the bank when he called me back and told me not to worry. When I thought he had been kidding me, he took a piece of meat, put it on a hook tied to a string and threw it in the water. Within seconds he had hooked an ugly mean looking pirrahna.
Amazon villages are almost always located along river banks because the rivers provide a means of transportation and are a source of food for the Indians. The villagers bathe in the rivers and the children play and swim in them. I've seen many a toddler in pirrahna infested waters which assured me that pirrahnas do not pose any danger to mankind.
I've also come across a number of Anacondas in the wild, one of which appeared to be close to 20 feet long. It was about two-thirds out of the water, lying under a bush and guarding a capibara that it had earlier constricted. Apparently, it was not yet ready to eat its kill. (Capibaras are the world's largest rodents, sometimes exceeding 100 pound in weight.)
During my explorations I must have come across a dozen or so of these boas. Whenever I got close to them, they would eye me, but none of them ever made any threatening moves or noises. (I did pick up and hold a 12-14 footer on my shoulders at the zoo in Leticia, Columbia. While staggering under its weight, that sucker coiled its tail end several times around one of my arms. I've got the pictures to prove it.) So, I can say with confidence that Anacondas, like Pirrahnas, do not pose a threat to people.
Which brings me back to the Space Center Theme Park's false advertising. That promo about "man-eating pirrahnas" may bring in a few more visitors, but when all is said and done, what that TV ad really does is to keep promulgating an undeserved myth about a small ugly Amazon fish. The folks in charge of that theme park should be ashamed of themselves!
I've made eight extended sojourns to the Amazon and I am always amazed at the tall tales that come out of that area. Two animals in particular have long gotten a bum rap. I'm talking about Pirrahnas and Anacondas. Now, if you've ever seen them, you will agree that Pirrahnas and Anacondas are not cute and cuddly creatures. Pirrahnas have an ugly face with sharp protruding teeth that give these fish a very menacing look. Anacondas are huge slimy acquatic snakes.
Movies and books have portrayed both animals as very aggressive killers of man and beast. Pirrahnas have been pictured as skeletizing cows in minutes and man in seconds. Pirrahnas eat mostly other fish, not man or cows. Anacondas have been pictured leaping out of tall trees to snatch away some poor unsuspecting hiker or jungle explorer. Anacondas don't venture far from the streams and lakes in which they dwell. They will come out of the water to sun themselves and to catch rodents and other small animals for an occasional meal.
I was first exposed to Pirrahnas in 1991. I was wading in a river in the Venezuelan Amazon when I felt something nibbling at my ankles. I asked my guide what it could be and when he told me it was probably pirrahnas I almost shit. I quickly highstepped my way to the bank when he called me back and told me not to worry. When I thought he had been kidding me, he took a piece of meat, put it on a hook tied to a string and threw it in the water. Within seconds he had hooked an ugly mean looking pirrahna.
Amazon villages are almost always located along river banks because the rivers provide a means of transportation and are a source of food for the Indians. The villagers bathe in the rivers and the children play and swim in them. I've seen many a toddler in pirrahna infested waters which assured me that pirrahnas do not pose any danger to mankind.
I've also come across a number of Anacondas in the wild, one of which appeared to be close to 20 feet long. It was about two-thirds out of the water, lying under a bush and guarding a capibara that it had earlier constricted. Apparently, it was not yet ready to eat its kill. (Capibaras are the world's largest rodents, sometimes exceeding 100 pound in weight.)
During my explorations I must have come across a dozen or so of these boas. Whenever I got close to them, they would eye me, but none of them ever made any threatening moves or noises. (I did pick up and hold a 12-14 footer on my shoulders at the zoo in Leticia, Columbia. While staggering under its weight, that sucker coiled its tail end several times around one of my arms. I've got the pictures to prove it.) So, I can say with confidence that Anacondas, like Pirrahnas, do not pose a threat to people.
Which brings me back to the Space Center Theme Park's false advertising. That promo about "man-eating pirrahnas" may bring in a few more visitors, but when all is said and done, what that TV ad really does is to keep promulgating an undeserved myth about a small ugly Amazon fish. The folks in charge of that theme park should be ashamed of themselves!
Saturday, April 26, 2008
SO, WHAT SHALL WE CALL THEM?
According to the Associated Press, documents it obtained reveal that Federal Agencies have instructed their employees to stop describing Islamists as "Jihadists" or "Mujahedeen" and not to call them "Islamo-Fascists," a term favored by Roach Limburger and his dodoheads. The Bush administration believes that such terms may actually help increase support for Jihadists within Muslim audiences by "giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates."
Hmmmm, the Bush administration is going to wage a kinder and gentler war on terrorism so as not to offend any "moderate" Muslims. Are they going to have federal employees take sensitivity training? God forbid that we might offend all those Muslims who love us so dearly. Has the administration taken leave of its senses or do they really believe that by not using those terms, they will make it difficult for the Islamists to recruit suicide bombers?
Let's see now. Who was it that bombed the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon? Who bombed our embassies in Africa? Who bombed that train in Madrid? Who bombed the three London subway trains and a bus? Who were the doctors that plotted car bombings in England? Who in England plotted to blow up seven jumbo-jet airliners simultaneously over the Atlantic? Were they Anglicans? Or, Catholics? No, they were all Muslims.
And who took over our airliners to crash them into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon, thereby causing the deaths of 3,000 innocent people? Were they Baptists? Catholics? Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Or, how about Atheists? No, no, no! They were Muslims, each and everyone of them. Should we be sensitive to their feelings and avoid offending them? Hell no! It's we Americans who have been offended by Muslims, and big time to boot.
So, what shall we call those Islamists? We can always call them by the name their Marxist supporters use - "Freedom Fighters." Or, how about Boy Suiciders of Islam and Girl Suiciders of Islam? Or, the Salvation Army? - No, that name has already been taken. How about Muhammad's Martyrs? 72 Virgins in Heaven Seekers? Allah's Avengers? Infidel Terminators? Or, whatever.
Mr. President, please spare us that Political Correctness crap. You know what? I think plain old "Muslim Terrorists" will do just fine. No matter what we do or do not call them, the Islamists will keep on recruiting more terrorists, and do so quite successfully. And, if by calling them Islamo-Fascists and other names we end up offending those Muslims who believe America is the Great Satan or who equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, that's just tough shit!
Hmmmm, the Bush administration is going to wage a kinder and gentler war on terrorism so as not to offend any "moderate" Muslims. Are they going to have federal employees take sensitivity training? God forbid that we might offend all those Muslims who love us so dearly. Has the administration taken leave of its senses or do they really believe that by not using those terms, they will make it difficult for the Islamists to recruit suicide bombers?
Let's see now. Who was it that bombed the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon? Who bombed our embassies in Africa? Who bombed that train in Madrid? Who bombed the three London subway trains and a bus? Who were the doctors that plotted car bombings in England? Who in England plotted to blow up seven jumbo-jet airliners simultaneously over the Atlantic? Were they Anglicans? Or, Catholics? No, they were all Muslims.
And who took over our airliners to crash them into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon, thereby causing the deaths of 3,000 innocent people? Were they Baptists? Catholics? Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Or, how about Atheists? No, no, no! They were Muslims, each and everyone of them. Should we be sensitive to their feelings and avoid offending them? Hell no! It's we Americans who have been offended by Muslims, and big time to boot.
So, what shall we call those Islamists? We can always call them by the name their Marxist supporters use - "Freedom Fighters." Or, how about Boy Suiciders of Islam and Girl Suiciders of Islam? Or, the Salvation Army? - No, that name has already been taken. How about Muhammad's Martyrs? 72 Virgins in Heaven Seekers? Allah's Avengers? Infidel Terminators? Or, whatever.
Mr. President, please spare us that Political Correctness crap. You know what? I think plain old "Muslim Terrorists" will do just fine. No matter what we do or do not call them, the Islamists will keep on recruiting more terrorists, and do so quite successfully. And, if by calling them Islamo-Fascists and other names we end up offending those Muslims who believe America is the Great Satan or who equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, that's just tough shit!
Friday, April 25, 2008
AMERICA NEEDS LEADERS LIKE JOHN HOWARD
One thing is for sure. Immigration, especially the illegal kind, continues to trouble many Americans. We have 20 million or so illegal Mexican aliens in our country and, pragmatically, there is no way that we can deport them all. Nor would we want to send them all back to Mexico because then we would be depriving ourselves of the cheap labor services they provide.
What bothers most American, including me, are those legal immigrants who converse in public using their native language rather than English, who prefer to celebrate their native holidays - Cinco de Mayo for instance - rather than the Fourth of July, and who demonstrate by waving foreign banners like the Mexican or Palestinian flags in our faces whenever they have a beef with our government's policies.
Apparently, Australia has its share of discontent over immigration. Its leader, Prime Minister John Howard, unlike our wimpy politically correct leaders, has spoken out forcefully on what he dislikes about those immigrants who reject Australia's customs. We could sure use some leaders like him in our country. That is why I am publishing his remarks in my blog. Not being a Christian, my only concern would be that if he had been leading our government instead of Australia's, his statements could energize the efforts of those Americans who want to use our public schools to promote Christianity to students holding other religious beliefs and who want to insert creationism into the sutdy of evolution.
Evidently, Prime Minister Howard made his remarks after he had angered some Australian Muslims by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Here is what he had to say:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .... Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' 'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
What bothers most American, including me, are those legal immigrants who converse in public using their native language rather than English, who prefer to celebrate their native holidays - Cinco de Mayo for instance - rather than the Fourth of July, and who demonstrate by waving foreign banners like the Mexican or Palestinian flags in our faces whenever they have a beef with our government's policies.
Apparently, Australia has its share of discontent over immigration. Its leader, Prime Minister John Howard, unlike our wimpy politically correct leaders, has spoken out forcefully on what he dislikes about those immigrants who reject Australia's customs. We could sure use some leaders like him in our country. That is why I am publishing his remarks in my blog. Not being a Christian, my only concern would be that if he had been leading our government instead of Australia's, his statements could energize the efforts of those Americans who want to use our public schools to promote Christianity to students holding other religious beliefs and who want to insert creationism into the sutdy of evolution.
Evidently, Prime Minister Howard made his remarks after he had angered some Australian Muslims by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Here is what he had to say:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .... Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' 'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
MICHELLE MALKIN ON JIMMY CARTER
Jimmy Carter has been widely recognized as one of our worst Presidents ever. The holier-than-though ex-President pretends to be a friend of Israel, but he calls the Jewish homeland an "apartheid state." During his just completed "peace mission" to the Hamas leadership, he stopped off to lay a wreath at the tomb of Yasser Arafat, Israel's long-time nemisis. During his trip he told a university audience in Cairo that the Israeli military's treatment of the Gaza Strip Palestinians was a "crime."
The only accomplishment of his mission was to give legitimacy to Hamas, a terrorist organization that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and has sworn to annihilate the "Zionist entity." With "friends" like Carter, Israel does not need any enemies. It has been reported in a number of reputable publications that Barack Obama relies on Carter for foreign policy advise.
Michelle Malking is one of my favorite political columnists. I know that she is looked upon as a far-out right-winger by some of her colleagues. I don't believe she represents that fringe. Malkin just says things the way they are. Obviously, she is more conservative than much of the mainstream media, but so what! Here is what Malkin had to say today about our pious former President.
The Democrats' Jimmy Carter Problem
By Michelle Malkin
April 23, 2008
So much for Jimmy Carter's triumphal peace mission in the Middle East. Like everything else he has done on foreign policy, the world's biggest tool for jihad propaganda created yet another bloody mess. Quick review:
After proclaiming that Hamas terrorists were willing to accept Israel as a "neighbor next door," Carter's Hamas hug buddies flipped him the bird. They gladly accepted the diplomatic legitimacy Carter's visit conferred upon them, while clinging bitterly to their insistence on the destruction of the Jewish state.
After laying a wreath in honor of the murderous Yasser Arafat, Carter dutifully agreed to deliver a letter from kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to his parents on behalf of the terrorists who are holding him hostage. Shalit's father rightly jeered Carter as nothing more than a postman for Hamas.
After Carter asserted that the State Department never clearly opposed his trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointed out that she had explicitly warned him against meeting with Hamas. Not to mention all those bold-faced, unequivocal headlines before the trip announcing that "State Department opposes Carter meeting with Hamas chief" (USA Today) and "Rice Criticizes Carter for Reported Meeting Planned With Hamas" (Fox News).
What part of "Don't meet with the Jew-hating killers, you idiot!" didn't Carter understand?
Article 13 of the Hamas charter is also as clear as day: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
Jimmy Carter's thick skull and moral myopia are an American embarrassment and an American problem. But more precisely: Jimmy Carter is a Democratic problem. He casts a long, feckless shadow over the party -- and it will haunt the party through the Democratic National Convention in August and beyond.
Carter is a Democratic Party superdelegate who will undoubtedly seek a prominent role at the convention this August. But the party can ill afford a diarrhea-of-the-mouth moment from their elder terror apologist. The world is watching and listening.
Though he has not formally endorsed Barack Obama, Carter has made enough positive noise about the campaign to send Iranian TV into euphoria. The regime's media arm led with an item earlier this week headlined, "Carter: Obama favorite worldwide." The news item quoted Carter as saying that Obama is supported by "many people in Ghana, Nigeria and Nepal. ... World opinion is strongly supportive of Obama, that's all we hear."
(Left off the list of legitimate world opinion, of course: Israel.)
Despite Obama's milquetoast protestations of Carter's visit and his technocratic disavowal of Hamas, Carter and Hamas are giving Obama two thumbs up. (Obama's associations with anti-Semites like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Louis Farrakhan-cheerleading Rev. Michael Pfleger give him all the cred he needs.)
Conservatives have mobilized to protest Carter's terrorist shilling. GOP Rep. Sue Myrick called for his passport to be revoked; Rep. Joe Knollenberg wants $19 million in taxpayer funding to be withdrawn from his Georgia-based scholarly institution. But the Sick-Of-Jimmy-Carter Coalition isn't just a Republican club. The Jewish Daily Forward reports that "some liberal observers...worry that the elder statesman may create headaches for the party at its nominating convention in Denver."
Their angst is well placed. The question is: Will exiling America's top Hamas apologist from the convention podium be enough to dispel the shadow of surrender? Or, to paraphrase Obama, can the Democrats no more disown Carter than they can disown the softheaded liberalism at the party's ideological core?
---
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
The only accomplishment of his mission was to give legitimacy to Hamas, a terrorist organization that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and has sworn to annihilate the "Zionist entity." With "friends" like Carter, Israel does not need any enemies. It has been reported in a number of reputable publications that Barack Obama relies on Carter for foreign policy advise.
Michelle Malking is one of my favorite political columnists. I know that she is looked upon as a far-out right-winger by some of her colleagues. I don't believe she represents that fringe. Malkin just says things the way they are. Obviously, she is more conservative than much of the mainstream media, but so what! Here is what Malkin had to say today about our pious former President.
The Democrats' Jimmy Carter Problem
By Michelle Malkin
April 23, 2008
So much for Jimmy Carter's triumphal peace mission in the Middle East. Like everything else he has done on foreign policy, the world's biggest tool for jihad propaganda created yet another bloody mess. Quick review:
After proclaiming that Hamas terrorists were willing to accept Israel as a "neighbor next door," Carter's Hamas hug buddies flipped him the bird. They gladly accepted the diplomatic legitimacy Carter's visit conferred upon them, while clinging bitterly to their insistence on the destruction of the Jewish state.
After laying a wreath in honor of the murderous Yasser Arafat, Carter dutifully agreed to deliver a letter from kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to his parents on behalf of the terrorists who are holding him hostage. Shalit's father rightly jeered Carter as nothing more than a postman for Hamas.
After Carter asserted that the State Department never clearly opposed his trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointed out that she had explicitly warned him against meeting with Hamas. Not to mention all those bold-faced, unequivocal headlines before the trip announcing that "State Department opposes Carter meeting with Hamas chief" (USA Today) and "Rice Criticizes Carter for Reported Meeting Planned With Hamas" (Fox News).
What part of "Don't meet with the Jew-hating killers, you idiot!" didn't Carter understand?
Article 13 of the Hamas charter is also as clear as day: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
Jimmy Carter's thick skull and moral myopia are an American embarrassment and an American problem. But more precisely: Jimmy Carter is a Democratic problem. He casts a long, feckless shadow over the party -- and it will haunt the party through the Democratic National Convention in August and beyond.
Carter is a Democratic Party superdelegate who will undoubtedly seek a prominent role at the convention this August. But the party can ill afford a diarrhea-of-the-mouth moment from their elder terror apologist. The world is watching and listening.
Though he has not formally endorsed Barack Obama, Carter has made enough positive noise about the campaign to send Iranian TV into euphoria. The regime's media arm led with an item earlier this week headlined, "Carter: Obama favorite worldwide." The news item quoted Carter as saying that Obama is supported by "many people in Ghana, Nigeria and Nepal. ... World opinion is strongly supportive of Obama, that's all we hear."
(Left off the list of legitimate world opinion, of course: Israel.)
Despite Obama's milquetoast protestations of Carter's visit and his technocratic disavowal of Hamas, Carter and Hamas are giving Obama two thumbs up. (Obama's associations with anti-Semites like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Louis Farrakhan-cheerleading Rev. Michael Pfleger give him all the cred he needs.)
Conservatives have mobilized to protest Carter's terrorist shilling. GOP Rep. Sue Myrick called for his passport to be revoked; Rep. Joe Knollenberg wants $19 million in taxpayer funding to be withdrawn from his Georgia-based scholarly institution. But the Sick-Of-Jimmy-Carter Coalition isn't just a Republican club. The Jewish Daily Forward reports that "some liberal observers...worry that the elder statesman may create headaches for the party at its nominating convention in Denver."
Their angst is well placed. The question is: Will exiling America's top Hamas apologist from the convention podium be enough to dispel the shadow of surrender? Or, to paraphrase Obama, can the Democrats no more disown Carter than they can disown the softheaded liberalism at the party's ideological core?
---
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Monday, April 21, 2008
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BATTLE OF SAN JACINTO
On April 21, 1836, at the Battle of San Jacinto, a rag-tag band of 783 Texans achieved an improbable and almost unbelievable victory over a Mexican army of more than 1,500 troops. The victorious Texas army was led by General Sam Houston. The defeated Mexicans were under the command of General Santa Anna, the President of Mexico.
The Texanns' surprise attack caught the Mexican emcampment off guard. The Texans shouted "Remember the Alamo" and "Remember Goliad" as they charged the unsuspecting Mexicans. The battle lasted a mere 18 minutes. When it was over, the Texans had lost nine killed and 30 wounded. The Mexicans had lost 630 killed, 208 wounded and 730 soldiers taken prisoner. Texas had won its independence from Mexico.
Legend has it that around the time of the Texans' attack, Santa Anna was in the sack making whoopee with Emily West, the beautiful mulatto servant and mistress of James Morgan, a wealthy landowner. The story goes that Morgan intentionally sent Emily to the Mexican encampment in order to distract Santa Anna by seducing him. Emily came to be known as "The Yellow Rose of Texas." Santa Anna's conquest of Emily West eventually cost Mexico nearly a million square miles of its land.
Texas erected a 570-foot tall monument at the San Jacinto Battleground in LaPorte, a suburb close by Houston. Construction started in 1936 and was completed in 1939. The significance of the Battle of San Jacinto is spelled out on a panel at the side of the monument:
"Measured by its results, San Jacinto was one of the decisive battles of the world. The freedom of Texas from Mexico won here led to annexation and to the Mexican War, resulting in the acquisition by the United States of the States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma. Almost one-third of the present area of the American nation, nearly a million square miles of territory, changed sovereignty."
Mexico has never forgiven us for its humiliating defeat. Over time, it has sneaked an invading army of some 20 million Mexicans across the border in the guise of a cheap labor force, surreptitiously reoccupying the territory it lost to the United States. It is estimated that 2,000 illegal aliens cross our border every day. At the rate those illegals keep coming here, it will not be all that long before Mexico can reclaim all the land it lost after its humiliation at San Jacinto.
The Texanns' surprise attack caught the Mexican emcampment off guard. The Texans shouted "Remember the Alamo" and "Remember Goliad" as they charged the unsuspecting Mexicans. The battle lasted a mere 18 minutes. When it was over, the Texans had lost nine killed and 30 wounded. The Mexicans had lost 630 killed, 208 wounded and 730 soldiers taken prisoner. Texas had won its independence from Mexico.
Legend has it that around the time of the Texans' attack, Santa Anna was in the sack making whoopee with Emily West, the beautiful mulatto servant and mistress of James Morgan, a wealthy landowner. The story goes that Morgan intentionally sent Emily to the Mexican encampment in order to distract Santa Anna by seducing him. Emily came to be known as "The Yellow Rose of Texas." Santa Anna's conquest of Emily West eventually cost Mexico nearly a million square miles of its land.
Texas erected a 570-foot tall monument at the San Jacinto Battleground in LaPorte, a suburb close by Houston. Construction started in 1936 and was completed in 1939. The significance of the Battle of San Jacinto is spelled out on a panel at the side of the monument:
"Measured by its results, San Jacinto was one of the decisive battles of the world. The freedom of Texas from Mexico won here led to annexation and to the Mexican War, resulting in the acquisition by the United States of the States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma. Almost one-third of the present area of the American nation, nearly a million square miles of territory, changed sovereignty."
Mexico has never forgiven us for its humiliating defeat. Over time, it has sneaked an invading army of some 20 million Mexicans across the border in the guise of a cheap labor force, surreptitiously reoccupying the territory it lost to the United States. It is estimated that 2,000 illegal aliens cross our border every day. At the rate those illegals keep coming here, it will not be all that long before Mexico can reclaim all the land it lost after its humiliation at San Jacinto.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
HOORAY FOR A MICHIGAN STATE PROFESSOR!
Friends in California sent me a brave professor's rebuke of a Muslim group's drivel. Obviously, Professor Wichman is not one of the politically correct types commonly found within the social sciences discipline.
The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.
Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were "hate speech."
Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:
Dear Moslem Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU, I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like:
Beheadings of civilians
Cowardly attacks on public buildings
Suicide murders
Murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey)
Burnings of Christian churches
The continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt
The imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims
The rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture)
The murder of film directors in Holland
And the rioting and looting in Paris, France .
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues.
I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."
If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.
Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were "hate speech."
Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:
Dear Moslem Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU, I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like:
Beheadings of civilians
Cowardly attacks on public buildings
Suicide murders
Murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey)
Burnings of Christian churches
The continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt
The imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims
The rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture)
The murder of film directors in Holland
And the rioting and looting in Paris, France .
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues.
I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."
If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
I JUST SAT THERE AND KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT
Last night I attended the College of the Marxists annual employee recognition dinner. As a retiree, I get invited every year. This was only the second one I've attended since I retired 15 years ago. I must admit it was nice to meet some old friends again. Another retired teacher came up to me and informed me her son-in-law, a former student of mine, had advanced through the ranks of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to become one of its high ranking admiistrators. Naturally, that really made me feel good.
Before the start of the affair, I talked to a young, obviously well-educated police officer about his experience in the government course he took at the college. The course was taught by David Michael Smith, an avowed Marxist. I asked the officer what he had learned about government in that course. He replied, "Nothing about government. I just sat there and kept my mouth shut." He went on to explain that students could not take Smith on because he had years of experience practicing the art of defending his (anti-American and anti-capitalist) positions.
The Marxist instructors at the college teach government, history and economics courses. Government and American History are required courses for most degrees, thereby providing these instructors with a captive audience. Since this college is a state funded institution, it is required to follow the curriculm guidelines set forth by the State of Texas. But, for the most part, that is not what the students get from their Marxist instrctors.
Marxists are imbedded in the faculties of most institutions of higher learning. Their goal is to replace capitalism with "socialism," a less abrasive term than "communism." Their teachings dwell on the evils of capitalism and proclaim the virtues of socialism. And since America is closely identified with capitalism, their teachings emphasize a littany of what they perceive to be our government's past and current domestic and foreign transgressions. That constitutes brainwashing and indoctrination, not education.
Over the years, many students at College of the Marxists have complained about being subjected to a constant drumbeat of "anti-Americanism" and the usual Marxist claptrap - America goes to war inorder to enrich the oil companies and other multi-national corporations; America exploits its workers and oppresses the masses; America is a sponsor of state terrorism; America is an imperialist power; etc..
There is no question that America has had its flaws and continues to have them. However, academic responsibility requires educators to present both sides of any controversial issue. One-sided teaching would only be justified if courses were, for example, entitled ANTI-AMERICANISM 101, EVILS OF CAPITALISM 101, or VIRTUES OF COMMUNISM 101. At least that way students are given a good clue about what to expect before enrolling in such courses.
Whenever anyone denounces their questionable classroom activities, the Marxists respond by screaming that their right of "Academic Freedom" is being attacked. That is a clever ruse used to garner the support of other faculty members, since most college teachers count on that doctrine to protect their jobs. It is astounding how few college professors actually know what academic freedom entails. And many wimpy college administators also do not understand the principles of academic freedom, or worse yet, deliberately turn a blind eye to any violations thereof. As for the trustees at College of the Marxists, they probably do not have a clue as to what Academic Freedom is really all about.
The PRINCIPLES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM were formulated years ago by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and by the American Association of University Professors. These principles were designed to protect college teachers from reprisals for expressing unpopular opinions in the classroom. However, they do not give teachers license to practice intellectual deceit and dishonesty in the classroom or to brainwash and indoctrinate their students.
Many academicians believe the Principles of Academic Freedom leave them free to say and do almost anything in the classroom without fear of retribution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The principles include specific obligations and prohibitions. Academic Freedom requires that teachers "should at all times be accurate, SHOULD EXERCISE APPROPRIATE RESTRAINT, ........... ." The principles were formulated for the "free search for truth" and "NOT TO FURTHER THE INTEREST OF ............ the individual teacher."
In 2002, some reputable community leaders and other civic-minded citizens joined me in pleading with the college's Board of Trustees not to grant David Smith tenure. My opposition was based on his violations of the Principles of Academic Freedom, on his practice of intellectual deceit, and on his attempts to brainwash and indoctrinate the students in his classroom. I figured our pleadings would fall on deaf ears. Because he is very charming and hands out good grades, it was not surprising that many students, both young and old, addressed the Board to request that Smith be granted tenure. And that is exactly what the Board did by a unanimous vote.
Ralph Holm was one of the trustees at the time. When he first ran for a position on the Board, I donated money to his election campaign and personally took out ads on his behalf in two local newspapers. During a Veterams Day event at the college, well after Smith had been granted tenure, Holm approached me and apologized for the Board's action.
When I questioned Holm on why he voted to grant Smith tenure, he replied, "We had no choice. He was so popular with the students." I looked him straight in the eye and said, "What's that got to do with anything? Hitler was also very popular with the Germans." Holm turned red in the face, spun around and left. We have not spoken since.
And so it goes at College of the Marxists where students who detest all that anti-Americanism, like the police officer I talked to, continue to sit in Smith's classes and suffer in silence. And, as long as COLLEGE OF THE MAINLAND continues to support instructors who espouse anti-Americanism in mandatory Government and American History courses, I shall continue to call it "College of the Marxists."
Before the start of the affair, I talked to a young, obviously well-educated police officer about his experience in the government course he took at the college. The course was taught by David Michael Smith, an avowed Marxist. I asked the officer what he had learned about government in that course. He replied, "Nothing about government. I just sat there and kept my mouth shut." He went on to explain that students could not take Smith on because he had years of experience practicing the art of defending his (anti-American and anti-capitalist) positions.
The Marxist instructors at the college teach government, history and economics courses. Government and American History are required courses for most degrees, thereby providing these instructors with a captive audience. Since this college is a state funded institution, it is required to follow the curriculm guidelines set forth by the State of Texas. But, for the most part, that is not what the students get from their Marxist instrctors.
Marxists are imbedded in the faculties of most institutions of higher learning. Their goal is to replace capitalism with "socialism," a less abrasive term than "communism." Their teachings dwell on the evils of capitalism and proclaim the virtues of socialism. And since America is closely identified with capitalism, their teachings emphasize a littany of what they perceive to be our government's past and current domestic and foreign transgressions. That constitutes brainwashing and indoctrination, not education.
Over the years, many students at College of the Marxists have complained about being subjected to a constant drumbeat of "anti-Americanism" and the usual Marxist claptrap - America goes to war inorder to enrich the oil companies and other multi-national corporations; America exploits its workers and oppresses the masses; America is a sponsor of state terrorism; America is an imperialist power; etc..
There is no question that America has had its flaws and continues to have them. However, academic responsibility requires educators to present both sides of any controversial issue. One-sided teaching would only be justified if courses were, for example, entitled ANTI-AMERICANISM 101, EVILS OF CAPITALISM 101, or VIRTUES OF COMMUNISM 101. At least that way students are given a good clue about what to expect before enrolling in such courses.
Whenever anyone denounces their questionable classroom activities, the Marxists respond by screaming that their right of "Academic Freedom" is being attacked. That is a clever ruse used to garner the support of other faculty members, since most college teachers count on that doctrine to protect their jobs. It is astounding how few college professors actually know what academic freedom entails. And many wimpy college administators also do not understand the principles of academic freedom, or worse yet, deliberately turn a blind eye to any violations thereof. As for the trustees at College of the Marxists, they probably do not have a clue as to what Academic Freedom is really all about.
The PRINCIPLES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM were formulated years ago by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and by the American Association of University Professors. These principles were designed to protect college teachers from reprisals for expressing unpopular opinions in the classroom. However, they do not give teachers license to practice intellectual deceit and dishonesty in the classroom or to brainwash and indoctrinate their students.
Many academicians believe the Principles of Academic Freedom leave them free to say and do almost anything in the classroom without fear of retribution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The principles include specific obligations and prohibitions. Academic Freedom requires that teachers "should at all times be accurate, SHOULD EXERCISE APPROPRIATE RESTRAINT, ........... ." The principles were formulated for the "free search for truth" and "NOT TO FURTHER THE INTEREST OF ............ the individual teacher."
In 2002, some reputable community leaders and other civic-minded citizens joined me in pleading with the college's Board of Trustees not to grant David Smith tenure. My opposition was based on his violations of the Principles of Academic Freedom, on his practice of intellectual deceit, and on his attempts to brainwash and indoctrinate the students in his classroom. I figured our pleadings would fall on deaf ears. Because he is very charming and hands out good grades, it was not surprising that many students, both young and old, addressed the Board to request that Smith be granted tenure. And that is exactly what the Board did by a unanimous vote.
Ralph Holm was one of the trustees at the time. When he first ran for a position on the Board, I donated money to his election campaign and personally took out ads on his behalf in two local newspapers. During a Veterams Day event at the college, well after Smith had been granted tenure, Holm approached me and apologized for the Board's action.
When I questioned Holm on why he voted to grant Smith tenure, he replied, "We had no choice. He was so popular with the students." I looked him straight in the eye and said, "What's that got to do with anything? Hitler was also very popular with the Germans." Holm turned red in the face, spun around and left. We have not spoken since.
And so it goes at College of the Marxists where students who detest all that anti-Americanism, like the police officer I talked to, continue to sit in Smith's classes and suffer in silence. And, as long as COLLEGE OF THE MAINLAND continues to support instructors who espouse anti-Americanism in mandatory Government and American History courses, I shall continue to call it "College of the Marxists."
Thursday, April 17, 2008
A LESSON THAT SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN ALL SCHOOLS!
Here is a true story that is definitely worth repeating in my blog. This outstanding moment in classroom teaching was sent to me by a cop friend who is both civic-minded and patriotic. Too bad there are so few teachers like Martha Cothren in America's high schools.
Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock, Arkaansas did something not to be forgotten.
On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks out of herclassroom.
When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks.
Looking around, confused, they asked, "Ms. Cothren, where're our desks?"
She replied, "You can't have a desk until you tell me what you have done to earn the right to sit at a desk.
"They thought, "Well, maybe it's our grades."
"No," she said.
"Maybe it's our behavior." She told them, "No, it's not even your behavior."
And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period. Still no desks in the classroom.
By early afternoon television news crews had started gathering in Ms. Cothren's classroom to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room.
The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the floor of the deskless classroom, Martha Cothren said, "Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he/she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you." At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it.
Twenty-seven (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniforms, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and stand alongside the wall.
By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started to understand, perhaps for the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned.
Martha said, "You didn't earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. Now, it's up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an education. Don't ever forget it."
Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock, Arkaansas did something not to be forgotten.
On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks out of herclassroom.
When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks.
Looking around, confused, they asked, "Ms. Cothren, where're our desks?"
She replied, "You can't have a desk until you tell me what you have done to earn the right to sit at a desk.
"They thought, "Well, maybe it's our grades."
"No," she said.
"Maybe it's our behavior." She told them, "No, it's not even your behavior."
And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period. Still no desks in the classroom.
By early afternoon television news crews had started gathering in Ms. Cothren's classroom to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room.
The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the floor of the deskless classroom, Martha Cothren said, "Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he/she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you." At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it.
Twenty-seven (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniforms, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and stand alongside the wall.
By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started to understand, perhaps for the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned.
Martha said, "You didn't earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. Now, it's up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an education. Don't ever forget it."
Monday, April 14, 2008
RED SKELTON RECALLS HOW HIS TEACHER EXPLAINED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I know the late comedian Red Skelton's story explaining the meaning of our nation's Pledge of Allegiance has been widely distributed over the internet time and time again. Nevertheless it is such a great example of patriotism and what it means to be an American, that I consider it well-worth repeating again.
From the Red Skelton Hour, January 14, 1969
"Getting back to school, I remember a teacher that I had. Now I only went, I went through the seventh grade. I left home when I was 10 years old because I was hungry. And .. this is true. I worked in the summer and went to school in the winter. But, I had this one teacher, he was the principal of the Harrison school, in Vincennes, Indiana. To me, this was the greatest teacher, a real sage of..of my time, anyhow.
He had such wisdom. We were all reciting the Pledge of Allegiance one day, and he walked over. This little old teacher ... Mr. Lasswell was his name. He said:
"I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?
I --- me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge --- dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance --- my love and my devotion.
To the Flag [of the] --- our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.
United --- that means that we have all come together.
States [of America] --- individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose, all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.
and to the Republic For Which It Stands --- Republic ... a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
One Nation --- One Nation ... meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible --- incapable of being divided.
With Liberty --- which is freedom, the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice --- the principle or qualities of dealing fairly with others.
For All --- For all ... which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
And now boys and girls let me hear you recite,the Pledge of Allegiance.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance - "under God." Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said, "That is a prayer," and that would be eliminated from schools, too?"
Red Skelton
EDITOR'S NOTE: Our Pledge of Allegiance is very dear to my heart. This country has been very good to my family ever since we came here in 1936 as refugees from Nazi Germany. I eagerly and proudly enlisted in the U.S. Army on my 17th birthday. The GI Bill paid for most of my college education. It bothers me that Americans take their citizenship for granted and do not really appreciate what sets this country apart from most other countries in the world.
This reminds me of an occasion that I found absolutely disgusting. The college at which I taught Criminal Justice courses is located midway between Houston and Galveston, Texas. For many years, the college was controlled by a group of labor union-backed openly-avowed Marxist faculty members. That is why I call it COLLEGE OF THE MARXISTS.
I think it was in January of 1991, during the first Gulf War, that we had a scheduled general faculty and staff meeting. Before the meeting started, I approached Larry Stanley, the college's puppet (of the Marxists) president and asked him to lead the faculty in our Pledge of Allegiance. When he refused to do so, I asked him if I could do it. He answered with a resounding "No." When I asked him why not, Stanley became angry and told me: "Because this is neither the time nor the place for that." (I later learned that he refused both requests because he knew the Marxists would storm out of the auditorium had anyone started to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.)
Neither the time nor the place? I beg your pardon! You can take this to the bank - ANY TIME AND ANY PLACE IS ALWAYS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO OUR GREAT DEMOCRACY! Those who refuse to do so are, in effect, renouncing their citizenship and, in effect, declaring they are not loyal to the United States of America. Those who refuse to pledge their loyalty to this country should pack up and leave forthwith!!
From the Red Skelton Hour, January 14, 1969
"Getting back to school, I remember a teacher that I had. Now I only went, I went through the seventh grade. I left home when I was 10 years old because I was hungry. And .. this is true. I worked in the summer and went to school in the winter. But, I had this one teacher, he was the principal of the Harrison school, in Vincennes, Indiana. To me, this was the greatest teacher, a real sage of..of my time, anyhow.
He had such wisdom. We were all reciting the Pledge of Allegiance one day, and he walked over. This little old teacher ... Mr. Lasswell was his name. He said:
"I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?
I --- me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge --- dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance --- my love and my devotion.
To the Flag [of the] --- our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.
United --- that means that we have all come together.
States [of America] --- individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose, all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.
and to the Republic For Which It Stands --- Republic ... a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
One Nation --- One Nation ... meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible --- incapable of being divided.
With Liberty --- which is freedom, the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice --- the principle or qualities of dealing fairly with others.
For All --- For all ... which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
And now boys and girls let me hear you recite,the Pledge of Allegiance.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance - "under God." Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said, "That is a prayer," and that would be eliminated from schools, too?"
Red Skelton
EDITOR'S NOTE: Our Pledge of Allegiance is very dear to my heart. This country has been very good to my family ever since we came here in 1936 as refugees from Nazi Germany. I eagerly and proudly enlisted in the U.S. Army on my 17th birthday. The GI Bill paid for most of my college education. It bothers me that Americans take their citizenship for granted and do not really appreciate what sets this country apart from most other countries in the world.
This reminds me of an occasion that I found absolutely disgusting. The college at which I taught Criminal Justice courses is located midway between Houston and Galveston, Texas. For many years, the college was controlled by a group of labor union-backed openly-avowed Marxist faculty members. That is why I call it COLLEGE OF THE MARXISTS.
I think it was in January of 1991, during the first Gulf War, that we had a scheduled general faculty and staff meeting. Before the meeting started, I approached Larry Stanley, the college's puppet (of the Marxists) president and asked him to lead the faculty in our Pledge of Allegiance. When he refused to do so, I asked him if I could do it. He answered with a resounding "No." When I asked him why not, Stanley became angry and told me: "Because this is neither the time nor the place for that." (I later learned that he refused both requests because he knew the Marxists would storm out of the auditorium had anyone started to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.)
Neither the time nor the place? I beg your pardon! You can take this to the bank - ANY TIME AND ANY PLACE IS ALWAYS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO OUR GREAT DEMOCRACY! Those who refuse to do so are, in effect, renouncing their citizenship and, in effect, declaring they are not loyal to the United States of America. Those who refuse to pledge their loyalty to this country should pack up and leave forthwith!!
Friday, April 11, 2008
MODERN KEYSTONE COPS (MARCH-APRIL, 2008)
It's been two years since I've blogged any moderm keystone cop stories. Two police incidents occurred recently, each deserving of a distinguished Modern Keystone Cop award.
"HEY, STOP OR I'LL SHOOT! STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!"
Last month, a 17-year-old chimpanzee escaped from a University of Texas (UT) laboratory in Bastrop, a community not far from the university's main campus in Austin. Lab attendants in a pick-up truck darted the chimp with a tranquilizer gun, but without effect. According to the official report, the chimp jumped into the back of the pick-up truck and "took the attendant's dart gun away from him and discarded it."
The driver sped away and the chimp either fell from the truck or jumped out of it. The chimp then advanced toward a UT police officer. According to the report, "The chimpanzee started flailing its arms. The officer shouted at least twice that he was going to shoot." In fear for his safety, the officer then fired several times at the advancing chimp, killing him.
Now I can understand how the officer would be in fear for his life. But, warning the chimp at least twice that he was going to shoot? Did he shout in chimpanzeenese which, just as Jews and Italians do while talking, involves the flailing of one's arms and hands? Or, as a college cop, did he simply mistake that ape for a rampaging dope-crazed unkempt naked UT student?
Obviously the chimp did not stop. Maybe that was because in the excitement, when he warned the chimp, the officer forgot to follow the accepted attention-getting police practice of beginning each warning by shouting: "HEY, ASSHOLE!"
"I BET YOU TEN PESOS I CAN HIT THAT THING FROM HERE."
Earlier this month, a large group of Mexican police officers were firing their weapons at a shooting range in Tapachula, a city in southern Mexico's state of Chiapas. One of the officers fired his gun and struck a hive of Africanized (killer) bees. CARAMBA !!!!!!!!
The killer bees swarmed at the cops and at least 70 officers were stung bad enough to be hospitalized. Score: Killer Bees 70 - Killer Cops 1. At least 10 of the officers were hospitalized in serious condition. If you get hold of a Spanish-English dictionary, you can bet there is no English transaltion for the language used by the officers while they were being stung.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The chimpanzee that was shot in Bastrop most probably would have understood the shouts used by the Mexican cops as they flailed their arms in the midst of the swarming bees.
"HEY, STOP OR I'LL SHOOT! STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!"
Last month, a 17-year-old chimpanzee escaped from a University of Texas (UT) laboratory in Bastrop, a community not far from the university's main campus in Austin. Lab attendants in a pick-up truck darted the chimp with a tranquilizer gun, but without effect. According to the official report, the chimp jumped into the back of the pick-up truck and "took the attendant's dart gun away from him and discarded it."
The driver sped away and the chimp either fell from the truck or jumped out of it. The chimp then advanced toward a UT police officer. According to the report, "The chimpanzee started flailing its arms. The officer shouted at least twice that he was going to shoot." In fear for his safety, the officer then fired several times at the advancing chimp, killing him.
Now I can understand how the officer would be in fear for his life. But, warning the chimp at least twice that he was going to shoot? Did he shout in chimpanzeenese which, just as Jews and Italians do while talking, involves the flailing of one's arms and hands? Or, as a college cop, did he simply mistake that ape for a rampaging dope-crazed unkempt naked UT student?
Obviously the chimp did not stop. Maybe that was because in the excitement, when he warned the chimp, the officer forgot to follow the accepted attention-getting police practice of beginning each warning by shouting: "HEY, ASSHOLE!"
"I BET YOU TEN PESOS I CAN HIT THAT THING FROM HERE."
Earlier this month, a large group of Mexican police officers were firing their weapons at a shooting range in Tapachula, a city in southern Mexico's state of Chiapas. One of the officers fired his gun and struck a hive of Africanized (killer) bees. CARAMBA !!!!!!!!
The killer bees swarmed at the cops and at least 70 officers were stung bad enough to be hospitalized. Score: Killer Bees 70 - Killer Cops 1. At least 10 of the officers were hospitalized in serious condition. If you get hold of a Spanish-English dictionary, you can bet there is no English transaltion for the language used by the officers while they were being stung.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The chimpanzee that was shot in Bastrop most probably would have understood the shouts used by the Mexican cops as they flailed their arms in the midst of the swarming bees.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
AAA FAILS TO DELIVER
A former student and long-time friend asked me to blog her unfortunate experience with a prominent motor club because, according to her, I had such a "way with words" and could "blast all holy hell at Triple A." Well, I could not have put it any better myself, so here in her own words is what happened.
I want you to put a story on your blog for me.
A friend of mine and I were in Clear Lake (a Houston suburb) tonight. We stopped at the Popeye's on Bay Area at Space Center. She locked her keys in her truck. Then the fun began.
She called Triple A at 9:00 pm.
We were told it'd be 40 minutes.
She told them that her dog was locked in the truck and the windows were not rolled down; they promised to "put a rush on it."
She called back at 9:45 and was told that they needed another 45 minutes.
I called at 9:57 using my Triple A card and was told that they were "trying to find someone to come out and help us."
I was put on hold for about ten minutes while the lady mumbled and typed on her computer. I finally told her my cell phone was going dead. She said "I'm sorry."
I then asked if she had found someone else yet. She again said "I'm trying to find someone."
I then told her it was a pretty sorry state of affairs when two women were left in a dark parking lot.....alone....both of them with Triple A memberships....and NO ONE in the Houston / Clear Lake area could come to help them.
I was then told that I could call a wrecker myself and they would "SEE if I could get reimbursed."
By now it was 10:15 and she said again that it would be at least 30 more minutes.
At 10:45 my friends husband showed up... driving all the way from their home south of Alvin (a neighboring city) and unlocked the truck.
We left at 10:50.....and still there was no wrecker in sight...........
Tomorrow......we are both cancelling our memberships with Triple A.
I'm sure that you....with your way with words... can blast all holy hell at Triple A. It's a sad thing when two Senior Citizens.......women......one disabled.... are left in a dark parking lot for almost two hours with no help coming.........and with a dog locked in the truck. (It's a good thing it wasn't summer time and hot.....the dog would have been in sad shape.)
Ok.....that's it....I've vented....thanks for listening...
I certainly don't blame these two ladies for cancelling their AAA memberships. They might have been better served had they called for police assistance. Some police agencies will allow their officers to carry "slim jims" for this purpose. This incident should serve as a warning to those expecting a rapid response for roadside assistance from AAA, or from any other motor club or insurance company for that matter.
I would, however, like to add one comment: NEVER, EVER LEAVE A DOG LOCKED UP UNATTENDED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE!
I want you to put a story on your blog for me.
A friend of mine and I were in Clear Lake (a Houston suburb) tonight. We stopped at the Popeye's on Bay Area at Space Center. She locked her keys in her truck. Then the fun began.
She called Triple A at 9:00 pm.
We were told it'd be 40 minutes.
She told them that her dog was locked in the truck and the windows were not rolled down; they promised to "put a rush on it."
She called back at 9:45 and was told that they needed another 45 minutes.
I called at 9:57 using my Triple A card and was told that they were "trying to find someone to come out and help us."
I was put on hold for about ten minutes while the lady mumbled and typed on her computer. I finally told her my cell phone was going dead. She said "I'm sorry."
I then asked if she had found someone else yet. She again said "I'm trying to find someone."
I then told her it was a pretty sorry state of affairs when two women were left in a dark parking lot.....alone....both of them with Triple A memberships....and NO ONE in the Houston / Clear Lake area could come to help them.
I was then told that I could call a wrecker myself and they would "SEE if I could get reimbursed."
By now it was 10:15 and she said again that it would be at least 30 more minutes.
At 10:45 my friends husband showed up... driving all the way from their home south of Alvin (a neighboring city) and unlocked the truck.
We left at 10:50.....and still there was no wrecker in sight...........
Tomorrow......we are both cancelling our memberships with Triple A.
I'm sure that you....with your way with words... can blast all holy hell at Triple A. It's a sad thing when two Senior Citizens.......women......one disabled.... are left in a dark parking lot for almost two hours with no help coming.........and with a dog locked in the truck. (It's a good thing it wasn't summer time and hot.....the dog would have been in sad shape.)
Ok.....that's it....I've vented....thanks for listening...
I certainly don't blame these two ladies for cancelling their AAA memberships. They might have been better served had they called for police assistance. Some police agencies will allow their officers to carry "slim jims" for this purpose. This incident should serve as a warning to those expecting a rapid response for roadside assistance from AAA, or from any other motor club or insurance company for that matter.
I would, however, like to add one comment: NEVER, EVER LEAVE A DOG LOCKED UP UNATTENDED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE!
Sunday, April 06, 2008
WHO ARE WE - THE WELL-OFF AND THE WELL-FED - TO POINT FINGERS?
Since my retirement, I have been doing volunteer work - four years with a police agaency, then eight years at a big zoo, and now more than two years at a nature center. Needless to say, the paid staff and most of the volunteer workers at the zoo and at the nature center are environmentalists.
I too support the protection of our environment. I belong to The Nature Conservancy, which has been judged best of all the environmental groups. Unlike many organizations, such as the Sierra Club, with their obnoxious monthly petitions and solicitations, The Nature Conservancy goes about quietly buying up land for preservation, both in this country and abroad. I also belong to several wildlife organizations.
Last week, some of the volunteers at the nature center were rather upset over all the tree cutting that takes place just to produce paper products. That led to a discussion of the deforestization that goes on all over the world. While I would personally like to see every tree preserved, I asked the other volunteers, "Who are we to point fingers?" Then I went on to explain why I raised the question.
I have made eight extended trips to the Amazon. Over the years, I have spent time in the Amazonian territories of Venezuela (twice), Peru (four times), Ecuador, Columbia and Brazil. I love the beauty and peacefulness of the rain forest. I really enjoyed hiking through and camping in the jungle. I was always fascinated by leaf cutter ants and could sit and watch them for hours at a time. At night, the sky is full of bright stars. Because the only way of getting around is by foot or boat, there is no pollution from gasoline or diesel engine emissions. (Some of the "half-civilized" Indians have outfitted their dugouts with outboard motors.) By visiting their villages, I learned a lot about the Indians who live in the Amazon.
The people who live within or at the edge of jungles in Latin America, Africa and Asia are extremely poor. They probably earn less than the equivalent of $100 a year. They hunt all types of wildlife for food, including rodents, monkeys and other primates. They cut down trees to clear land for growing crops and to build their dwellings. Some of the more primitive Amazon tribes keep having to relocate their villages to accomodate rainy and dry season topographical changes, thus causing more trees to be cut. Those who live in poverty, with their daily struggle to survive, cannot afford the luxury of being environmentally friendly.
I truly love wild animals. I hate to see them slaughtered for any reason. While at the zoo, I worked in its primate section. I especially loved our orangutans and our lone gorilla. It never really bothered me when the orangutans would splatter me with spit, as they often did. What bothers me is the killing for bush meat of orangutans, gorillas and other primates in the wild. And it really bothers me that deforestization, for whatever reason, is shrinking the natural habitats of orangutans and gorillas, thereby threatening their survival and that of other wildlife species. But, the tree cutting and the primate slaughter play a major role in a primitive people's desperate attempts to survive.
I doubt if we really understand the plight of the impoverished peoples of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Those who are poverty stricken in the industrialized West - especially in the U.S. - are wealthy compared to the third world's poor who are barely getting by. When a magnificent elephant is slaughtered for its ivory, the poacher's impoverished village will end up enjoying a better life. Thanks to the illegal drug trade, the cultivation of opium poppies in Afghanistan and the cultivation of coca leaves in the Andes enables impoverished farmers there to earn a better income. Because we are so well-off, it is easy for us to condemn the poor for their role in the trafficking of ivory and illegal drugs.
I have personally observed some logging activities in the Peruvian Amazon. I have also observed a number of oil rigs being drilled or operating in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Did these activities mess up the beautiful jungle? Yes, they sure did! But, the logging companies and the oil companies pay the Indians for the right to cut trees and to drill for oil. And, I've seen the oil companies construct modern school buildings for the Indians. I've also seen them build comfortable tourist lodges in the jungle. Those lodges are then owned and run by the Indians, providing them with a steady source of income.
Granted, the logging and oil companies do not pay the Amazon Indians anywhere near the royalties they pay landowners in the United States. And, the drilling for oil in the jungles is done without many of the environmental protection measures required for drilling in the Western World. But, who are we - the well-off - to point fingers at others and condemn environmentally damaging activities that improve the lives of impoverished people in other parts of the world? And who are we - the well-fed - to point fingers at and condemn those who hunt Orangutans, Gorillas and other primates in order to provide their hungry families with meat to eat?
I too support the protection of our environment. I belong to The Nature Conservancy, which has been judged best of all the environmental groups. Unlike many organizations, such as the Sierra Club, with their obnoxious monthly petitions and solicitations, The Nature Conservancy goes about quietly buying up land for preservation, both in this country and abroad. I also belong to several wildlife organizations.
Last week, some of the volunteers at the nature center were rather upset over all the tree cutting that takes place just to produce paper products. That led to a discussion of the deforestization that goes on all over the world. While I would personally like to see every tree preserved, I asked the other volunteers, "Who are we to point fingers?" Then I went on to explain why I raised the question.
I have made eight extended trips to the Amazon. Over the years, I have spent time in the Amazonian territories of Venezuela (twice), Peru (four times), Ecuador, Columbia and Brazil. I love the beauty and peacefulness of the rain forest. I really enjoyed hiking through and camping in the jungle. I was always fascinated by leaf cutter ants and could sit and watch them for hours at a time. At night, the sky is full of bright stars. Because the only way of getting around is by foot or boat, there is no pollution from gasoline or diesel engine emissions. (Some of the "half-civilized" Indians have outfitted their dugouts with outboard motors.) By visiting their villages, I learned a lot about the Indians who live in the Amazon.
The people who live within or at the edge of jungles in Latin America, Africa and Asia are extremely poor. They probably earn less than the equivalent of $100 a year. They hunt all types of wildlife for food, including rodents, monkeys and other primates. They cut down trees to clear land for growing crops and to build their dwellings. Some of the more primitive Amazon tribes keep having to relocate their villages to accomodate rainy and dry season topographical changes, thus causing more trees to be cut. Those who live in poverty, with their daily struggle to survive, cannot afford the luxury of being environmentally friendly.
I truly love wild animals. I hate to see them slaughtered for any reason. While at the zoo, I worked in its primate section. I especially loved our orangutans and our lone gorilla. It never really bothered me when the orangutans would splatter me with spit, as they often did. What bothers me is the killing for bush meat of orangutans, gorillas and other primates in the wild. And it really bothers me that deforestization, for whatever reason, is shrinking the natural habitats of orangutans and gorillas, thereby threatening their survival and that of other wildlife species. But, the tree cutting and the primate slaughter play a major role in a primitive people's desperate attempts to survive.
I doubt if we really understand the plight of the impoverished peoples of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Those who are poverty stricken in the industrialized West - especially in the U.S. - are wealthy compared to the third world's poor who are barely getting by. When a magnificent elephant is slaughtered for its ivory, the poacher's impoverished village will end up enjoying a better life. Thanks to the illegal drug trade, the cultivation of opium poppies in Afghanistan and the cultivation of coca leaves in the Andes enables impoverished farmers there to earn a better income. Because we are so well-off, it is easy for us to condemn the poor for their role in the trafficking of ivory and illegal drugs.
I have personally observed some logging activities in the Peruvian Amazon. I have also observed a number of oil rigs being drilled or operating in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Did these activities mess up the beautiful jungle? Yes, they sure did! But, the logging companies and the oil companies pay the Indians for the right to cut trees and to drill for oil. And, I've seen the oil companies construct modern school buildings for the Indians. I've also seen them build comfortable tourist lodges in the jungle. Those lodges are then owned and run by the Indians, providing them with a steady source of income.
Granted, the logging and oil companies do not pay the Amazon Indians anywhere near the royalties they pay landowners in the United States. And, the drilling for oil in the jungles is done without many of the environmental protection measures required for drilling in the Western World. But, who are we - the well-off - to point fingers at others and condemn environmentally damaging activities that improve the lives of impoverished people in other parts of the world? And who are we - the well-fed - to point fingers at and condemn those who hunt Orangutans, Gorillas and other primates in order to provide their hungry families with meat to eat?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
AN ENDORSEMENT OF JOHN McCAIN
While I think this unknown writer's endorsement of John McCain is quite a bit over the top, I could not resist the urge to reproduce it in this blog.
"After long and serious thought, I have decided to endorse Senator John McCain for President.
I have always voted for the person and have not voted for anyone because some political party was telling me who I should vote for.
We all know the choices by now and, that said, I do believe that the process of selecting a chief executive is deeply flawed. The words 'money' and 'special intersts' come to mind, among many others.
Here's the way I see it: (The writer then goes on to state at great length why he would not vote for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.)
Which leaves us with Senator John McCain.
John, you are a flawed man. You are a bit old, a bit looney, and you have a notoriously bad temper. This perfectly qualifies you, in my humble opinion, to lead us for the next eight years. I want your trembling hand on the nuclear button.
Think about it.
We have Kim Jong IL, Chavez and Ahmadenijad all running around like lunatics, threatening America and threatening to plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon. We have Putin and the Chinese blustering and rattling their sabres at us. I want John McCain in the Oval Office and I want him to be really pissed off at all these other nut jobs around the planet.
John, once you are elected, I want you to go into the Oval Office and throw one of your perfect tantrums. Jump up and down and throw something through a plate glass window. Rip the drapes down and foam at the mouth a bit. And I want the whole thing on camera so that Ahmadinejad can see it. I want all of these 'world leaders' to lay awake at night and to break out in a cold sweat every time they think of messing with the United States of America.
I want the nuclear button sitting right next to the alarm clock on your night stand. I want pictures of this to be sent to Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and those other assholes in the sheets, the Saudis.
On the domestic front, poor John did try and reach across the aisle to the opposition in a desperate effort to compromise and to get the Congress to do something. You may not agree with his efforts, but at least he tried. For all his efforts, all he got handed to him was his head in a basket. The liberals are pissed at him and the conservatives are pissed at him. Just my kinda guy.
I predict that John will select Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Good choice. I want a Jew whose memory of the Holocaust is still fresh in his mind and who is royally pissed off at all of these towel-headed morons in the Middle East to be the next in line if something should happen to John. Shalom, Vice President Joe. One heartbeat from the Oval Office.
Finally. John McCain knows on a most personal level what it is to suffer horrible torture for years and to see others die, right in front of you, for their love of America. When you ask him about it, he will tell you that what he did was 'nothing special.' Even more incredibly, he states that any American who truly loves his country would do exactly the same as he did in that situation. You and I will have a hard time believing that, but the real point is that John McCain believes that about the 'average American,' and that, dear friends and neighbors, is why I will cast my one poor ballot for on election day for John McCain -- warts and all."
"After long and serious thought, I have decided to endorse Senator John McCain for President.
I have always voted for the person and have not voted for anyone because some political party was telling me who I should vote for.
We all know the choices by now and, that said, I do believe that the process of selecting a chief executive is deeply flawed. The words 'money' and 'special intersts' come to mind, among many others.
Here's the way I see it: (The writer then goes on to state at great length why he would not vote for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.)
Which leaves us with Senator John McCain.
John, you are a flawed man. You are a bit old, a bit looney, and you have a notoriously bad temper. This perfectly qualifies you, in my humble opinion, to lead us for the next eight years. I want your trembling hand on the nuclear button.
Think about it.
We have Kim Jong IL, Chavez and Ahmadenijad all running around like lunatics, threatening America and threatening to plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon. We have Putin and the Chinese blustering and rattling their sabres at us. I want John McCain in the Oval Office and I want him to be really pissed off at all these other nut jobs around the planet.
John, once you are elected, I want you to go into the Oval Office and throw one of your perfect tantrums. Jump up and down and throw something through a plate glass window. Rip the drapes down and foam at the mouth a bit. And I want the whole thing on camera so that Ahmadinejad can see it. I want all of these 'world leaders' to lay awake at night and to break out in a cold sweat every time they think of messing with the United States of America.
I want the nuclear button sitting right next to the alarm clock on your night stand. I want pictures of this to be sent to Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and those other assholes in the sheets, the Saudis.
On the domestic front, poor John did try and reach across the aisle to the opposition in a desperate effort to compromise and to get the Congress to do something. You may not agree with his efforts, but at least he tried. For all his efforts, all he got handed to him was his head in a basket. The liberals are pissed at him and the conservatives are pissed at him. Just my kinda guy.
I predict that John will select Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Good choice. I want a Jew whose memory of the Holocaust is still fresh in his mind and who is royally pissed off at all of these towel-headed morons in the Middle East to be the next in line if something should happen to John. Shalom, Vice President Joe. One heartbeat from the Oval Office.
Finally. John McCain knows on a most personal level what it is to suffer horrible torture for years and to see others die, right in front of you, for their love of America. When you ask him about it, he will tell you that what he did was 'nothing special.' Even more incredibly, he states that any American who truly loves his country would do exactly the same as he did in that situation. You and I will have a hard time believing that, but the real point is that John McCain believes that about the 'average American,' and that, dear friends and neighbors, is why I will cast my one poor ballot for on election day for John McCain -- warts and all."
AN AMERICAN HERO'S MESSAGE
I know that Col. Repya's message has been floating around the internet for the past year or so, but it is so compelling that I am reproducing it in this blog.
Lt. Col. Joe Repya’s "I’m tired" message expressing disappointment with public support for the U.S. military mission in Iraq.
"I’m Tired"
Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I’ll return to Iraq to finish my tour. I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam. Maybe it’s because I’ll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I’m tired:
I’m tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.
I’m tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.
I’m tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they ‘Support the Troops’ by wanting them to ‘Cut and Run’ before victory is achieved.
I’m tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having on the battlefield.
I’m tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy over night.
I’m tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament.
I’m tired of the so called ‘Elite Left’ that prolongs this war by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.
I’m tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. A family who’s loved ones gave their life in a just and noble cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly protesters is beyond shameful.
I’m tired that my generation, the Baby Boom-Vietnam generation, have such a weak backbone that they can’t stomach seeing the difficult tasks through to victory.
I’m tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of captives than they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and allies. I’m tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by thepress, but mistreat a prisoner and it is front page news.
Mostly, I’m tired that the people of this great nation didn’t learn from history that there is no substitute for Victory.
Sincerely,
Joe Repya,
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
101st Airborne Division
Lt. Col. Joe Repya’s "I’m tired" message expressing disappointment with public support for the U.S. military mission in Iraq.
"I’m Tired"
Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I’ll return to Iraq to finish my tour. I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam. Maybe it’s because I’ll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I’m tired:
I’m tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.
I’m tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.
I’m tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they ‘Support the Troops’ by wanting them to ‘Cut and Run’ before victory is achieved.
I’m tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having on the battlefield.
I’m tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy over night.
I’m tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament.
I’m tired of the so called ‘Elite Left’ that prolongs this war by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.
I’m tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. A family who’s loved ones gave their life in a just and noble cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly protesters is beyond shameful.
I’m tired that my generation, the Baby Boom-Vietnam generation, have such a weak backbone that they can’t stomach seeing the difficult tasks through to victory.
I’m tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of captives than they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and allies. I’m tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by thepress, but mistreat a prisoner and it is front page news.
Mostly, I’m tired that the people of this great nation didn’t learn from history that there is no substitute for Victory.
Sincerely,
Joe Repya,
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
101st Airborne Division
WORLD COURT AND THE PRESIDENT REBUFFED
Good for the U.S. Supreme Court. Last month, the court ruled 6-3 that the President had no right to order the States to abide by a ruling of the International Court of Justice (World Court) which required the retrial of 51 Mexican nationals who had been sentenced to death in our courts without having been advised of their right to seek and obtain assistance from the Mexican consulate.
In my blog, INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSICE MEDDLES IN OUR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS (10-19-07), I was very critical of the World Court's interference in our criminal justice system. When we signed the 1963 Vienna Convention, which requires the U.S. to abide by the World Court's decisions, we never foresaw the possibility of that court injecting itself into any of our domestic issues.
The case before the Supreme Court involved the death sentence of Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, who had been convicted of the 1993 brutal rape-murder of two Houston teenaged girls. At the time of his arrest, Medellin was not advised of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate as required by the Vienna Convention.
In 2003, Mexico went to the World Court on behalf of Medellin and 50 other Mexican citizens who had been sentenced to death in the U.S. without having been advised of their right to seek consular assistance. Although their guilt was never in question, the court ruled in Mexico's favor and ordered that the 51 Mexican death row inmates be retried because they had not been advised of that right.
In response to the World Court's decision, President Bush ordered the States to hold new sentencing hearings for the condemned Mexicans. It was the Medellin case which the State of Texas chose for its appeal of the President's order. Texas was joined before the Supreme Court by 28 other States. Mexico filed a brief before the Court and was joined by 12 other Latin American countries as well as by most European nations.
The majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the President was wrong in ordering the States to hold new sentencing hearings because the World Court had no right to impose its will on the sovereignty of the United States. Justice David Souter and the court's most liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
There are those who claim this decision will harm Americans arrested outside of the United States because other countries may retaliate by denying our citizens the right of seeking U.S. consular assistance. I believe that claim is nothing but a red herring. There are already a number of countries which do not extend that right to our citizens or to citizens of any other country for that matter. I doubt they will be joined by others, and that includes Mexico.
In effect, the Supreme Court has told the World Court to butt out of our domestic affairs. The real reason Mexico was joined by other Latin American countries and by the Europeans is that, over many years, all of them have condemned us for imposing the death penalty. But that is our business and not any of their damn business!!!
In my blog, INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSICE MEDDLES IN OUR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS (10-19-07), I was very critical of the World Court's interference in our criminal justice system. When we signed the 1963 Vienna Convention, which requires the U.S. to abide by the World Court's decisions, we never foresaw the possibility of that court injecting itself into any of our domestic issues.
The case before the Supreme Court involved the death sentence of Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, who had been convicted of the 1993 brutal rape-murder of two Houston teenaged girls. At the time of his arrest, Medellin was not advised of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate as required by the Vienna Convention.
In 2003, Mexico went to the World Court on behalf of Medellin and 50 other Mexican citizens who had been sentenced to death in the U.S. without having been advised of their right to seek consular assistance. Although their guilt was never in question, the court ruled in Mexico's favor and ordered that the 51 Mexican death row inmates be retried because they had not been advised of that right.
In response to the World Court's decision, President Bush ordered the States to hold new sentencing hearings for the condemned Mexicans. It was the Medellin case which the State of Texas chose for its appeal of the President's order. Texas was joined before the Supreme Court by 28 other States. Mexico filed a brief before the Court and was joined by 12 other Latin American countries as well as by most European nations.
The majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the President was wrong in ordering the States to hold new sentencing hearings because the World Court had no right to impose its will on the sovereignty of the United States. Justice David Souter and the court's most liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
There are those who claim this decision will harm Americans arrested outside of the United States because other countries may retaliate by denying our citizens the right of seeking U.S. consular assistance. I believe that claim is nothing but a red herring. There are already a number of countries which do not extend that right to our citizens or to citizens of any other country for that matter. I doubt they will be joined by others, and that includes Mexico.
In effect, the Supreme Court has told the World Court to butt out of our domestic affairs. The real reason Mexico was joined by other Latin American countries and by the Europeans is that, over many years, all of them have condemned us for imposing the death penalty. But that is our business and not any of their damn business!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)