Please bear with me if I seem to be belaboring my opinons about the Muslim faith. I do not want to offend those liberal Muslims in the United States who are loyal American citizens and who do not support Islamic militancy. However, I am compelled to respond to an op ed piece by Javeed Akhter which originally appeared in the Baltimore Sun.
Dr. Akhter, a physician, is a founding member of the International Strategy and Policy Institute, a Muslim-American think tank. In his article, Dr. Akhter pictures true Islam as a peaceful and human-life defending faith. He claims that only a "tiny but loud fraction of clerics" preach a "minority ideology" which is a "lethal misinterpretation of the verses" in the Quran. He charges that those clerics pick and chose a few verses out of the holy book to justify violence.
According to Dr. Akhter, Islam protects human life because the Quran states "If you save one life, it is as if you have saved all mankind." He claims suicide bombers break the faith because suicide "is explicitly prohibited in Islam. Injunctions of the Quran and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad prohibit it in unequivocal terms."
Dr. Akhter also claims "killing of the innocents is expressly prohibed" by a verse in the Quran which reads "If you have taken an innocent life, it is as if you have killed all humanity." I'm afraid that Dr. Akhter is himself misinterpreting his holy book. The Quran verses on saving lives and not taking innocent lives do not apply to infidels, but only to the believers in Islam.
The Quran clearly proclaims "Death to the infidels." And, the Prophet Muhammad commanded the faithful to spread Islam "by the sword." The term "suicide bombers" is one coined by us Westerners. By Islamic standards, they are not committing suicide. Islam considers those we call "suicide bombers" to be brave warriors engaged in jihad (holy war) who will be rewarded with martyrdom when they blow themselves up.
Byran Daly, co-director of the new film ISLAM, WHAT THE WEST NEEDS TO KNOW, gave a picture much different from that of Dr. Akhter when he appeared on MSNBC's "Tucker" July 16, 2007. Daly emphasized that the Prophet Mohammed was an aggressive and cruel warrior, and that Islam was far from a peaceful religion hijacked by a small mninority. Following are some exerpts from the program transcript.
Daly stated "Allah orders Muslims to conquer the world and institute the laws of Allah over the whole earth through warfare, following the example of Mohammed's conquest of the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century. His order is set down in the Koran, which is the immutable eternal word of Allah. It stands for all time and cannot be changed or questioned from an Islamic standpoint." By the 17th century, Islam had conquered much of the world before being stopped by the superior power of Western civilization.
Daly also stated that the Prophet Mohammed "was not a pacifist preacher, but was a very successful warlord." Daly described Islam as not just a religion, but also as a political force "that it was always meant to be." Islam is a governing "theocracy that does not divide church and state, the religious and the secular." The Quran directs the faithful to go forth and establish Caliphates by force throughout the world.
Dr. Akhter is guilty of using the same tactics he accuses his alleged tiny fraction of Islamic clerics as using - picking and chosing select verses from the Quran to prove a point. And, he is being intentionally disingenuous as he knows very well his asserted fraction of clerics applies only to the Western world. In Muslim countries, clerics in many mosques and madrassahs (religious schools) preach jihad, referring to numerous passages in the Quran which call for the slaughter of infidels.
Contrary to Dr. Akhter's assertion that Islam is a peaceful and kindly religion, history has shown and continues to show that the Muslim faith has always been and remains a militant religious movement which resorts to killing innocent men, women and children in carrying out the Quran's conversionist and expansionist commands.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
AN ARDENT HARD-LINE SUPPORTER OF ISRAEL
When I first started blogging, I had every intenntion of concentrating on criminal justice-related matters. However, as you have seen, I have published quite a number of blogs on Israel and on the fallacy of "moderate" Muslims. I admit that I am biased and you know that I am an ardent hard-line supporter of the State of Israel. Let me explain why.
I was born in Germany. My parents and I came to the United States in 1936, three years after Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party came to power. My father had been in command of a German army machine gun platoon during World War I. He served on the Eastern front until he was wounded in Poland. After he recovered from his wounds, he was awarded the Iron Cross and served on the Western front until the end of the war.
When the Nazis came to power, my father was forced out of a management position with Germany's largest department store chain and he was arrested and detained for a time by the Gestapo. Although he had always been a law-abiding patriotic German citizen, my father lost a very good job and was arrested simply because he was Jewish. He saw the handwriting on the wall and we left Germany for the United States. Millions of other Jews were not as fortunate.
We were able to come to America only because we had distant relatives here who were willing to sponsor us by guaranteeing to look after our basic needs. It was easy to leave Germany because the Nazis were glad to get rid of the Jews. The families of two uncles and an aunt also came to America. Another uncle drowned in the English Channel when, bound for Argentina, his ship struck a mine and sank.
When the rest of the world became aware of Hitler's "final solution," the Nazi term for the extermination of the Jews, did it open its doors to Jewish refugees? No, it did not. It stood idly by while six million Jews were exterminated during the holocaust. The Muslim world, on the contrary, applauded Hitler's attempt to rid the world of Jews. Even the United States, which during the Nazi era was beset with endemic anti-Semitism, refused entry to Jews who were unable to obtain an American sponsor and, thereby, must share some of the responsibility for those put to death in Hitler's extermination camps.
Where were the victims of Nazi persecution to go? Since biblical times, Jews have lived continually in the land which became known as Palestine, albeit in relatively small numbers. In 1917, The Balfour Declaration, named after the British prime minister at the time, expressed Britain's support for the establishment of a national Jewish homeland in Palestine. However, even after the end of World War II, the British, under pressure from the Arabs, turned back shiploads of Jewish refugees attempting to land in what was to become the State of Israel.
Today, there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism throughout Europe. That hatred of Jews is fueled by Muslims and neo-Nazis. A concerted effort to boycott Israel is being led by the same intellectuals and left-wing academics who have always sided with the Palestinians and accuse the Israelis of Naziism.
In the United States, left-wing academics have succeeded in getting a number of well-known universities to divest themselves of any investments they held in Israel. Former President Jimmy Carter, never a friend of the Jewish state, falsely accuses Israel of committing atrocities against the Palestinians and of practicing South African style apartheid.
The college from which I retired in 1993 had a number of avowed Marxists on its faculty. This element controlled the college administration by getting a majority of trade union members elected to its board of trustees. The Marxists, hiding behind the doctrine of Academic Freedom, persistently condemned American free enterprise and our government's domestic and international policies, never once saying anything positive about the good old U.S.A.. And, of course, they constantly attacked Israel in their one-siced lectures.
Israel is the only country in the world which welcomes Jews no matter where they come from. It took in most of the few holocaust survivors because no other country wanted them. It took in many Jews from Poland and the former Soviet Union, both of which have had a long history of virulent anti-Semitism. Israel is the only refuge for Jews who are being oppressed simply because they are Jews. So, now you know why I am an ardent supporter of Israel. And, why am I a hard-liner? Because the Muslim world is firmly committed to the destruction of Israel.
Israel is being pressured by the international community to make suicidal concessions to the Palestinians. Israel cannot afford to give up all of the West Bank if it is to have secure and defensible borders. It cannot give up East Jerusalem for the same reason. It cannot accept the return of Palestinian refugees. All of the Arab demands are designed to bring about the eventual disappearance of the Jewish state. If that were to happen, what country will take in the unwanted Jews of the world?
I was born in Germany. My parents and I came to the United States in 1936, three years after Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party came to power. My father had been in command of a German army machine gun platoon during World War I. He served on the Eastern front until he was wounded in Poland. After he recovered from his wounds, he was awarded the Iron Cross and served on the Western front until the end of the war.
When the Nazis came to power, my father was forced out of a management position with Germany's largest department store chain and he was arrested and detained for a time by the Gestapo. Although he had always been a law-abiding patriotic German citizen, my father lost a very good job and was arrested simply because he was Jewish. He saw the handwriting on the wall and we left Germany for the United States. Millions of other Jews were not as fortunate.
We were able to come to America only because we had distant relatives here who were willing to sponsor us by guaranteeing to look after our basic needs. It was easy to leave Germany because the Nazis were glad to get rid of the Jews. The families of two uncles and an aunt also came to America. Another uncle drowned in the English Channel when, bound for Argentina, his ship struck a mine and sank.
When the rest of the world became aware of Hitler's "final solution," the Nazi term for the extermination of the Jews, did it open its doors to Jewish refugees? No, it did not. It stood idly by while six million Jews were exterminated during the holocaust. The Muslim world, on the contrary, applauded Hitler's attempt to rid the world of Jews. Even the United States, which during the Nazi era was beset with endemic anti-Semitism, refused entry to Jews who were unable to obtain an American sponsor and, thereby, must share some of the responsibility for those put to death in Hitler's extermination camps.
Where were the victims of Nazi persecution to go? Since biblical times, Jews have lived continually in the land which became known as Palestine, albeit in relatively small numbers. In 1917, The Balfour Declaration, named after the British prime minister at the time, expressed Britain's support for the establishment of a national Jewish homeland in Palestine. However, even after the end of World War II, the British, under pressure from the Arabs, turned back shiploads of Jewish refugees attempting to land in what was to become the State of Israel.
Today, there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism throughout Europe. That hatred of Jews is fueled by Muslims and neo-Nazis. A concerted effort to boycott Israel is being led by the same intellectuals and left-wing academics who have always sided with the Palestinians and accuse the Israelis of Naziism.
In the United States, left-wing academics have succeeded in getting a number of well-known universities to divest themselves of any investments they held in Israel. Former President Jimmy Carter, never a friend of the Jewish state, falsely accuses Israel of committing atrocities against the Palestinians and of practicing South African style apartheid.
The college from which I retired in 1993 had a number of avowed Marxists on its faculty. This element controlled the college administration by getting a majority of trade union members elected to its board of trustees. The Marxists, hiding behind the doctrine of Academic Freedom, persistently condemned American free enterprise and our government's domestic and international policies, never once saying anything positive about the good old U.S.A.. And, of course, they constantly attacked Israel in their one-siced lectures.
Israel is the only country in the world which welcomes Jews no matter where they come from. It took in most of the few holocaust survivors because no other country wanted them. It took in many Jews from Poland and the former Soviet Union, both of which have had a long history of virulent anti-Semitism. Israel is the only refuge for Jews who are being oppressed simply because they are Jews. So, now you know why I am an ardent supporter of Israel. And, why am I a hard-liner? Because the Muslim world is firmly committed to the destruction of Israel.
Israel is being pressured by the international community to make suicidal concessions to the Palestinians. Israel cannot afford to give up all of the West Bank if it is to have secure and defensible borders. It cannot give up East Jerusalem for the same reason. It cannot accept the return of Palestinian refugees. All of the Arab demands are designed to bring about the eventual disappearance of the Jewish state. If that were to happen, what country will take in the unwanted Jews of the world?
Monday, July 09, 2007
A RESPONSE TO "JUST GET ANOTHER LINE OF WORK"
A retired state police official responded to my blog, JUST GET ANOTHER LINE OF WORK, which mosly concerned the Houston mayor's cavalier attitude about a mother trying to meet her autisitc child's treatment costs by working as a topless dancer. Here is what he wrote:
"I regulated topless bars for many years. The majority of the topless dancers that I arrested for durg possession, prostitution, public lewdness and a host of other unsavory offenses professed to be student nurses just trying to pay their way through college. In fact, most of them were drug addicted prostitutes who were pimped out by their outlaw biker 'old man.'
I remember you being assaulted by a topless dancer that we arrested in a southwest Houston strip club. She really kicked the shit out of you! One of her forms of identification was a methadone treatment card.
I used to get complaints from a lot of wives that their husbands had been stolen from, beaten up or succumbed to temptations of the flesh at topless bars. If a person thinks that the people who work at these places are above participating in criminal behavior, then they must believe all topless daners are student nurses."
How well I remember getting kicked in the shin. Ouch! Just being reminded about it makes me feel the pain all over again. And, I was just along as an observer. How did my friend, the retired police official, respond to the kicking? He laughed like hell as I "did the chicken."
"I regulated topless bars for many years. The majority of the topless dancers that I arrested for durg possession, prostitution, public lewdness and a host of other unsavory offenses professed to be student nurses just trying to pay their way through college. In fact, most of them were drug addicted prostitutes who were pimped out by their outlaw biker 'old man.'
I remember you being assaulted by a topless dancer that we arrested in a southwest Houston strip club. She really kicked the shit out of you! One of her forms of identification was a methadone treatment card.
I used to get complaints from a lot of wives that their husbands had been stolen from, beaten up or succumbed to temptations of the flesh at topless bars. If a person thinks that the people who work at these places are above participating in criminal behavior, then they must believe all topless daners are student nurses."
How well I remember getting kicked in the shin. Ouch! Just being reminded about it makes me feel the pain all over again. And, I was just along as an observer. How did my friend, the retired police official, respond to the kicking? He laughed like hell as I "did the chicken."
JUST GET ANOTHER LINE OF WORK
The City of Houston has been battling sexually oriented establishments for a decade, spending more than $1 million in legal costs so far while defending an ordinance which prohibts the location of such businesses within 1,500 feet of schools, churches, child day-care givers and parks. In effect, this ordinance would force all sexually oriented business - topless clubs, massage parlors, spas, nude "tanning" salons and some adult bookstores - out of the city.
In yesterday's edition of the Houston Chronicle, there was a featured story on the controversy between the city and this industry. The article called attention to the plight of a mother with an autisitc child. She worked as a topless dancer in an upscale club in order to pay for her daughter's therapy which has cost her some $60,000 in the past year. She did not earn enough in her previous employment to cover the child's treatment costs and her living expenses.
The mayor of Houston has been adamant in his defense ot the 1,500 foot restriction. He readily admits he would like to see all sexually oriented businesses driven out of the city. He dismissed the plight of the mother with the autistic child by suggesting she obtain another line of work. "There's bound to be a better way to address the challenges of a young mother trying to take care of a child and make ends meet than ..... have her take off all her clothes and dance in front of strangers," the mayor was quoted as saying.
The mayor's cavalier and callous dismissal of that mother's plight is very easy to make if you are a mult-millionaire, which the mayor is. He needs to get real. A young mother without professional skills will be unable to obtain the kind of employment which will earn her enough to meet costly medical expenses in addition to her living expesnses. The mayor's attitude is akin to Marie Antoinette's attitude about her hungry French subjects - "Let them eat cake."
I'm neither in favor of nor opposed to topless clubs. The only times I've been to these places was as a vice officer or by accompanying police officers when I was a criminal justice professor. The lap dancing that goes on in these extablishments is a disgusting form of prostitution. Massage parlors, spas and nude "tanning" salons are nothing more than fronts for prostitution and I wouldn't lose any sleep if they were all driven out of town.
The topless clubs would not be in business if there was not a big demand for that type of entertainment. For topless clubs, 500 feet would seem to be a more reasonable distance than the 1,500 foot restriction sought by the City of Houston. Although many topless dancers are prostitutes and drug addicts, frequent on-site police checks would help protect nearby surroundings by deterring unlawful activies within these establishments.
In yesterday's edition of the Houston Chronicle, there was a featured story on the controversy between the city and this industry. The article called attention to the plight of a mother with an autisitc child. She worked as a topless dancer in an upscale club in order to pay for her daughter's therapy which has cost her some $60,000 in the past year. She did not earn enough in her previous employment to cover the child's treatment costs and her living expenses.
The mayor of Houston has been adamant in his defense ot the 1,500 foot restriction. He readily admits he would like to see all sexually oriented businesses driven out of the city. He dismissed the plight of the mother with the autistic child by suggesting she obtain another line of work. "There's bound to be a better way to address the challenges of a young mother trying to take care of a child and make ends meet than ..... have her take off all her clothes and dance in front of strangers," the mayor was quoted as saying.
The mayor's cavalier and callous dismissal of that mother's plight is very easy to make if you are a mult-millionaire, which the mayor is. He needs to get real. A young mother without professional skills will be unable to obtain the kind of employment which will earn her enough to meet costly medical expenses in addition to her living expesnses. The mayor's attitude is akin to Marie Antoinette's attitude about her hungry French subjects - "Let them eat cake."
I'm neither in favor of nor opposed to topless clubs. The only times I've been to these places was as a vice officer or by accompanying police officers when I was a criminal justice professor. The lap dancing that goes on in these extablishments is a disgusting form of prostitution. Massage parlors, spas and nude "tanning" salons are nothing more than fronts for prostitution and I wouldn't lose any sleep if they were all driven out of town.
The topless clubs would not be in business if there was not a big demand for that type of entertainment. For topless clubs, 500 feet would seem to be a more reasonable distance than the 1,500 foot restriction sought by the City of Houston. Although many topless dancers are prostitutes and drug addicts, frequent on-site police checks would help protect nearby surroundings by deterring unlawful activies within these establishments.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
BY ALLAH, THOSE WHO CURE YOU WILL KILL YOU
The recent terrorist acts in London and Glasgow should put to rest all that malarkey about "radical" and "moderate" Muslims. Seven of eight suspects arrested worked for the British National Health Service, six of them as physicians who are supposed to cure you, not kill you. These terrorists were not poor uneducated Muslims angry at their miserable lot in the United Kingdom. The eighth suspect, also a medical doctor, was arrested in Australia.
If you read my blog MILITANT MUSLIMS: EXTREMISTS OR TRUE BELIEVERS? (June 16, 2006), you know that I have long believed the terms "radical" and "moderate" when applied to Muslims are a lot of baloney. As with the Christian and Jewish faiths, what you find are Muslims who are fundamentalists and Muslims who are reformist.
The fundamentalists are not extremists or radicals. They are the true believers. Fundamentalist Christians interpret the Bible literally. Fundamentalist Muslims interpret the Quran literally. As with Reform Jews, Muslims who have assimilated into Western societies have diluted their religious beliefs so as to fit in with and be accepted by their predominantly Christian neighbors.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East, in Africa, in the Caucasus, on the Indian subcontinent and in Southeast Asia are fundamentalists - the true believers in Islam. So are those who live in the unassimilated Muslim communities which exist throughout Europe.
To the fundamentalists the words of the Quran are sacred. Muhammad commanded the faithful to spread Islam "by the sword" and the Quran calls for "death to the infidels." Among the true believers with their literal interpretation of the Quran, suicide bombers are a fringe group of militant Muslims who are willing to die as martyrs in the name of Allah.
Recent surveys reveal that the young Muslim population of Britain sympathizes with and supports suicide bombers. A significant number of all British Muslims prefer Sharia (Islamic religious law) over secular law. These "moderate" Muslims also support the murdering of Jews in the United Kingdom simply because they are Jews. They expresss little, if any, disapproval of atrocities committed by militant Muslims.
One of the doctors in the Glasgow attack deliberately set himself on fire and repeatedly shouted "Allah achbar" (God is great) before authorities doused the flames. Since the end of the Cold War, almost all acts of international terrorism have been committed by Muslims shouting "Allah achbar."
Rarely has the "moderate" Muslim community ever condemned any of these acts of terror. Fundamentalist clerics in the United States and Europe preach Jihad (holy war) against the West. When is the politically correct crowd going to cut out all this malarkey about 99 percent of Muslims being moderate?
If you read my blog MILITANT MUSLIMS: EXTREMISTS OR TRUE BELIEVERS? (June 16, 2006), you know that I have long believed the terms "radical" and "moderate" when applied to Muslims are a lot of baloney. As with the Christian and Jewish faiths, what you find are Muslims who are fundamentalists and Muslims who are reformist.
The fundamentalists are not extremists or radicals. They are the true believers. Fundamentalist Christians interpret the Bible literally. Fundamentalist Muslims interpret the Quran literally. As with Reform Jews, Muslims who have assimilated into Western societies have diluted their religious beliefs so as to fit in with and be accepted by their predominantly Christian neighbors.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East, in Africa, in the Caucasus, on the Indian subcontinent and in Southeast Asia are fundamentalists - the true believers in Islam. So are those who live in the unassimilated Muslim communities which exist throughout Europe.
To the fundamentalists the words of the Quran are sacred. Muhammad commanded the faithful to spread Islam "by the sword" and the Quran calls for "death to the infidels." Among the true believers with their literal interpretation of the Quran, suicide bombers are a fringe group of militant Muslims who are willing to die as martyrs in the name of Allah.
Recent surveys reveal that the young Muslim population of Britain sympathizes with and supports suicide bombers. A significant number of all British Muslims prefer Sharia (Islamic religious law) over secular law. These "moderate" Muslims also support the murdering of Jews in the United Kingdom simply because they are Jews. They expresss little, if any, disapproval of atrocities committed by militant Muslims.
One of the doctors in the Glasgow attack deliberately set himself on fire and repeatedly shouted "Allah achbar" (God is great) before authorities doused the flames. Since the end of the Cold War, almost all acts of international terrorism have been committed by Muslims shouting "Allah achbar."
Rarely has the "moderate" Muslim community ever condemned any of these acts of terror. Fundamentalist clerics in the United States and Europe preach Jihad (holy war) against the West. When is the politically correct crowd going to cut out all this malarkey about 99 percent of Muslims being moderate?
Monday, July 02, 2007
HONEY, YOU GOTTA HURRY BACK, I'M DYING!
Recently, I published a blog on the unfortunate encounter our dog Angie and I had with a skunk. Most of my freinds who read that blog thought the incident was hilarious. So, I thought I'd reach back a number of years, 53-plus to be axact, and give you another self-deprecating tale of woe.
My significant other and I had been married less than a year. I was teaching at a high school in Dallas. Back in those days cancer was incurable if not deteted in its earliest stage. The newspapers, radio and television all carried frequent warnings about "the seven danger signals of cancer." You guessed it - I had at least a couple of those suckers. Of course, so did just about everyone else. My danger signals consisted of chronic abdominal pain and excessive gas.
As we were approaching the two-week Christmas-New Year school break, I decided I would apply for a medical examination at the Dallas Veterans Hospital. When I was accepted and told I would be hospitalized for at least a week, I suggested to the wife that she visit her folks who lived on a farm in Oklahoma just across the state line from Kansas. Because we did not have enough money for her to fly, she decided to take the "milk train," a term used to describe a train that stopped at every small town on its route.
In those days, if you were an ambulatory patient in a VA hospital, you went to eat in a chow hall rather than in the ward. You also helped other patients get around whenever you could. The hospital had a theater and during my third evening there, I decided to go see a movie. After the movie, another patient in a wheel chair asked me if I could push him to the elevator so he could return to his ward.
On the way to the elevator this patient, a middle aged man, asked me what I was in the hospital for. When I described my symptoms, this guy broke down completely and started crying. I asked him what was the matter. "Three weeks ago, I checked in with exactly the same problems. Last week they opened me up and found out I had cancer and they've given me only a few months to live. And, you're so young."
That was another one of those "oh shit" moments. I felt like I'd been kicked in the stomach by a horse. My legs started to buckle and I had to support myself on his wheelchair. As soon as I got him to the elevator, I turned away and staggered to the nearest pay phone. I called my bride collect. She had only arrived at the farm a few hours earlier.
When she came to the phone, the first thing I blubbered out was, "Honey, you gotta hurry back, I'm dying!" You can imagine her reaction. After we both calmed down somewhat, I explained to her that, according to the dying patient with the same symptoms, I had cancer. She said she would catch the milk train back the next morneing. That made me feel a tiny bit better.
The next morning I skipped breakfast, remaining in bed and stewing in self-pity. When the doctors came by while making their rounds, the lead physician noticed my awful appearance and asked me what was wrong. When I told him that I knew I had cancer and had only a short time left on this earth, he wanted to know what gave me that idea.
I told him about my experience of the previous evening. Then he really lid into me. "You dumb shit, we don't know yet what's wrong with you, but we do know you don't have cancer and your're certainly not dying." I replied, "Oh yes I am." When he wanted to know what I meant, I told him about my phone call to the wife and said, "When she gets back here, she's going to kill me!" The doctor said, "I'll help her."
Anyway, I've learned to live with my spastic colon, now referred to as irritable bowel syndrome. And, it was a miracle - the wife did not kill me, kick my ass, or divorce me. But, the honeymoon was definitely over.
My significant other and I had been married less than a year. I was teaching at a high school in Dallas. Back in those days cancer was incurable if not deteted in its earliest stage. The newspapers, radio and television all carried frequent warnings about "the seven danger signals of cancer." You guessed it - I had at least a couple of those suckers. Of course, so did just about everyone else. My danger signals consisted of chronic abdominal pain and excessive gas.
As we were approaching the two-week Christmas-New Year school break, I decided I would apply for a medical examination at the Dallas Veterans Hospital. When I was accepted and told I would be hospitalized for at least a week, I suggested to the wife that she visit her folks who lived on a farm in Oklahoma just across the state line from Kansas. Because we did not have enough money for her to fly, she decided to take the "milk train," a term used to describe a train that stopped at every small town on its route.
In those days, if you were an ambulatory patient in a VA hospital, you went to eat in a chow hall rather than in the ward. You also helped other patients get around whenever you could. The hospital had a theater and during my third evening there, I decided to go see a movie. After the movie, another patient in a wheel chair asked me if I could push him to the elevator so he could return to his ward.
On the way to the elevator this patient, a middle aged man, asked me what I was in the hospital for. When I described my symptoms, this guy broke down completely and started crying. I asked him what was the matter. "Three weeks ago, I checked in with exactly the same problems. Last week they opened me up and found out I had cancer and they've given me only a few months to live. And, you're so young."
That was another one of those "oh shit" moments. I felt like I'd been kicked in the stomach by a horse. My legs started to buckle and I had to support myself on his wheelchair. As soon as I got him to the elevator, I turned away and staggered to the nearest pay phone. I called my bride collect. She had only arrived at the farm a few hours earlier.
When she came to the phone, the first thing I blubbered out was, "Honey, you gotta hurry back, I'm dying!" You can imagine her reaction. After we both calmed down somewhat, I explained to her that, according to the dying patient with the same symptoms, I had cancer. She said she would catch the milk train back the next morneing. That made me feel a tiny bit better.
The next morning I skipped breakfast, remaining in bed and stewing in self-pity. When the doctors came by while making their rounds, the lead physician noticed my awful appearance and asked me what was wrong. When I told him that I knew I had cancer and had only a short time left on this earth, he wanted to know what gave me that idea.
I told him about my experience of the previous evening. Then he really lid into me. "You dumb shit, we don't know yet what's wrong with you, but we do know you don't have cancer and your're certainly not dying." I replied, "Oh yes I am." When he wanted to know what I meant, I told him about my phone call to the wife and said, "When she gets back here, she's going to kill me!" The doctor said, "I'll help her."
Anyway, I've learned to live with my spastic colon, now referred to as irritable bowel syndrome. And, it was a miracle - the wife did not kill me, kick my ass, or divorce me. But, the honeymoon was definitely over.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
HOW CAN ISRAEL MAKE PEACE WITH AN ENEMY SWORN TO DESTROY IT?
Egyptian President Mubarak has just finished hosting a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and King Abdullah II of Jordan. This conference was designed to show support for Abbas and his "moderate" Fatah movement in their life and death struggle with Hamas.
The United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations have banded together as the Quartet with the purpose of achieving a Mideast peace. The Quartet supports and will provide economic and millitary aid to Fatah, while pressuring Israel to restart negotiations with Abbas on "the road map to peace" designed to establish an independent Palestinian state.
The Quartet trusts and expects Israel to trust an entity which is better known for corruption than for good governance, its officials having lined their own pockets by siphoning off millions of dollars in international aid. And the irony of it all is that the United States will join the rest of the Quartet in pressuring Israel to make concessions to the very same people who cheered and danced in the streets while celebrating the deaths of 3,000 men, women and children in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
There is only one problem. The road map to peace leads down a highway which ends with the disappearance of Israel. Most followers of Islam, including the Palestinians and the Saudis, are committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. The Saudis have proposed an Arab Peace Initiative which requires Israel to retreat to it's pre-1967 borders, to give up East Jerusalem, and to accept the right of return for the Palestinian refugees.
The Saudi "peace" plan is strongly backed by Abbas. It would leave Israel with defenseless borders. It would inundate Israel with a "fifth column" of millions of Arab refugees, thus destroying the Jewishness of the State. It was proposed by a people who applauded and supported Hitler's "final solution," the extermination of the Jews. It was proposed by a people who now claim the Holocaust was a hoax. Abbas has threatened war if Israel does not accept the Saudi plan. If Israel is to survive, THE ARAB PEACE INITIATIVE IS A NON-STARTER!
The United Nations and Russia, both of which have a long history of siding with the Arabs against Israel, are backing the Saudi Plan. The Saudis, who teach their school children that Jews are apes and Christians are swine, engage in the vilest forms of anti-Semitism. However, their hatred is not limited to Jews - the Saudis hate all infidels and advocate Jihad against non-blievers.
When adddressing the West, Abbas expresses a willingness to co-exist with Israel, but he sings a different tune to the Arab world. Time after time he has promised to fight "the occupation," a term used to describe the Jewish occupation of Palestinian lands - and for the Arabs that means THE WHOLE STATE OF ISRAEL, not just Gaza and the West Bank.
How then can Israel make peace with an enemy sworn to destroy it? For starters, in Israel's case, it must have a strong resolute Prime Minister, one who can stand up to the international community when it pressures the Jewish State to make self-destructive concessions to the Palestinians. Ehud Olmert is certainly not that man. He will wilt under international pressure. The only Israeli leader with the fortitude and strength to stand up to the international community is Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, head of the Likud party. So, before the Israelis can even begin to think about peace, they will have to elect Netanyahu as their Prime Minister.
In order to survive an enemy that aims to annihilate it, Israel must have borders that it can defend. That requires it to be more than only nine miles wide, which it now is at its narrowest point. This means that Israel cannot give up all of the West Bank. It must retain that part of the West Bank which contains major Jewish settlements. These settlements must be maintained and remain within the final boundaries of Israel, rather than abandoned as demanded by the Arabs.
The Jewish State must retain access to the Jordan River, its water being Israel's life-blood. It must keep most of the Golan Heights so that it can defend itself better from a possible attack by the Syrians. And, most certainly, Israel cannot give up East Jerusalem which would, under control of the Palestinians, be a dagger pointed at the heart of the Jewish State.
Israel must strengthen its armed forces. The war with Hezbollah, which was so badly mismanaged by an incompetent Ehud Olmert, revealed that Israel was incapable of defeating a guerilla militia. The weaknesses shown by the army must be corrected by developing new tactics to deal with unconventional guerilla warfare and to stop deadly rocket attacks against Israeli military and civilian targets. And above all, Israel must continue to develop its nuclear weapons, always leaving the nuclear option on the table.
Israel can only survive if it is armed to the teeth with secure and defensible borders. That is not acceptable to the left-wing Peace Now movement, Israel's peaceniks, which believes the lie that the Palestinians only want a state of their own, co-existing peacefully alongside the Jewish State. Peace Now is willing to pay almost any price to achieve an end to the current hostilities. And of course, an Israel which retains any part of the West Bank and retains all of Jerusalem is not acceptable to the Arabs either.
In the end, however, the Palestinians may yet accept these conditions if that is the only way to achieve their own statehood. Bibi Netanyahu is the only Israeli leader who will make the kind peace with the Arabs which will not lead to the eventual destruction of the Jewish State. Israel will continue to be attacked by Arab militants waging a war of attrition, even if it gives up all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A peace of sorts is better than the international community's alternative - a peace which leaves Israel defenseless and leaves it to be swallowed up by its sworn enemies.
The United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations have banded together as the Quartet with the purpose of achieving a Mideast peace. The Quartet supports and will provide economic and millitary aid to Fatah, while pressuring Israel to restart negotiations with Abbas on "the road map to peace" designed to establish an independent Palestinian state.
The Quartet trusts and expects Israel to trust an entity which is better known for corruption than for good governance, its officials having lined their own pockets by siphoning off millions of dollars in international aid. And the irony of it all is that the United States will join the rest of the Quartet in pressuring Israel to make concessions to the very same people who cheered and danced in the streets while celebrating the deaths of 3,000 men, women and children in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
There is only one problem. The road map to peace leads down a highway which ends with the disappearance of Israel. Most followers of Islam, including the Palestinians and the Saudis, are committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. The Saudis have proposed an Arab Peace Initiative which requires Israel to retreat to it's pre-1967 borders, to give up East Jerusalem, and to accept the right of return for the Palestinian refugees.
The Saudi "peace" plan is strongly backed by Abbas. It would leave Israel with defenseless borders. It would inundate Israel with a "fifth column" of millions of Arab refugees, thus destroying the Jewishness of the State. It was proposed by a people who applauded and supported Hitler's "final solution," the extermination of the Jews. It was proposed by a people who now claim the Holocaust was a hoax. Abbas has threatened war if Israel does not accept the Saudi plan. If Israel is to survive, THE ARAB PEACE INITIATIVE IS A NON-STARTER!
The United Nations and Russia, both of which have a long history of siding with the Arabs against Israel, are backing the Saudi Plan. The Saudis, who teach their school children that Jews are apes and Christians are swine, engage in the vilest forms of anti-Semitism. However, their hatred is not limited to Jews - the Saudis hate all infidels and advocate Jihad against non-blievers.
When adddressing the West, Abbas expresses a willingness to co-exist with Israel, but he sings a different tune to the Arab world. Time after time he has promised to fight "the occupation," a term used to describe the Jewish occupation of Palestinian lands - and for the Arabs that means THE WHOLE STATE OF ISRAEL, not just Gaza and the West Bank.
How then can Israel make peace with an enemy sworn to destroy it? For starters, in Israel's case, it must have a strong resolute Prime Minister, one who can stand up to the international community when it pressures the Jewish State to make self-destructive concessions to the Palestinians. Ehud Olmert is certainly not that man. He will wilt under international pressure. The only Israeli leader with the fortitude and strength to stand up to the international community is Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, head of the Likud party. So, before the Israelis can even begin to think about peace, they will have to elect Netanyahu as their Prime Minister.
In order to survive an enemy that aims to annihilate it, Israel must have borders that it can defend. That requires it to be more than only nine miles wide, which it now is at its narrowest point. This means that Israel cannot give up all of the West Bank. It must retain that part of the West Bank which contains major Jewish settlements. These settlements must be maintained and remain within the final boundaries of Israel, rather than abandoned as demanded by the Arabs.
The Jewish State must retain access to the Jordan River, its water being Israel's life-blood. It must keep most of the Golan Heights so that it can defend itself better from a possible attack by the Syrians. And, most certainly, Israel cannot give up East Jerusalem which would, under control of the Palestinians, be a dagger pointed at the heart of the Jewish State.
Israel must strengthen its armed forces. The war with Hezbollah, which was so badly mismanaged by an incompetent Ehud Olmert, revealed that Israel was incapable of defeating a guerilla militia. The weaknesses shown by the army must be corrected by developing new tactics to deal with unconventional guerilla warfare and to stop deadly rocket attacks against Israeli military and civilian targets. And above all, Israel must continue to develop its nuclear weapons, always leaving the nuclear option on the table.
Israel can only survive if it is armed to the teeth with secure and defensible borders. That is not acceptable to the left-wing Peace Now movement, Israel's peaceniks, which believes the lie that the Palestinians only want a state of their own, co-existing peacefully alongside the Jewish State. Peace Now is willing to pay almost any price to achieve an end to the current hostilities. And of course, an Israel which retains any part of the West Bank and retains all of Jerusalem is not acceptable to the Arabs either.
In the end, however, the Palestinians may yet accept these conditions if that is the only way to achieve their own statehood. Bibi Netanyahu is the only Israeli leader who will make the kind peace with the Arabs which will not lead to the eventual destruction of the Jewish State. Israel will continue to be attacked by Arab militants waging a war of attrition, even if it gives up all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A peace of sorts is better than the international community's alternative - a peace which leaves Israel defenseless and leaves it to be swallowed up by its sworn enemies.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
ABBAS AND HIS "MODERATE" PALESTINIANS
Now that Hamas had taken complete control of the Gaza strip, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has dissolved the Hamas-Fatah unity government and formed an emergency government of ministers from the Fatah movement which controls the West Bank. The United States and the European Union view Abbas and the Fatah led Palestinian Authority as "moderates" and were quick to promise their support for and aid to the emergency government and the Fatah militia.
The Bush Administration and the Europeans believe that, because the extremist Hamas movement has now been isolated, this is the best opportunity to pursue a new peace initiative between the Israelis and the Palestinians. President Bush cajoled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, an incompetent idiot, to support Abbas and the Fatah movement, and to restart negotiations with the goal of establishing a sovereign Palestinian state existing peacefully side by side with a secure Jewish state.
Just how "moderate" are Abbas and his cronies? For starters, all Muslims question the legitimacy of Israel and the overwhelming majority want to see the Jewish State wiped off the map. The Palestinians, including Abbas and his Fatah supporters, are the most committed to the destruction of Israel. They have hoodwinked the government of United States, the Europeans, and even the left-wing in Israel, into believing that the Palestinians only want a state of their own alongside the Jewish state, co-existing peacefully and happily ever after. To see the true face of the Palestinian Authority, one need only look at recent statements made and/or accepted by the so-called "moderates."
On April 20, 2007, Ahmed Bahr, the acting speaker of the Palestinian Authority's legislative council, made this statement: "ALLAH WILLING, AMERICA AND ISRAEL WILL BE ANNIHILATED ... COUNT THEM AND KILLTHEM TO THE LAST ONE AND DON'T LEAVE EVEN ONE."
On January 11, 2007, Mahmoud Abbas, speaking as President of the Palestinian Authority while addressing a rally of 250,000 in Ramallah, made this statement: "OUR RIFLES, ALL OUR RIFLES ARE AIMED AT THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION ... IT IS FORBIDDEN TO USE THESE GUNS AGAINST PALESTINIANS." The rally celebrated the founding of the terrorist Fatah party which Abbas co-founded with the late Yasser Arafat. It is important to note that when the Palestinians refer to the "OCCUPATION" they mean the occupation of all of Palestine, AND THAT INCLUDES THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
In fact, the position of Abbas and his cronies is not much different than that of Hamas. Mahmoud A-Zahar, the Foreign Minister in the former Hamas-Fatah unity government, put forth the position that the struggle must continue for the complete obliteration of Israel. On March 25, 2007, the Palestinian Authority's Al-Ayyam newspaper quoted this statement by A-Zahar: "OUR POSITION IS THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE, ALL OF PALESTINE. THIS IS THE FINAL AND STRATEGIC SOLUTION FOR US." Although a member of Hamas, A-Zahar's statement has not been repudiated by Abbas or any other member of Fatah. "The Final Solution" - Wasn't that Hitler's term for the extermination of the Jews?
The United States, the European Union and the United Nations jumped on the bandwagon of the recent Arab Peace Initiative put forth by the Saudis at an Arab summit in Riyadh. The Americans and Europeans refer to the Saudis as "moderates," but nothing could be further from the truth. Presently, textbooks in the government schools of "moderate" Saudi Arabia refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Islam, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread Islam by waging Jihad against Christians and Jews. So much for moderation. Why then would the Saudis want to co-exist with a nation of apes allied with American swine?
At the closing ceremonies of the Arab summit, Abbas flat out warned of war if Israel rejected the Saudi "peace" initiative which calls for (1) the establishment of a Palestinian state in all of the territories captured in 1967, (2) the surrender by Israel of East Jerusalem to become the capitol of Palestine, and (3) the right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees. In effect, the Saudi plan would require Israel to retreat to its 1949 boundary and displace over 250,000 Jews from their homes, businesses and farms. An additional 200,000 Jews would be forced to leave their homes and businesses in East Jerusalem.
The United Nations, which has been historically unfriendly to the State of Israel, endorsed the Saudi plan when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told Arab leaders: "The Arab Peace Initiative is one of the pillars for the peace process ... This initiative sends a signal that the Arabs are serious about achieving peace." What a joke! This plan would leave Israel's borders indefensible and East Jerusalem would become a dagger pointed at the heart of the Jewish state. And with this plan, Israel would be inundated with Palestianian refugees. The Saudi "peace" initiative is nothing more than a prescription designed to achieve the eventual destruction of Israel.
I have published several blogs on the fate of Israel and on the Muslim world's committment to the annihilation of Israel. I have always thought that Olmert was not the man to lead the Jewish state. (Refer to my blog ISRAEL'S FUTURE SURVIVAL AFTER SHARON, January 7, 2006.) Olmert proved to be an incompetent idiot in the way he conducted the war against Hezbollah. As a result he is very unpopular now and his days are numbered. Israel still needs Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud party, as prime minister. Netanyahu is the only Israeli leader with the resolve to resist the pressure from the international community for concessions which will lead to the eventual disappearance of the Jewish state from the world map.
Why do the United States and the European Union keep pressuring Israel to make concessions? Think of a three letter word - oil. They, especially the Europeans, are so dependent on the Middle East's oil that they will do anything to curry favor with the Arabs. Why do they keep labeling the Saudis, Abbas, and Fatah as "moderates?" It is easier to gain public approval when you are currying good relations with Arabs who are not "radical." It is easier to pressure Israel into making self-destructive concesskons to Palestinians who are not "radical."
The Arabs are committed to the destruction of Israel and are willing, if necessaary, to let several generations pass if that's what it takes before that goal is accomplished. Theocracism and secularism aside, what then is the difference between those who openly call for the destruction of Israel and the "moderates" of the Palestinian Authority? This is the only difference - Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are openly proclaiming their determination to annihilate Israel, while Abbas and his "moderate" Palestinians promise peaceful co-existence, but with a hidden agenda designed to achieve exactly the same goal - the disappearance of the Jewish state.
The Bush Administration and the Europeans believe that, because the extremist Hamas movement has now been isolated, this is the best opportunity to pursue a new peace initiative between the Israelis and the Palestinians. President Bush cajoled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, an incompetent idiot, to support Abbas and the Fatah movement, and to restart negotiations with the goal of establishing a sovereign Palestinian state existing peacefully side by side with a secure Jewish state.
Just how "moderate" are Abbas and his cronies? For starters, all Muslims question the legitimacy of Israel and the overwhelming majority want to see the Jewish State wiped off the map. The Palestinians, including Abbas and his Fatah supporters, are the most committed to the destruction of Israel. They have hoodwinked the government of United States, the Europeans, and even the left-wing in Israel, into believing that the Palestinians only want a state of their own alongside the Jewish state, co-existing peacefully and happily ever after. To see the true face of the Palestinian Authority, one need only look at recent statements made and/or accepted by the so-called "moderates."
On April 20, 2007, Ahmed Bahr, the acting speaker of the Palestinian Authority's legislative council, made this statement: "ALLAH WILLING, AMERICA AND ISRAEL WILL BE ANNIHILATED ... COUNT THEM AND KILLTHEM TO THE LAST ONE AND DON'T LEAVE EVEN ONE."
On January 11, 2007, Mahmoud Abbas, speaking as President of the Palestinian Authority while addressing a rally of 250,000 in Ramallah, made this statement: "OUR RIFLES, ALL OUR RIFLES ARE AIMED AT THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION ... IT IS FORBIDDEN TO USE THESE GUNS AGAINST PALESTINIANS." The rally celebrated the founding of the terrorist Fatah party which Abbas co-founded with the late Yasser Arafat. It is important to note that when the Palestinians refer to the "OCCUPATION" they mean the occupation of all of Palestine, AND THAT INCLUDES THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
In fact, the position of Abbas and his cronies is not much different than that of Hamas. Mahmoud A-Zahar, the Foreign Minister in the former Hamas-Fatah unity government, put forth the position that the struggle must continue for the complete obliteration of Israel. On March 25, 2007, the Palestinian Authority's Al-Ayyam newspaper quoted this statement by A-Zahar: "OUR POSITION IS THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE, ALL OF PALESTINE. THIS IS THE FINAL AND STRATEGIC SOLUTION FOR US." Although a member of Hamas, A-Zahar's statement has not been repudiated by Abbas or any other member of Fatah. "The Final Solution" - Wasn't that Hitler's term for the extermination of the Jews?
The United States, the European Union and the United Nations jumped on the bandwagon of the recent Arab Peace Initiative put forth by the Saudis at an Arab summit in Riyadh. The Americans and Europeans refer to the Saudis as "moderates," but nothing could be further from the truth. Presently, textbooks in the government schools of "moderate" Saudi Arabia refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Islam, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread Islam by waging Jihad against Christians and Jews. So much for moderation. Why then would the Saudis want to co-exist with a nation of apes allied with American swine?
At the closing ceremonies of the Arab summit, Abbas flat out warned of war if Israel rejected the Saudi "peace" initiative which calls for (1) the establishment of a Palestinian state in all of the territories captured in 1967, (2) the surrender by Israel of East Jerusalem to become the capitol of Palestine, and (3) the right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees. In effect, the Saudi plan would require Israel to retreat to its 1949 boundary and displace over 250,000 Jews from their homes, businesses and farms. An additional 200,000 Jews would be forced to leave their homes and businesses in East Jerusalem.
The United Nations, which has been historically unfriendly to the State of Israel, endorsed the Saudi plan when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told Arab leaders: "The Arab Peace Initiative is one of the pillars for the peace process ... This initiative sends a signal that the Arabs are serious about achieving peace." What a joke! This plan would leave Israel's borders indefensible and East Jerusalem would become a dagger pointed at the heart of the Jewish state. And with this plan, Israel would be inundated with Palestianian refugees. The Saudi "peace" initiative is nothing more than a prescription designed to achieve the eventual destruction of Israel.
I have published several blogs on the fate of Israel and on the Muslim world's committment to the annihilation of Israel. I have always thought that Olmert was not the man to lead the Jewish state. (Refer to my blog ISRAEL'S FUTURE SURVIVAL AFTER SHARON, January 7, 2006.) Olmert proved to be an incompetent idiot in the way he conducted the war against Hezbollah. As a result he is very unpopular now and his days are numbered. Israel still needs Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud party, as prime minister. Netanyahu is the only Israeli leader with the resolve to resist the pressure from the international community for concessions which will lead to the eventual disappearance of the Jewish state from the world map.
Why do the United States and the European Union keep pressuring Israel to make concessions? Think of a three letter word - oil. They, especially the Europeans, are so dependent on the Middle East's oil that they will do anything to curry favor with the Arabs. Why do they keep labeling the Saudis, Abbas, and Fatah as "moderates?" It is easier to gain public approval when you are currying good relations with Arabs who are not "radical." It is easier to pressure Israel into making self-destructive concesskons to Palestinians who are not "radical."
The Arabs are committed to the destruction of Israel and are willing, if necessaary, to let several generations pass if that's what it takes before that goal is accomplished. Theocracism and secularism aside, what then is the difference between those who openly call for the destruction of Israel and the "moderates" of the Palestinian Authority? This is the only difference - Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are openly proclaiming their determination to annihilate Israel, while Abbas and his "moderate" Palestinians promise peaceful co-existence, but with a hidden agenda designed to achieve exactly the same goal - the disappearance of the Jewish state.
Monday, June 18, 2007
SCALES OF JUSTICE IN THE DUKE RAPE CASE
The Duke rape case turned into a nightmare for the entire Duke lacrosse team and especially for the three team members identified and indicted as the perpetrators. Duke University was accused of being a hotbed of white privilege, racism and sexism. Professors rushed to judgement and encouraged inflammatory demonstrations against the accused which were then fueled by some out-of-state loudmouths.
Now that the accused - Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty - have been declared innocent, has justice been served? Not entirely. Let's take a look at the degree of justice exacted on those - the accuser, the prosecutor, the professors, the reverends and the Duke administration - who had a major impact on the lives of the accused, using a scale of zero to ten.
THE ACCUSER. Crystal Gail Mangum, a 28 year old black single mother of three children, accused three white Duke lacrosse players of gang raping and brutalizing her at an off-campus team party where she performed as a stripper to help pay her way through North Carolina Central University, a predominantly black school. Eventually DNA tests revealed the presence of semen from several men, none of whom were members of the lacrosse team.
The accuser has been totally discredited and the three indicted team members have been declared innocent by the Attorney General of North Carolina who had taken over the case from the local prosecutor. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 3. At most, her reputation has been sullied. Although she should be, Mangum will not be prosecuted for perjury or for making false accusations. Not long after she made her accusations, she was video taped pole dancing in a strip joint.
THE ROGUE PROSECUTOR. Last Saturday, Mike Nifong had his law license revoked for "Dishonest and Deceitful" conduct in a trial by a panel of the State Bar. The panel disbarred Nifong for lying to the court, for withholding exculpatory DNA evidence, for misleading the news media, and for making prejudicial public statements against the acccused.
Has justice finally been served with the disbarment of Nifong? Not yet. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 7. He probably will not face criminal charges. Lawsuits are expected to be filed against Nifong by the accused whose lives were ruined and by their families who were forced to spend untold sums of money for the defense of their falsely accused sons.
THE GROUP OF 88. The rape was alleged to have occurred on March 13, 2006. On April 6, well before anyone had been charged in this case, 88 faculty and staff took out a full page ad in the Duke Chronicle, a campus student newspaper. The rush to judgement ad was initiated by professors in Duke's African and African-American Studies department. They were joined by faculty and staff, mostly professors, from 13 departments in the humanities discipline. They became known as the Group of 88.
The ad referred to the alleged rape as a "social disaster" and declared that, according to student testimonials, Duke University was rife with racism and sexism. The ad was instrumental in inflaming hatred against white Duke athletes and against the three accused lacrosse players. Individually, some of the professors condemned the lacrosse team and demanded they confess to what occurred at the off-campus team party. Other professors encouraged demonstrations against the accused. Some apparently gave bad grades to students because they were on the lacrosse team.
Once the accused players had been declared innocent, there was a demand that the Group of 88 take out another ad apologizing for their rush to judgement and for their role in inflaming racial animosities. All 88 refused to apologize, stating instead that their ad merely called attention to the racism and sexism which existed and continues to exist on campus. All insist their views are protected by the doctrine of Academic Freedom. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 0. Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist Doug Marlette pictured the Group of 88 as being part of a "lynch mob."
In my opinion, any faculty or staff member from the Group of 88 who refuses to apologize should be fired. Their ad and their individual condemnations of the accused have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Academic Freedom, a doctrine which protects college faculty from being disciplined for expressing unpopular views IN THE CLASSROOM.
THE LOUDMOUTH REVERENDS. Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, who have been called terrorists by a black journalist from the Kansas City Star, were quick to jump on the bandwagon against the privileged white lacrosse players. They helped lead the demonstrations which inflamed racial hatred and offered their support to the alleged rape victim.
Have they apoligized for their rush to judgement and for their inflammatory rhetoric? Of course not. That's par for the course for those two rabble-rousers. Not a peep out of either once since the three accused players have been declared innocent. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 0.
THE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION. The Duke administration, like everyone else, was quick to rush to judgement. It suspended Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty, cancelled the lacrosse season, disbanded the team, and forced the resigantion of the lacrosse coach. Unlike others, the administration has shown some contrition in this case. It reinstated the team for the next season. It invited the three falsely accused players to return to the school well before they were officially declared innocent. And, to head off a lawsuit, it has just reached a settlement with the accused and their families. Also, it settled with a student who received a bad grade for being on the lacrosse team. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 5.
With Nifong, justice has only been partially served by the revocation of his license to practice law. There will be no finality of justice with Nifong until the pending civil suits against him have been resolved. There will be no prosecution of Mangum because the authorities fear being condemned for picking on a poor black single mother of three who may be mentally unstable. There will be no justice with the Group of 88 - none of them will be fired or otherwise disciplined. There will be no finality of justice for the falsely accused - despite their innocence, Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty will forever be associated with "The Duke Rape Case," a stigma they will carry to their graves.
Now that the accused - Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty - have been declared innocent, has justice been served? Not entirely. Let's take a look at the degree of justice exacted on those - the accuser, the prosecutor, the professors, the reverends and the Duke administration - who had a major impact on the lives of the accused, using a scale of zero to ten.
THE ACCUSER. Crystal Gail Mangum, a 28 year old black single mother of three children, accused three white Duke lacrosse players of gang raping and brutalizing her at an off-campus team party where she performed as a stripper to help pay her way through North Carolina Central University, a predominantly black school. Eventually DNA tests revealed the presence of semen from several men, none of whom were members of the lacrosse team.
The accuser has been totally discredited and the three indicted team members have been declared innocent by the Attorney General of North Carolina who had taken over the case from the local prosecutor. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 3. At most, her reputation has been sullied. Although she should be, Mangum will not be prosecuted for perjury or for making false accusations. Not long after she made her accusations, she was video taped pole dancing in a strip joint.
THE ROGUE PROSECUTOR. Last Saturday, Mike Nifong had his law license revoked for "Dishonest and Deceitful" conduct in a trial by a panel of the State Bar. The panel disbarred Nifong for lying to the court, for withholding exculpatory DNA evidence, for misleading the news media, and for making prejudicial public statements against the acccused.
Has justice finally been served with the disbarment of Nifong? Not yet. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 7. He probably will not face criminal charges. Lawsuits are expected to be filed against Nifong by the accused whose lives were ruined and by their families who were forced to spend untold sums of money for the defense of their falsely accused sons.
THE GROUP OF 88. The rape was alleged to have occurred on March 13, 2006. On April 6, well before anyone had been charged in this case, 88 faculty and staff took out a full page ad in the Duke Chronicle, a campus student newspaper. The rush to judgement ad was initiated by professors in Duke's African and African-American Studies department. They were joined by faculty and staff, mostly professors, from 13 departments in the humanities discipline. They became known as the Group of 88.
The ad referred to the alleged rape as a "social disaster" and declared that, according to student testimonials, Duke University was rife with racism and sexism. The ad was instrumental in inflaming hatred against white Duke athletes and against the three accused lacrosse players. Individually, some of the professors condemned the lacrosse team and demanded they confess to what occurred at the off-campus team party. Other professors encouraged demonstrations against the accused. Some apparently gave bad grades to students because they were on the lacrosse team.
Once the accused players had been declared innocent, there was a demand that the Group of 88 take out another ad apologizing for their rush to judgement and for their role in inflaming racial animosities. All 88 refused to apologize, stating instead that their ad merely called attention to the racism and sexism which existed and continues to exist on campus. All insist their views are protected by the doctrine of Academic Freedom. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 0. Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist Doug Marlette pictured the Group of 88 as being part of a "lynch mob."
In my opinion, any faculty or staff member from the Group of 88 who refuses to apologize should be fired. Their ad and their individual condemnations of the accused have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Academic Freedom, a doctrine which protects college faculty from being disciplined for expressing unpopular views IN THE CLASSROOM.
THE LOUDMOUTH REVERENDS. Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, who have been called terrorists by a black journalist from the Kansas City Star, were quick to jump on the bandwagon against the privileged white lacrosse players. They helped lead the demonstrations which inflamed racial hatred and offered their support to the alleged rape victim.
Have they apoligized for their rush to judgement and for their inflammatory rhetoric? Of course not. That's par for the course for those two rabble-rousers. Not a peep out of either once since the three accused players have been declared innocent. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 0.
THE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION. The Duke administration, like everyone else, was quick to rush to judgement. It suspended Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty, cancelled the lacrosse season, disbanded the team, and forced the resigantion of the lacrosse coach. Unlike others, the administration has shown some contrition in this case. It reinstated the team for the next season. It invited the three falsely accused players to return to the school well before they were officially declared innocent. And, to head off a lawsuit, it has just reached a settlement with the accused and their families. Also, it settled with a student who received a bad grade for being on the lacrosse team. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 5.
With Nifong, justice has only been partially served by the revocation of his license to practice law. There will be no finality of justice with Nifong until the pending civil suits against him have been resolved. There will be no prosecution of Mangum because the authorities fear being condemned for picking on a poor black single mother of three who may be mentally unstable. There will be no justice with the Group of 88 - none of them will be fired or otherwise disciplined. There will be no finality of justice for the falsely accused - despite their innocence, Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty will forever be associated with "The Duke Rape Case," a stigma they will carry to their graves.
Friday, June 15, 2007
BOTTOM FEEDER OF ALL BOTTOM FEEDERS
Just when you thought lawyers couldn't sink any lower, along comes Roy Pearson, the bottom feeder of all bottom feeders. This creep, an Administrative Judge for the District of Columbia, is pursuing a personal lawsuit against a hard working Korean immigrant family which has turned their American dream into a horrible nightmare. Instead of going into the details of this case, I am going to look at the two parties in this lawsuit.
THE DEFENDANTS. Jim Nam Chung and Soo Chung, together with their son Ki Chung, own and operate three mom-and-pop "Custom Dry Cleaners" shops in the D.C. area. In 1992, they arrived in the United States as legal immigrants from Korea. Although practically penniless, by working 18 hours a day, they achieved the American dream of owning their own business.
Their business slogans, "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed" are at the heart of the litigation which dates back to 2005. The lawsuit was initiated by Judge Pearson because the Chungs lost the pants of the suit he intended to wear on his first day in office. The Chungs found the pants several days later, but Pearson denied they were his and refused to accept them. He demanded $1,000 for replacement of the suit which the Chungs refused to pay. That's why Pearson filed his lawsuit.
Desiring to settle, the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000, then $4,000, and eventually $12,000, but he turned down each offer. So far, after two years of pre-trial motions, depositions, and other procedures, the Chungs are already out thousands of dollars in legal fees, and the trial has only just begun. There is no telling how much more this lawsuit is going to cost them. The Chungs are so disillusioned with this country and its judical system, that they are contemplating returning to Korea once this mess is over and done with.
THE PLAINTIFF. Roy Pearson, an African-American, is a graduate of the Northwestern University law school. Prior to his appointment as an Administrative Judge, he had been a practicing legal aid lawyer in the D.C. area. When he received his appointment to the bench, Pearson was broke and had just been divorced.
Pearson claims that when the Chungs failed to deliver on their business slogans by failing to satisfy him and by failing to have his pants ready the same day, they were committing consumer fraud. On behalf of all Custom Dry Cleaners customers, he filed a motion to have his case declared a class action lawsuit. That motion was rejected by the court. Pearson initially sued the Chungs for $65 million. He announced he was acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices.
By claiming fraud, Pearson calculated that according to D.C. consumer protection laws, he was entitled to $1,500 per violation per day for 12 separate violations over 1,200 days times three people for a total of $64.8 million. Because he no longer wanted to patronize the Chungs' shop in his neighborhood, it was worth another $15,000 for the cost to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to take his suits to another dry cleaner. Before the start of the trial, Pearson reduced his claim to $54 million.
So there you have the two parties to what would seem to be a frivolous law suit. On one side you have three hard working legal immigrants, penniless upon their arrival in this country, working 18 hours a day to achieve the American dream, who are being persecuted by our legal system. On the other side you have a bottom feeding leech, penniless before his appointment as a judge, trying to get rich off a mom-and-pop business in a trivial dispute over a pair of pants. What a glaring example of the depth to which our legal system has sunk.
By the way, Pearson is representing himself. Reminds me of that old saying - a lawyer who represesnts himself has a fool for a client.
THE DEFENDANTS. Jim Nam Chung and Soo Chung, together with their son Ki Chung, own and operate three mom-and-pop "Custom Dry Cleaners" shops in the D.C. area. In 1992, they arrived in the United States as legal immigrants from Korea. Although practically penniless, by working 18 hours a day, they achieved the American dream of owning their own business.
Their business slogans, "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed" are at the heart of the litigation which dates back to 2005. The lawsuit was initiated by Judge Pearson because the Chungs lost the pants of the suit he intended to wear on his first day in office. The Chungs found the pants several days later, but Pearson denied they were his and refused to accept them. He demanded $1,000 for replacement of the suit which the Chungs refused to pay. That's why Pearson filed his lawsuit.
Desiring to settle, the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000, then $4,000, and eventually $12,000, but he turned down each offer. So far, after two years of pre-trial motions, depositions, and other procedures, the Chungs are already out thousands of dollars in legal fees, and the trial has only just begun. There is no telling how much more this lawsuit is going to cost them. The Chungs are so disillusioned with this country and its judical system, that they are contemplating returning to Korea once this mess is over and done with.
THE PLAINTIFF. Roy Pearson, an African-American, is a graduate of the Northwestern University law school. Prior to his appointment as an Administrative Judge, he had been a practicing legal aid lawyer in the D.C. area. When he received his appointment to the bench, Pearson was broke and had just been divorced.
Pearson claims that when the Chungs failed to deliver on their business slogans by failing to satisfy him and by failing to have his pants ready the same day, they were committing consumer fraud. On behalf of all Custom Dry Cleaners customers, he filed a motion to have his case declared a class action lawsuit. That motion was rejected by the court. Pearson initially sued the Chungs for $65 million. He announced he was acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices.
By claiming fraud, Pearson calculated that according to D.C. consumer protection laws, he was entitled to $1,500 per violation per day for 12 separate violations over 1,200 days times three people for a total of $64.8 million. Because he no longer wanted to patronize the Chungs' shop in his neighborhood, it was worth another $15,000 for the cost to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to take his suits to another dry cleaner. Before the start of the trial, Pearson reduced his claim to $54 million.
So there you have the two parties to what would seem to be a frivolous law suit. On one side you have three hard working legal immigrants, penniless upon their arrival in this country, working 18 hours a day to achieve the American dream, who are being persecuted by our legal system. On the other side you have a bottom feeding leech, penniless before his appointment as a judge, trying to get rich off a mom-and-pop business in a trivial dispute over a pair of pants. What a glaring example of the depth to which our legal system has sunk.
By the way, Pearson is representing himself. Reminds me of that old saying - a lawyer who represesnts himself has a fool for a client.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
SHERIFF PEPE LEPEW
If it has a stripe like a skunk, if it lifts its tail like a skunk, and if it stinks like a skunk, it must be a skunk. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASO) is at it again. And it stinks like a skunk. The sudden early release of Paris Hilton by Los Angeles Sheriff Pepe LePew had a real stench to it.
After getting caught driving with a suspended license three times while on probation following a drunk driving arrest, Paris Hilton was finally sentenced to serve 45 days in jail by a judge who had lost patience with the partying Hilton Hotel heiress' thumbing of her nose at the law. Well before she ever turned herself in, LASO declared that, for good behavior, Paris would serve only 23 days at most.
Then, after only 72 hours of confinement, LASO released Paris with an electronic monitoring bracelet to detention in her family's multi-million dollar Hollywood Hills mansion. At first, LASO announced they had released Paris in accordance with the direction of the court. During an unusual press conference, a spokesman for the courts denied that assertion, pointing out that Judge Michael Sauer had specifically ordered that Paris would not be allowed any work release, furloughs or use of an alternative jail, or electronic monitoring in lieu of jail. LASO then changed its story to say Paris had been released because of a medical condition.
A public outcry about justice for the wealthy and for celebrities as opposed to justice for common folks led the prosecutor to seek a new hearing before Judge Sauer. Instead of being driven to the courthouse in her family's luxury SUV, a weeping Paris was handcuffed and transported in a sheriff's squad car. The judge ordered her back to jail. With tears streaming down her face, she turned to her mother and cried out "mom" several times and screamed "this isn't right" as she was handcuffed again and led out of the courtroom.
An angry Sheriff Lee "Pepe LePew" Baca then held his own press conference. He explained that his jail was overcrowded and that he was under federal court orders to reduce the jail population. He claimed that "low level" offenders, like Paris, were routinely released once they had served ten percent of their sentence. He intimated she was jailed while already afflicted with a psychological disorder and her release was based, not on her low level designation, but on a deteriorating mental health condition.
If you believe that I'll sell you some ocean front property in Arizona. You can bet that among common folk inmates, not all low level offenders are routinely released upon serving only ten percent of their sentence. And, if LASO were to release all inmates with deteriorating mental health problems, Sheriff Pepe LePew's jail would be half empty and no longer under federal court supervision.
By the way, LASO took the unprecedented step of inviting Paris Hilton's personal psychiatrist to come to the jail and examine their inmate. That just isn't done without a court order. Sheriff Pepe LePew had to know that in having Paris examined by her own psychiatrist, he could count on a diagnosis which would justify her immediate release. Another example of celebrity justice.
Wait, that's not all. When her sister and an ex-boyfriend came to visit Paris after her reincarceration, LASO ushered them right into the jail, past the common folks standing for hours in long lines while waiting their turn to visit loved ones. That travesty was followed up on the next visiting day, when her parents were afforded the same favorable treatment. Pepe LePew's spokesman asserted it was routine for high-profile inmates to receive visitors during lunch, a time when the visiting room is normally cleared out and closed. What a crock! There is no good reason why Paris' visitors shouldn't have to wait in line like everyone else.
And, concerning Paris' medical condition, what is a 26 year old woman under treatment and medication for a psychological disorder doing drinking and carousing around all the time all night long? Paris was not calling out "mom, this isn't right" while on the nightly party circuit. David Letterman had it right when he referred to her medical condition as "rich bitchitis."
Pepe LePew Baca has no credibility with me. This is the guy whose department released actress Michelle Rodriguez, former star of ABC's Lost, from jail last year after she served less than one day of a 60 day sentence. And this is the guy whose department tried to cover up Mel Gibson's rant against Jews during his drunk driving arrest last July. He and/or his commanders ordered the arresting deputy to sanitize the arrest by rewriting the initial report, deleting all references to Gibson's anti-Semitic outburst.
Had TMZ.com, a celebrity news website, not obtained and released a copy of the initial report, no one would have ever learned of Gibson's hateful tirade. Oh, did I forget to mention that Gibson is a personal friend of Pepe LePew Baca? Since taking office, this stinkpot of a Sheriff has been accused of using his authority to benefit friends and supporters, and he has accepted thousands of dollars worth of free meals, sports tickets and trips. Peter J. Pitchess, the former long-time (1958-82) respected Sheriff of Los Angeles County, must be turning over in his grave, what with that awful stench arising from his beloved LASO.
After getting caught driving with a suspended license three times while on probation following a drunk driving arrest, Paris Hilton was finally sentenced to serve 45 days in jail by a judge who had lost patience with the partying Hilton Hotel heiress' thumbing of her nose at the law. Well before she ever turned herself in, LASO declared that, for good behavior, Paris would serve only 23 days at most.
Then, after only 72 hours of confinement, LASO released Paris with an electronic monitoring bracelet to detention in her family's multi-million dollar Hollywood Hills mansion. At first, LASO announced they had released Paris in accordance with the direction of the court. During an unusual press conference, a spokesman for the courts denied that assertion, pointing out that Judge Michael Sauer had specifically ordered that Paris would not be allowed any work release, furloughs or use of an alternative jail, or electronic monitoring in lieu of jail. LASO then changed its story to say Paris had been released because of a medical condition.
A public outcry about justice for the wealthy and for celebrities as opposed to justice for common folks led the prosecutor to seek a new hearing before Judge Sauer. Instead of being driven to the courthouse in her family's luxury SUV, a weeping Paris was handcuffed and transported in a sheriff's squad car. The judge ordered her back to jail. With tears streaming down her face, she turned to her mother and cried out "mom" several times and screamed "this isn't right" as she was handcuffed again and led out of the courtroom.
An angry Sheriff Lee "Pepe LePew" Baca then held his own press conference. He explained that his jail was overcrowded and that he was under federal court orders to reduce the jail population. He claimed that "low level" offenders, like Paris, were routinely released once they had served ten percent of their sentence. He intimated she was jailed while already afflicted with a psychological disorder and her release was based, not on her low level designation, but on a deteriorating mental health condition.
If you believe that I'll sell you some ocean front property in Arizona. You can bet that among common folk inmates, not all low level offenders are routinely released upon serving only ten percent of their sentence. And, if LASO were to release all inmates with deteriorating mental health problems, Sheriff Pepe LePew's jail would be half empty and no longer under federal court supervision.
By the way, LASO took the unprecedented step of inviting Paris Hilton's personal psychiatrist to come to the jail and examine their inmate. That just isn't done without a court order. Sheriff Pepe LePew had to know that in having Paris examined by her own psychiatrist, he could count on a diagnosis which would justify her immediate release. Another example of celebrity justice.
Wait, that's not all. When her sister and an ex-boyfriend came to visit Paris after her reincarceration, LASO ushered them right into the jail, past the common folks standing for hours in long lines while waiting their turn to visit loved ones. That travesty was followed up on the next visiting day, when her parents were afforded the same favorable treatment. Pepe LePew's spokesman asserted it was routine for high-profile inmates to receive visitors during lunch, a time when the visiting room is normally cleared out and closed. What a crock! There is no good reason why Paris' visitors shouldn't have to wait in line like everyone else.
And, concerning Paris' medical condition, what is a 26 year old woman under treatment and medication for a psychological disorder doing drinking and carousing around all the time all night long? Paris was not calling out "mom, this isn't right" while on the nightly party circuit. David Letterman had it right when he referred to her medical condition as "rich bitchitis."
Pepe LePew Baca has no credibility with me. This is the guy whose department released actress Michelle Rodriguez, former star of ABC's Lost, from jail last year after she served less than one day of a 60 day sentence. And this is the guy whose department tried to cover up Mel Gibson's rant against Jews during his drunk driving arrest last July. He and/or his commanders ordered the arresting deputy to sanitize the arrest by rewriting the initial report, deleting all references to Gibson's anti-Semitic outburst.
Had TMZ.com, a celebrity news website, not obtained and released a copy of the initial report, no one would have ever learned of Gibson's hateful tirade. Oh, did I forget to mention that Gibson is a personal friend of Pepe LePew Baca? Since taking office, this stinkpot of a Sheriff has been accused of using his authority to benefit friends and supporters, and he has accepted thousands of dollars worth of free meals, sports tickets and trips. Peter J. Pitchess, the former long-time (1958-82) respected Sheriff of Los Angeles County, must be turning over in his grave, what with that awful stench arising from his beloved LASO.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
KOWTOWING TO MUSLIMS' HATRED OF JEWS
Just recently, the United Kingdom removed the Holocaust from its school curriculum because it offended the Muslims in Britain who claim Nazi Germany's attempt to exterminate the Jews never occurred. Why in the world should Muslims be offended by the teaching of the Holocaust, an event that had absolutely nothing to do with the believers in their faith? Why? Because Muslims, by and large, hate Jews.
This hatred of Jews started long before the birth of the State of Israel and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During the Nazi era, most Arab leaders openly expressed their admiration and support for Adolf Hitler because of his regime's efforts to eradicate the Jews throughout all of Europe. Hatred by Muslims is not confined to the hatred of Jews. The Quran leads true believers in the Muslim faith to hate all infidels, and that includes followers of the Christian faith.
At this time, Saudi Arabian government school textbooks refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Muslims, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread the faith by waging Jihad (Holy War) against Christians and Jews. (For more details, refer to my blog MILITANT MUSLIMS: EXTREMISTS OR TRUE BELIEVERS?, June 16, 2006.)
It's about time the Western World stopped all this gobbledygook about radical Muslims as opposed to moderate Muslims. Those that hate infidels are not radical Islamists. They are fundamentalist Muslims, the true belivers in the teachings of Muhammad. Islamists are no more radical than Orthodox Jews, the fundamentalists of the Jewish faith. While Orthodox Jews disparage Reform Jews as "Christians without Christ," Islamists deem Muslims who have assimilated into Western society as infidels. The only real radicals among Muslims are those Islamists who become involved in suicide bombings.
Why teach about the Holocaust? When America and the rest of Europe became aware of the Nazi persecution and extermination of Jews, those nations stood idly by. They did nothing when the Nazis forced Jews into ghettos, banned them from most jobs, and identified them with the mandatory wearing of yellow stars, all well before they herded them into concentration camps where six million Jews were exterminated. Hopefully, as a result of teaching the Holocaust, the world will never again stand idly by in the event any identifiable group is targeted for genocide.
Why did the British kowtow to this Muslim hatred of Jews? England and Western Europe are beset with a large Muslim immigrant population which has not assimilated into European society. Having brought along their religious hatreds, these immigrants have committed acts of terrorism and stroked the fires of resurgent anti-Semitism throughout the region. The European governments are extremely fearful they will continue to be targets of Muslim terrorism carried out by the true believers in the teachings of Muhammad.
The British are fooling themselves if they believe that, by caving in to the hatred of Jews, they will be safe from Muslim terrorism. Appeasement never works. They should have learned that from the Nazi era. When in 1938, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler to prevent a war between England and Germany, the Fuehrer saw this as a sign of weakness which only fed his appetite for world conquest.
The British should show some Churchillian backbone by standing up to Muslims and their hatreds, and by restoring the Holocaust to the school curriculum. Jews were not the only Nazi victims. Teaching the Holocaust can also serve as a memorial to the 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who, in addition to the six million Jews, died at the hands of Hitler's Germany.
This hatred of Jews started long before the birth of the State of Israel and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During the Nazi era, most Arab leaders openly expressed their admiration and support for Adolf Hitler because of his regime's efforts to eradicate the Jews throughout all of Europe. Hatred by Muslims is not confined to the hatred of Jews. The Quran leads true believers in the Muslim faith to hate all infidels, and that includes followers of the Christian faith.
At this time, Saudi Arabian government school textbooks refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Muslims, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread the faith by waging Jihad (Holy War) against Christians and Jews. (For more details, refer to my blog MILITANT MUSLIMS: EXTREMISTS OR TRUE BELIEVERS?, June 16, 2006.)
It's about time the Western World stopped all this gobbledygook about radical Muslims as opposed to moderate Muslims. Those that hate infidels are not radical Islamists. They are fundamentalist Muslims, the true belivers in the teachings of Muhammad. Islamists are no more radical than Orthodox Jews, the fundamentalists of the Jewish faith. While Orthodox Jews disparage Reform Jews as "Christians without Christ," Islamists deem Muslims who have assimilated into Western society as infidels. The only real radicals among Muslims are those Islamists who become involved in suicide bombings.
Why teach about the Holocaust? When America and the rest of Europe became aware of the Nazi persecution and extermination of Jews, those nations stood idly by. They did nothing when the Nazis forced Jews into ghettos, banned them from most jobs, and identified them with the mandatory wearing of yellow stars, all well before they herded them into concentration camps where six million Jews were exterminated. Hopefully, as a result of teaching the Holocaust, the world will never again stand idly by in the event any identifiable group is targeted for genocide.
Why did the British kowtow to this Muslim hatred of Jews? England and Western Europe are beset with a large Muslim immigrant population which has not assimilated into European society. Having brought along their religious hatreds, these immigrants have committed acts of terrorism and stroked the fires of resurgent anti-Semitism throughout the region. The European governments are extremely fearful they will continue to be targets of Muslim terrorism carried out by the true believers in the teachings of Muhammad.
The British are fooling themselves if they believe that, by caving in to the hatred of Jews, they will be safe from Muslim terrorism. Appeasement never works. They should have learned that from the Nazi era. When in 1938, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler to prevent a war between England and Germany, the Fuehrer saw this as a sign of weakness which only fed his appetite for world conquest.
The British should show some Churchillian backbone by standing up to Muslims and their hatreds, and by restoring the Holocaust to the school curriculum. Jews were not the only Nazi victims. Teaching the Holocaust can also serve as a memorial to the 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who, in addition to the six million Jews, died at the hands of Hitler's Germany.
Monday, June 04, 2007
CHILDREN OF THE DAMNED
It is estimated that there are some 45 million people in this country who are without any kind of health insurance. The adults among this group, most of whom are employed, have fallen into the crack between those who earn too much to qualify for medicaid and those who do not earn enough to afford paying for health insurance. These unfortunate folks are the damned who receive little if any health care.
Of the millions who are uninsured, nine million are children. Usually, the only time they get to see a doctor is during a medical emergency. Then they are treated in hospital emergency rooms at great expense to the taxpayers and hospitals. These children get no preventive care and, like their parents, receive little if any treatment for non-life threatening ailments.
Many physicians and dentists refuse to accept medicaid patients because the government only pays a set fee for their services. As a result, children have died simply because they had no health insurance. One young boy had an infected tooth. His mother, who was eligible for medicaid, could not find any dentist willing to accept medicaid patients. The infection spread to the boy's brain. By the time he was hospitalized, it was too late. He died soon afterwards.
This is the richest country in the world with the best medical services available anywhere, but only to those who can afford them. It seems a crime that 45 million people in our land are deprived of affordable health care, especially since nine million of them are innocent children. Collectively, we spend several hundred billion dollars a year on nonessentials for our personal pleasure. There is no reason why we cannot and should not chip in to provide health care for those who cannot afford it.
I have been a long-time advocate of universal health care for our country so that every citizen can receive adequate medical attention. I took this position long before I ever heard of documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, that capitalist-hating darling of the left wing, whose latest film ("Sicko") purports to expose the evils of our health care industry.
What kind of universal health care should we adopt? That is a hard question to answer. Some advocate that we adopt socialized medicine systems like those in Canada or Britain. But, both of those systems have many problems and are a real drain on government budgets, resulting in very high taxes. There are good socialized medicine programs in Germany, Sweden, and some other European countries, but their citizens pay a high price in taxes for health services.
Others advocate that we make affordable health insurance available to all citizens. That would require the government to subsidize those without the means to pay for that insurance. Would those government subsidies require an increase in taxes? Not necessarily. Some experts claim that the cost of subsidies would be more than offset by the savings from fewer indigent hospitalizations which would come with the normal health care provided to those who cannot afford it now.
Our society should be ashamed of itself for allowing 45 million people, nine million of them children, to be damned with inadequate or no health care. If the rest of the Western World can provide health care to all of its citizens, the country that developed the atomic bomb and went to the moon should be able to develop a universal health care plan, one that would be absent of the problems experienced by Canada and Britain. The time for us to act is now, not later.
Of the millions who are uninsured, nine million are children. Usually, the only time they get to see a doctor is during a medical emergency. Then they are treated in hospital emergency rooms at great expense to the taxpayers and hospitals. These children get no preventive care and, like their parents, receive little if any treatment for non-life threatening ailments.
Many physicians and dentists refuse to accept medicaid patients because the government only pays a set fee for their services. As a result, children have died simply because they had no health insurance. One young boy had an infected tooth. His mother, who was eligible for medicaid, could not find any dentist willing to accept medicaid patients. The infection spread to the boy's brain. By the time he was hospitalized, it was too late. He died soon afterwards.
This is the richest country in the world with the best medical services available anywhere, but only to those who can afford them. It seems a crime that 45 million people in our land are deprived of affordable health care, especially since nine million of them are innocent children. Collectively, we spend several hundred billion dollars a year on nonessentials for our personal pleasure. There is no reason why we cannot and should not chip in to provide health care for those who cannot afford it.
I have been a long-time advocate of universal health care for our country so that every citizen can receive adequate medical attention. I took this position long before I ever heard of documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, that capitalist-hating darling of the left wing, whose latest film ("Sicko") purports to expose the evils of our health care industry.
What kind of universal health care should we adopt? That is a hard question to answer. Some advocate that we adopt socialized medicine systems like those in Canada or Britain. But, both of those systems have many problems and are a real drain on government budgets, resulting in very high taxes. There are good socialized medicine programs in Germany, Sweden, and some other European countries, but their citizens pay a high price in taxes for health services.
Others advocate that we make affordable health insurance available to all citizens. That would require the government to subsidize those without the means to pay for that insurance. Would those government subsidies require an increase in taxes? Not necessarily. Some experts claim that the cost of subsidies would be more than offset by the savings from fewer indigent hospitalizations which would come with the normal health care provided to those who cannot afford it now.
Our society should be ashamed of itself for allowing 45 million people, nine million of them children, to be damned with inadequate or no health care. If the rest of the Western World can provide health care to all of its citizens, the country that developed the atomic bomb and went to the moon should be able to develop a universal health care plan, one that would be absent of the problems experienced by Canada and Britain. The time for us to act is now, not later.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
AEROSPACERS GONE WILD 3
"You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at leasst 900 miles. And now, from the maker of America's best adult diapers, stay tuned for the next chapter of AEROSPACERS GONE WILD."
PREVIOUSLY ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Last March, Lisa Nowak became the first astronaut ever to be fired by NASA. The Navy then assigned Lisa, who holds the rank of captain, to a nondescript job at the Corpus Christi (Texas) Naval Air Station. Lisa is scheduled for trial on attempted kidnapping and other charges in Florida in late September. Lisa is accused of attempting to harm Airforce Captain Colleen Shipman, the current lover of her former lover, fellow astronaut Bill "Billy-O" Oefelein.
CURRENT EPISODE: Billy-O, Nowak's and Shipman's hot lover, became the second astronaut to be fired by NASA. Billy-O, a naval aviator with the rank of commander, was assigned to a non-flying post at the Navy's Network Wafare Command in Norfolk, Virginia, effective June 1. This places him closer to where Colleen is stationed, but much farther away from where Lisa is stationed.
NEXT ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Will Lisa and Billy-O be drummed out of the Navy for their adulterous relationship? Lisa and her lawyer are preparing for her defense in Florida. She will probably claim that she was only trying to keep Billy-O from being injured after she read Colleen's e-mail to Billy-O, telling him her "first urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground, and love the hell out of you."
"Stay tuned to AEROSPACERS GONE WILD, brought to you by the makers of Depend, the adult diaper preferred by astronauts on a mission to get there first. You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at least 900 miles."
PREVIOUSLY ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Last March, Lisa Nowak became the first astronaut ever to be fired by NASA. The Navy then assigned Lisa, who holds the rank of captain, to a nondescript job at the Corpus Christi (Texas) Naval Air Station. Lisa is scheduled for trial on attempted kidnapping and other charges in Florida in late September. Lisa is accused of attempting to harm Airforce Captain Colleen Shipman, the current lover of her former lover, fellow astronaut Bill "Billy-O" Oefelein.
CURRENT EPISODE: Billy-O, Nowak's and Shipman's hot lover, became the second astronaut to be fired by NASA. Billy-O, a naval aviator with the rank of commander, was assigned to a non-flying post at the Navy's Network Wafare Command in Norfolk, Virginia, effective June 1. This places him closer to where Colleen is stationed, but much farther away from where Lisa is stationed.
NEXT ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Will Lisa and Billy-O be drummed out of the Navy for their adulterous relationship? Lisa and her lawyer are preparing for her defense in Florida. She will probably claim that she was only trying to keep Billy-O from being injured after she read Colleen's e-mail to Billy-O, telling him her "first urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground, and love the hell out of you."
"Stay tuned to AEROSPACERS GONE WILD, brought to you by the makers of Depend, the adult diaper preferred by astronauts on a mission to get there first. You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at least 900 miles."
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
BOO! BOO A LA ESTADOS UNIDOS!!
Long ago, I lost interest in beauty pageants. When I was young, I did enjoy the swimsuit competition. Then the feminists screwed it all up by pressuring the pageants to minimalize the swimsuit competition, claiming that it was degrading to women. In its place, up popped a silly question and answer segment designed to determine the brightest of the contestants.
The only time I pay any attention to these spectacles is when they are involved in some sort of scandal or controversy. Which brings me to the Miss Universe pageant which just concluded in Mexico City. Poor Rachel Smith, Miss USA. She slipped and fell on her butt during the evening gown competition, Yet, she showed a lot of class when she picked herself back up. Unfortunately for her, the Mexican audience had absolutely no class, booing Rachel throughout the pageant.
What did Rachel do to derserve this booing? Absolutely nothing whatsoever! Poor Rachel was a victim of the hatred Mexicans and other Latinos have for the government of the United States. This hatred is based a lot less on our immigration and Iraq policies than on the long history of our interference in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. In order to protect our business intrests, we have supported tinpot military dictators who ignored or oppressed the poverty stricken masses and we openly or clandestinely supported the overthrow of elected leaders with communist leanings.
In the past, our government has done everything possible to ensure that the leaders of "Banana Republics" were friendly to the American businesses which exploited Latin America for its rich resources and for its cheap labor. These leaders and their families and friends were often rewarded with huge payoffs and other perks, such as mansions and secret bank accounts in the United States.
Throughout Latin America, society has consisted of a small percentage of extremely wealthy families and a huge population living in the squalor of abject poverty, a perfect breeding ground for communism. Thus, it should not have come as a surprise to our government when communists were elected to power or when dictatorships were overthrown by Marxist insurgents claiming to fight for the poor masses. The Cold War with the Soviet Union served to intensify our efforts to defeat Latin America's Marxist insurgencies and to topple leftist leaders from office.
In Cuba we supported an oppressive and corrupt dictator, General Fulgencio Batista, who was in league with the American Mafia and with American corporations. Immediately after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, our government supported his overthrow, not because of his suspected communist leanings, but because he was seen as unfriendly to the established American business interests in Cuba, Thus, we drove Castro into the arms of the Soviet Union.
In 1973, we clandestinely participated in a military coup which overthrew Salvador Allende. a Marxist who had been elected President of Chile. For years, we contunued to support the military dictaorships of Chile, including that of General Augusto Pinochet, a cruel, oppressive and corrupt dictator.
In Nicaragua we were long-time supporters of the Somoza family dictatorship, another group of corrupt military officers who accumulated immense wealth from American corporations. In the 1970s, the Sandinistas, a Marxist group led by Daniel Ortega, came to power after fighting and defeating the Somoza family's National Guard. The Reagan Presidency then bankrolled and supplied the Nicaraguan Contra rebels who, after a long and bloody civil war, overthrew Ortega's Sandinista government.
And now, we are in conflict with Hugo Chavez, a populist and socialist, who was elcted President of Venezuela in 1998. Chavez won on the promise of helping the poor by forcing foreign oil companies and other corporations to share more of their profits and wealth with Venezuela. In 2002, a military coup sponsored by the wealthy and supported by the United States, overthrew Chavez. But, in just a few days, Chavez was able to resume his Presidency when the poor took to the streets in huge numbers, demanding that their popular leader be returned to power.
So, because of our opposition to pro-poor Latin American leaders, Rachel Slmith had to endure the indignity of booing at the Miss Universe pageant in Mexico City. Even though our interference in Latin America's internal affairs may have earned their disrespect, that in no way justified the rude behavior of the audience. Which begs the question - if the Mexicans hate us so much, why should we support immigration legislation and other policies which will benefit Mexico's economy and its wealthy class, all to the detriment of our taxpayers and many American workers?
The only time I pay any attention to these spectacles is when they are involved in some sort of scandal or controversy. Which brings me to the Miss Universe pageant which just concluded in Mexico City. Poor Rachel Smith, Miss USA. She slipped and fell on her butt during the evening gown competition, Yet, she showed a lot of class when she picked herself back up. Unfortunately for her, the Mexican audience had absolutely no class, booing Rachel throughout the pageant.
What did Rachel do to derserve this booing? Absolutely nothing whatsoever! Poor Rachel was a victim of the hatred Mexicans and other Latinos have for the government of the United States. This hatred is based a lot less on our immigration and Iraq policies than on the long history of our interference in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. In order to protect our business intrests, we have supported tinpot military dictators who ignored or oppressed the poverty stricken masses and we openly or clandestinely supported the overthrow of elected leaders with communist leanings.
In the past, our government has done everything possible to ensure that the leaders of "Banana Republics" were friendly to the American businesses which exploited Latin America for its rich resources and for its cheap labor. These leaders and their families and friends were often rewarded with huge payoffs and other perks, such as mansions and secret bank accounts in the United States.
Throughout Latin America, society has consisted of a small percentage of extremely wealthy families and a huge population living in the squalor of abject poverty, a perfect breeding ground for communism. Thus, it should not have come as a surprise to our government when communists were elected to power or when dictatorships were overthrown by Marxist insurgents claiming to fight for the poor masses. The Cold War with the Soviet Union served to intensify our efforts to defeat Latin America's Marxist insurgencies and to topple leftist leaders from office.
In Cuba we supported an oppressive and corrupt dictator, General Fulgencio Batista, who was in league with the American Mafia and with American corporations. Immediately after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, our government supported his overthrow, not because of his suspected communist leanings, but because he was seen as unfriendly to the established American business interests in Cuba, Thus, we drove Castro into the arms of the Soviet Union.
In 1973, we clandestinely participated in a military coup which overthrew Salvador Allende. a Marxist who had been elected President of Chile. For years, we contunued to support the military dictaorships of Chile, including that of General Augusto Pinochet, a cruel, oppressive and corrupt dictator.
In Nicaragua we were long-time supporters of the Somoza family dictatorship, another group of corrupt military officers who accumulated immense wealth from American corporations. In the 1970s, the Sandinistas, a Marxist group led by Daniel Ortega, came to power after fighting and defeating the Somoza family's National Guard. The Reagan Presidency then bankrolled and supplied the Nicaraguan Contra rebels who, after a long and bloody civil war, overthrew Ortega's Sandinista government.
And now, we are in conflict with Hugo Chavez, a populist and socialist, who was elcted President of Venezuela in 1998. Chavez won on the promise of helping the poor by forcing foreign oil companies and other corporations to share more of their profits and wealth with Venezuela. In 2002, a military coup sponsored by the wealthy and supported by the United States, overthrew Chavez. But, in just a few days, Chavez was able to resume his Presidency when the poor took to the streets in huge numbers, demanding that their popular leader be returned to power.
So, because of our opposition to pro-poor Latin American leaders, Rachel Slmith had to endure the indignity of booing at the Miss Universe pageant in Mexico City. Even though our interference in Latin America's internal affairs may have earned their disrespect, that in no way justified the rude behavior of the audience. Which begs the question - if the Mexicans hate us so much, why should we support immigration legislation and other policies which will benefit Mexico's economy and its wealthy class, all to the detriment of our taxpayers and many American workers?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
NICE KITTY - OH SHIT !!!
Once in a while, it doesn't hurt to tell a deprecating story on yourself, especially if it's really true. Yesterday, something happened that I will never forget as long as I live in the few years that I have left. My wife is on an out-of-state trip for a week, leaving me to babysit Angie, our cute little Maltese.
Yesterday afternoon, I took Angie out into the backyard so she could pee. She did her business, God bless her. Then she took a few steps toward one of the flower beds, stopped and took the three-legged pointer stance. We were about 15 - 20 feet away. I saw what looked like a kitty cat in the bushes. I could not see clearly because I've had capillary leakage (bleeding) in both eyes for well over a year.
I wanted to shoo the intruder away, so Angie and I approached to within two or three feet of the kitty. It did not run, but it raised its long bushy tail - oh shit!!! It was only then that I realized it was a skunk. Too late! Angie and I were both sprayed. We both stunk like - well, unless you've smelled a skunk's spray, it's awfully hard to describe. I immediately stripped naked and threw my clothes in the middle of the yard.
We went back inside. I sponge bathed Angie in a solution of half and half vinegar and water. Did the same for myself, then took a shower using dishwasher detergent instead of the usual Dial soap. Then I sprayed everything with Febreze. All to no avail. The problem is that you can't get stunk spray out of a dog's coat. Angie has really spread it around. Now, more than 24 hours later, the whole house smells like a skunk.
Well, it was a cat of sorts - a polecat. I just hope the neighbors did not file a police report about their kids hearing loud cussing and seeing me running around the yard naked. But if they did, that's nothing compared to what the wife will do to me upon her return. If the house still stinks, you know who'll get blamed - it wont be cute little Angie. Laugh if you must, but please pray for me!
Yesterday afternoon, I took Angie out into the backyard so she could pee. She did her business, God bless her. Then she took a few steps toward one of the flower beds, stopped and took the three-legged pointer stance. We were about 15 - 20 feet away. I saw what looked like a kitty cat in the bushes. I could not see clearly because I've had capillary leakage (bleeding) in both eyes for well over a year.
I wanted to shoo the intruder away, so Angie and I approached to within two or three feet of the kitty. It did not run, but it raised its long bushy tail - oh shit!!! It was only then that I realized it was a skunk. Too late! Angie and I were both sprayed. We both stunk like - well, unless you've smelled a skunk's spray, it's awfully hard to describe. I immediately stripped naked and threw my clothes in the middle of the yard.
We went back inside. I sponge bathed Angie in a solution of half and half vinegar and water. Did the same for myself, then took a shower using dishwasher detergent instead of the usual Dial soap. Then I sprayed everything with Febreze. All to no avail. The problem is that you can't get stunk spray out of a dog's coat. Angie has really spread it around. Now, more than 24 hours later, the whole house smells like a skunk.
Well, it was a cat of sorts - a polecat. I just hope the neighbors did not file a police report about their kids hearing loud cussing and seeing me running around the yard naked. But if they did, that's nothing compared to what the wife will do to me upon her return. If the house still stinks, you know who'll get blamed - it wont be cute little Angie. Laugh if you must, but please pray for me!
Monday, May 28, 2007
A MOUTH AS BIG AS HER BUTT
There are a number of Hollywood limouzine liberals who have injected themselves into politics in an abrasive manner. Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin promised to leave the United States if George Bush were to win a second term as President. If only they had kept their promises. Streisand and Baldwin have made some outrageous radical statements, but they are moderates when compared to Rosie O'Donnell.
O'Donnell has criticized our invasion of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. She said that the 3,000 deaths of innocent people did not justify our killing of innocent people in the country which sheltered the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack. She claims that we have killed 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and, because "we are bombing innocent people in other countries," America is the world's worst terrorist state.
O'Donnel believes that Building Seven of the World Trade Cemter was deliberately destroyed on 9/11 by sinister forces in the U.S. government. She sided with Iran in the British hostage incident by claiming the British entered Iranian waters as a deliberate provocation, comparing it to the Gulf of Tonking incident which led to the Vitenam War. Commenting on Islamic terrorists, O'Donnell stated, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as Radical Islam."
O'Donnell is the most radical gun control freak in the land. She would outlaw guns for everyone with the exception of police officers. She advocates jailing anyone who owns a gun. She has called for the impeachment of President Bush. She is one of the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq.
Now, Rosie O'Donnel has every right to express her opinions. That is the American way. But, her mouth is as big as her butt. She should have been fired from ABC's The View months ago for constantly making outrageous unsubstantiated charges against our government during a time of war.
O'Donnell has finally left The View. She got pissed off at the producers and quit in a huff because they showed her hassle with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck on a split screen. ABC and Barbara Walters did not fire her because she increased that program's viewership tenfold. Money talks, bullshit walks.
I have lost all respect for Barbara Walters, who I used to admire. She never publically criticized O'Donnell's ridiculous and outrageous postions. Instead, Walters always chose to defend Rosie as a valued and beloved co-host of The View. Count on O'Donnell getting her own show on some TV network and count on gullible viewers tuning in by the millions.
O'Donnell has criticized our invasion of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. She said that the 3,000 deaths of innocent people did not justify our killing of innocent people in the country which sheltered the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack. She claims that we have killed 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and, because "we are bombing innocent people in other countries," America is the world's worst terrorist state.
O'Donnel believes that Building Seven of the World Trade Cemter was deliberately destroyed on 9/11 by sinister forces in the U.S. government. She sided with Iran in the British hostage incident by claiming the British entered Iranian waters as a deliberate provocation, comparing it to the Gulf of Tonking incident which led to the Vitenam War. Commenting on Islamic terrorists, O'Donnell stated, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as Radical Islam."
O'Donnell is the most radical gun control freak in the land. She would outlaw guns for everyone with the exception of police officers. She advocates jailing anyone who owns a gun. She has called for the impeachment of President Bush. She is one of the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq.
Now, Rosie O'Donnel has every right to express her opinions. That is the American way. But, her mouth is as big as her butt. She should have been fired from ABC's The View months ago for constantly making outrageous unsubstantiated charges against our government during a time of war.
O'Donnell has finally left The View. She got pissed off at the producers and quit in a huff because they showed her hassle with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck on a split screen. ABC and Barbara Walters did not fire her because she increased that program's viewership tenfold. Money talks, bullshit walks.
I have lost all respect for Barbara Walters, who I used to admire. She never publically criticized O'Donnell's ridiculous and outrageous postions. Instead, Walters always chose to defend Rosie as a valued and beloved co-host of The View. Count on O'Donnell getting her own show on some TV network and count on gullible viewers tuning in by the millions.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
CHINA EXPORTS POPULATION CONTROL
We all know that China, the world's most populous country, has been practicing population control for both people and their pets. By law, Chinese couples are allowed to have only one child and they face heavy fines for having any additional children. Households are limited to one registered pet dog. Unregistered dogs are clubbed to death by the police, often in front of their horrified owners.
Globalization has made it possible for China to export a form of population control. It did not take long for clever Chinese entrepreneural captalists to discover they could increase their profits by substituting cheaper falsely labeled ingredients in food products and medicine, and with bulking up some products by secretly adding a cheaper substance. However, oops, the mislabled ingredients or bulked-up products are often poisonous.
A good case in point. Last year a Chinese company shipped a load of diethylene glycol to Panama. That chemical is the potent poison found in antifreeze. The product was falsely labeled as glycerin, a syrup often used in medicines, which is much more epensive than diethylene glycol. The Panamanian government mixed together the ingredients for several hundred thousand bottles of cough medicine, believing the diethylene glycol to be glycerin. As a result, 365 people died, many of them children.
Earlier this year, cats and dogs in our country were poisoned by eating tainted "cuts and gravy" style pet food manufactured by Menu Foods, a Canadian company. Menu Foods, which makes pet foods for most brands sold in this country, obtained the wheat gluten used in moist pet foods from China. Unbeknownst to Menu Foods, the Chinese had added melamine, a substance found in plastics, to the wheat gluten in order to bulk it up. The melamine led to kidney failure, killing many cats and dogs.
The most recent exportation of population control from China involves 6,000 tubes of toothpaste. When the shipment arrived in Panama it was discovered that the toothpaste had been adulterated with diethylene glycol, the same substance which, when used to make cough medicine, killed nearly 400 Panamanians last year. Some of the tainted toothpaste was shipped on to the Dominican Republic. An Australian newspaper reported that the toothpaste containing diethylene glycol had also been exported from China to Australia. And now, the Nicaraguan pol9ice have also seized 6,000 tubes of Chinese toothpaste suspected of containing diethylene glycol.
Scientists believe that if the world's population continues to increase at its present rate, the earth will not be able to produce enough food to sustain life. In that event, will people turn to cannibalism in order to survive? Why has the People's Republic failed to control its food and medicine industries when it controls almost every aspect of Chinese life? Hmmm, rather than trying to control the populations of other countries, could the exportation of poisonous foods and medicines be a way for China to soften us up as it prepares to fight in World War III?
ADDENDUM: On May 31, it was reported that Chinese made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol has been found on the shelves of our country's dollar-type stores.
Globalization has made it possible for China to export a form of population control. It did not take long for clever Chinese entrepreneural captalists to discover they could increase their profits by substituting cheaper falsely labeled ingredients in food products and medicine, and with bulking up some products by secretly adding a cheaper substance. However, oops, the mislabled ingredients or bulked-up products are often poisonous.
A good case in point. Last year a Chinese company shipped a load of diethylene glycol to Panama. That chemical is the potent poison found in antifreeze. The product was falsely labeled as glycerin, a syrup often used in medicines, which is much more epensive than diethylene glycol. The Panamanian government mixed together the ingredients for several hundred thousand bottles of cough medicine, believing the diethylene glycol to be glycerin. As a result, 365 people died, many of them children.
Earlier this year, cats and dogs in our country were poisoned by eating tainted "cuts and gravy" style pet food manufactured by Menu Foods, a Canadian company. Menu Foods, which makes pet foods for most brands sold in this country, obtained the wheat gluten used in moist pet foods from China. Unbeknownst to Menu Foods, the Chinese had added melamine, a substance found in plastics, to the wheat gluten in order to bulk it up. The melamine led to kidney failure, killing many cats and dogs.
The most recent exportation of population control from China involves 6,000 tubes of toothpaste. When the shipment arrived in Panama it was discovered that the toothpaste had been adulterated with diethylene glycol, the same substance which, when used to make cough medicine, killed nearly 400 Panamanians last year. Some of the tainted toothpaste was shipped on to the Dominican Republic. An Australian newspaper reported that the toothpaste containing diethylene glycol had also been exported from China to Australia. And now, the Nicaraguan pol9ice have also seized 6,000 tubes of Chinese toothpaste suspected of containing diethylene glycol.
Scientists believe that if the world's population continues to increase at its present rate, the earth will not be able to produce enough food to sustain life. In that event, will people turn to cannibalism in order to survive? Why has the People's Republic failed to control its food and medicine industries when it controls almost every aspect of Chinese life? Hmmm, rather than trying to control the populations of other countries, could the exportation of poisonous foods and medicines be a way for China to soften us up as it prepares to fight in World War III?
ADDENDUM: On May 31, it was reported that Chinese made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol has been found on the shelves of our country's dollar-type stores.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
A NORMAL PART OF BLACK CULTURE ?
Recently, Kathleen Parker, a Wahington Post Writers Group columnist, wrote an op ed piece about a white teacher who was constantly subjected to reprehensible racist slurs and other indignities by her black students while school officials excused such behavior as normal black culture. Since most of you probably have'nt read Parker's column, I am going to cover some of the highlights.
Elizabeth Kandrac was a teacher at Brentwood Middle School, a predominantly black school, in North Charleston, South Carolina. She made frequent complaints to school officials about being subjected to racially charged verbal abuse. In addition to a daily barrage of vulgar language, Kandrac had books and desks thrown at her, and had her bicycle tires punctured.
Other teachers and students corroborated Kandrac's account. One male teacher, a war veteran, "testified he would rather return to (fight in) Vietnam than to Brentwood." When officials with the Charleston County School District failed to take any remedial action, she took her complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to Parker, the students' slurs "make shock jock Don Imus look like a church deacon." Parker wrote, "Let's be clear: What these children called this teacher is beyond reprehensible and could only be construed as hostile and threatening. Here's a sample: white b---, white m--- f---, white c---, white a---, white ho." School officials told her that if she couldn't handle the foul language she was in the wrong school.
Since they believed the same vulgarities were commonly used in black homes, school officials simply considered the racially charged profanity as a normal part of black culture. Instead of acting on the complaints, Kandrac's competence was questioned and when her EEOC complaint was made public, she was suspended. Eventually she lost her job.
Parker wrote, "Here's what we know without question: If majority white students had used similar language toward black students and teachers, the case would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times until heads rolled. A black Kandrac would have a million-dollar book deal, a movie contract and hundreds of interviews to juggle. Her oppressors and those who passively facilitated her abuse would have been pilloried by the media - their faces all over the evening news - whiile the reverends Al (Sharpton) and Jessee (Jackson) organized protests."
So, instead of being able to cash in on her abuse, this white teacher was fired. Kathleen Parker is to be commended for bringing this sordid example of reverse discrimination to our attention. And who is responsible for imposing this racially biased double standard on our society? Blacks? No, nor any other minority group. It's white liberals on a guilt trip over past wrongs commited against blacks in this country.
I must confess that I often use vulgar language. That does not make it right. Black, white, yellow, purple or whatever color one might be, the use of offensive language, racially charged slurs, and threatening behavior is not justifiable. Black culture, my ass!
Elizabeth Kandrac was a teacher at Brentwood Middle School, a predominantly black school, in North Charleston, South Carolina. She made frequent complaints to school officials about being subjected to racially charged verbal abuse. In addition to a daily barrage of vulgar language, Kandrac had books and desks thrown at her, and had her bicycle tires punctured.
Other teachers and students corroborated Kandrac's account. One male teacher, a war veteran, "testified he would rather return to (fight in) Vietnam than to Brentwood." When officials with the Charleston County School District failed to take any remedial action, she took her complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to Parker, the students' slurs "make shock jock Don Imus look like a church deacon." Parker wrote, "Let's be clear: What these children called this teacher is beyond reprehensible and could only be construed as hostile and threatening. Here's a sample: white b---, white m--- f---, white c---, white a---, white ho." School officials told her that if she couldn't handle the foul language she was in the wrong school.
Since they believed the same vulgarities were commonly used in black homes, school officials simply considered the racially charged profanity as a normal part of black culture. Instead of acting on the complaints, Kandrac's competence was questioned and when her EEOC complaint was made public, she was suspended. Eventually she lost her job.
Parker wrote, "Here's what we know without question: If majority white students had used similar language toward black students and teachers, the case would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times until heads rolled. A black Kandrac would have a million-dollar book deal, a movie contract and hundreds of interviews to juggle. Her oppressors and those who passively facilitated her abuse would have been pilloried by the media - their faces all over the evening news - whiile the reverends Al (Sharpton) and Jessee (Jackson) organized protests."
So, instead of being able to cash in on her abuse, this white teacher was fired. Kathleen Parker is to be commended for bringing this sordid example of reverse discrimination to our attention. And who is responsible for imposing this racially biased double standard on our society? Blacks? No, nor any other minority group. It's white liberals on a guilt trip over past wrongs commited against blacks in this country.
I must confess that I often use vulgar language. That does not make it right. Black, white, yellow, purple or whatever color one might be, the use of offensive language, racially charged slurs, and threatening behavior is not justifiable. Black culture, my ass!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
IMMIGRATION TOMFOOLERY
The following comments were made by a close friend who is a retired state police agency manager and were made in response to my blog MEXIFORNIA, MEXAS, MEXIZONA AND NUEVO MEXICO.
In 1986 the immigration laws were revamped and thousands or millions of Mexicans were granted amnesty. One reason this law passed was because of the stiff penalties that were written in for employers of undocumented workers and the money which was appropriared for enforcing the immigration laws. Guess what? No money ever filtered down to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Border Patrol. In fact their budgets were eventually cut.
The sad thing is that we already have sufficient laws that if enforced would take care of the immigration problem. I was recently in Arizona and spoke to a law enforcement official who told me that they still catch and release illegal immigrants with no penalties. The National Guard was even deployed to the border. All they are allowed to do is watch, report and take no action. Several men dressed like soldiers recently crossed the border in southern Arizona displaying automatic weapons in front of three National Guardsmen. They did nothing but stand there and scratch their asses. They were later given a commendation for following orders.
Several Texas Sheriffs, whose counties were on the border with Mexico, were given millions of dollars last year to augment the border patrol with enforcing immigration laws. Supposedly, local officers from other jurisdictions were going to be imported to the area to help out. It turns out that few illegals were arrested by the local deputies and the overall expenditures amounted to tens of thousands of dollars per arrest. Where did the money go? Give me a break!
In 1986 the immigration laws were revamped and thousands or millions of Mexicans were granted amnesty. One reason this law passed was because of the stiff penalties that were written in for employers of undocumented workers and the money which was appropriared for enforcing the immigration laws. Guess what? No money ever filtered down to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Border Patrol. In fact their budgets were eventually cut.
The sad thing is that we already have sufficient laws that if enforced would take care of the immigration problem. I was recently in Arizona and spoke to a law enforcement official who told me that they still catch and release illegal immigrants with no penalties. The National Guard was even deployed to the border. All they are allowed to do is watch, report and take no action. Several men dressed like soldiers recently crossed the border in southern Arizona displaying automatic weapons in front of three National Guardsmen. They did nothing but stand there and scratch their asses. They were later given a commendation for following orders.
Several Texas Sheriffs, whose counties were on the border with Mexico, were given millions of dollars last year to augment the border patrol with enforcing immigration laws. Supposedly, local officers from other jurisdictions were going to be imported to the area to help out. It turns out that few illegals were arrested by the local deputies and the overall expenditures amounted to tens of thousands of dollars per arrest. Where did the money go? Give me a break!
SACK DRAGGING COPS
The following comments were made by a close friend who is a retired state police agency manager and were made in response to my blog CAN'T COPS HAVE FUN ANYMORE?
The reason the Washington Chief of Police put up the warning signs to police officers during National Police Week is because of the complaints from local business owners. There is nothing worse than a bunch of drunk cops who believe that they are entitled to free drinks, meals and discounted room rates. If they don't get it, look out! This permeates law enforcement from top to bottom.
Beer distributors and liquor wholesalers have always been big targets. They have to hide when any retirement party or promotion is announced. They will wind up furnishing all the beverages sometimes to the tune of thousands of dollars. Add to that other freebies like hospitality rooms, ice, bartenders, and clean up crews. Of course, in return you seldom see a beer truck or whiskey drummer getting a ticket. In fact, I have literally seen beer trucks getting police escorts through traffic snarls to get to county fairs and concerts to sell their products. What the cops don't know is that most of the product that gets donated to their parties is usually out of date and scheduled to be destroyed.
Cops who accept or solicit freebies are called sack draggers. I once worked with a cop in a major Texas city who never paid for a meal. He would literally make sure that his meal was free by saying to the waitress, "Cops eat free here, right?" If he was denied a free meal, he would make a scene and leave. Upper management cops are just as bad. The only difference is that they put the arm on upper scale restaurants. No fast food for lieutenants or above.
Christmas at the cop shop is a wonderful time of year. Gift baskets of liquor, frozen turkeys and hams litter the squad room. Each year Dillard's department stores send a letter to every police and fire department offering a substantial discount for Christmas shopping on a certain date. It's a nice gesture. The loser is the restaurant owner in the mall that gets hit with all the cops and their families who expect to eat free.
The reason the Washington Chief of Police put up the warning signs to police officers during National Police Week is because of the complaints from local business owners. There is nothing worse than a bunch of drunk cops who believe that they are entitled to free drinks, meals and discounted room rates. If they don't get it, look out! This permeates law enforcement from top to bottom.
Beer distributors and liquor wholesalers have always been big targets. They have to hide when any retirement party or promotion is announced. They will wind up furnishing all the beverages sometimes to the tune of thousands of dollars. Add to that other freebies like hospitality rooms, ice, bartenders, and clean up crews. Of course, in return you seldom see a beer truck or whiskey drummer getting a ticket. In fact, I have literally seen beer trucks getting police escorts through traffic snarls to get to county fairs and concerts to sell their products. What the cops don't know is that most of the product that gets donated to their parties is usually out of date and scheduled to be destroyed.
Cops who accept or solicit freebies are called sack draggers. I once worked with a cop in a major Texas city who never paid for a meal. He would literally make sure that his meal was free by saying to the waitress, "Cops eat free here, right?" If he was denied a free meal, he would make a scene and leave. Upper management cops are just as bad. The only difference is that they put the arm on upper scale restaurants. No fast food for lieutenants or above.
Christmas at the cop shop is a wonderful time of year. Gift baskets of liquor, frozen turkeys and hams litter the squad room. Each year Dillard's department stores send a letter to every police and fire department offering a substantial discount for Christmas shopping on a certain date. It's a nice gesture. The loser is the restaurant owner in the mall that gets hit with all the cops and their families who expect to eat free.
Monday, May 21, 2007
CAN'T COPS HAVE FUN ANYMORE?
Cops deserve a break every so often and they have their own way of having fun. So, why has District of Columbia Police Chief Cathy Lanier prohibited the thousands of visiting police officers, who will be in Wahington for this week's National Police Week activities, from having any fun?
Chief Lanier has ordered that fliers warning officers to obey the capital's rules about disorderly conduct, public intoxication and profanity, be prominently posted in all bars and hotels, and passed out downtown. The fliers included the statement that "The unacceptable behavior of some participants in activities associated with National Police Week has not gone unnoticed." Shit, can't cops have fun anymore?
No profanity? For cops, profanity is the primary means of communication, while English is their second language. This prohibition has the effect of silencing cops. Isn't that a viloation of a cop's right to free speech? No public intoxication? Hey, that's downright un-American. Drinking to excess is a way of allowing officers to get their minds off all the assholes, including some of their fellow cops, they have to deal with day in and day out. And, what about disorderly conduct? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder - isn't that the God-given right of common behavior for off-duty cops?
Here are some examples of the unique ways cops have fun. When the fuddy-duddy police chiefs of several neighboring communities prohibited all public off-duty drinking in their jurisdictions, their officers all went to a particular bar in the one neighboring community which permitted such drinking. Oh, what fun was had by all. There were the knock-down drag-out brawls and once there was even a shoot-out between two officers from different departments.
In one area, officers got together with some bar owners for an exclusive once-a-month cop's night. The way it worked, the cops and their guests were charged a cover fee which entitled them to all they could drink for free. Outsiders, unless they were good looking babes, were barred from these "private" parties. These Romanesque-like orgies came to a screeching halt after some imbecile cop brought his wife along. Seeing so many of his fellow married officers, whose wives were her friends, in the intimate company of other women caused a vituperative eruption of volcanic proportions. She threatened divorce and ratted the affair to the local police administration. What a killjoy!
I've been to a few police conferences in my time. For some officers, trashing hotel rooms is a favorite activity. One one occasion, a bunch of drunk officers drove through a number of (formerly) beautiful hotel flower beds. Once, in the middle of the night, a couple of officers shot at the resident swans in a hotel pond. Fortunately, they were so drunk that they missed the poor creatures. And then there is the joy of staggering down the corridor at three or four o'clock in the morning while shouting at the top of your voice so that all the other hotel guests on that floor can share in the fun you are having.
I remember one conference in San Diego (California) when a whole bunch of us crossed the border into Tijuana (Mexico). After imbibing at a few bars we ended up at a theater of sorts where they staged live sex shows. When there was a call for volunteers, about a dozen of our fellow officers scurried up to the stage. I can tell you that those amateurs performed admirably with a troupe of professional ladies, and they were able to do so in front of several hundred theater patrons. Now, those cops really had fun.
It looks like Chief Lanier is taking all the fun out of National Police Week. As a woman, she seems to have a narrow-minded viewpoint about off-duty fun at police gatherings. Thanks to Cathy Lanier, all good fun loving manly cops finally have a real reason to claim that women have no business doing police work.
Chief Lanier has ordered that fliers warning officers to obey the capital's rules about disorderly conduct, public intoxication and profanity, be prominently posted in all bars and hotels, and passed out downtown. The fliers included the statement that "The unacceptable behavior of some participants in activities associated with National Police Week has not gone unnoticed." Shit, can't cops have fun anymore?
No profanity? For cops, profanity is the primary means of communication, while English is their second language. This prohibition has the effect of silencing cops. Isn't that a viloation of a cop's right to free speech? No public intoxication? Hey, that's downright un-American. Drinking to excess is a way of allowing officers to get their minds off all the assholes, including some of their fellow cops, they have to deal with day in and day out. And, what about disorderly conduct? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder - isn't that the God-given right of common behavior for off-duty cops?
Here are some examples of the unique ways cops have fun. When the fuddy-duddy police chiefs of several neighboring communities prohibited all public off-duty drinking in their jurisdictions, their officers all went to a particular bar in the one neighboring community which permitted such drinking. Oh, what fun was had by all. There were the knock-down drag-out brawls and once there was even a shoot-out between two officers from different departments.
In one area, officers got together with some bar owners for an exclusive once-a-month cop's night. The way it worked, the cops and their guests were charged a cover fee which entitled them to all they could drink for free. Outsiders, unless they were good looking babes, were barred from these "private" parties. These Romanesque-like orgies came to a screeching halt after some imbecile cop brought his wife along. Seeing so many of his fellow married officers, whose wives were her friends, in the intimate company of other women caused a vituperative eruption of volcanic proportions. She threatened divorce and ratted the affair to the local police administration. What a killjoy!
I've been to a few police conferences in my time. For some officers, trashing hotel rooms is a favorite activity. One one occasion, a bunch of drunk officers drove through a number of (formerly) beautiful hotel flower beds. Once, in the middle of the night, a couple of officers shot at the resident swans in a hotel pond. Fortunately, they were so drunk that they missed the poor creatures. And then there is the joy of staggering down the corridor at three or four o'clock in the morning while shouting at the top of your voice so that all the other hotel guests on that floor can share in the fun you are having.
I remember one conference in San Diego (California) when a whole bunch of us crossed the border into Tijuana (Mexico). After imbibing at a few bars we ended up at a theater of sorts where they staged live sex shows. When there was a call for volunteers, about a dozen of our fellow officers scurried up to the stage. I can tell you that those amateurs performed admirably with a troupe of professional ladies, and they were able to do so in front of several hundred theater patrons. Now, those cops really had fun.
It looks like Chief Lanier is taking all the fun out of National Police Week. As a woman, she seems to have a narrow-minded viewpoint about off-duty fun at police gatherings. Thanks to Cathy Lanier, all good fun loving manly cops finally have a real reason to claim that women have no business doing police work.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
MEXIFORNIA, MEXAS, MEXIZONA AND NUEVO MEXICO
A group of senators from each party have reached a compromise on an immigration bill which, if it becomes law, will put an estimated 12 million illegal aliens on the path to citizenship. Its detrators claim the bill will grant amnesty to the illegals because their presence in this country will be immediately legalized. Its supporters deny that the bill grants amnesty because the illegals will have to meet a number of specific requirements and pay some hefty fines in order to acquire citizenship.
Where do they get this 12 million estimate from? No one really knows how many illegal aliens there are in this country. There are probably more than 20 million. 12 or 20 million, that is a staggering number. It will be logistically impossible to deport millions of illegal aliens. Besides, if we were to deport just a couple of million or so, the results would be catastrophic.
Americans thrive on cheap labor. The illegals work on our farms, in construction, on our garbage trucks, in our homes as domestics, on our yards, in our food processing plants, and in many other kinds of low-skilled jobs. Thus, deporting significant numbers of illegals could bring our country close to economic collapse. But, calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers" is akin to calling illegal drug dealers "unlicensed pharmacists" and will not solve anything. So what is the answer to this immense problem?
Well, if we do nothing, which is what we are doing now, they will just keep coming. We can discourage this invasion by not allowing their children to attend our public schools, by denying them free medical services and by denying them any welfare benefits. But, many people would consider the denial of these services to be cruel and inhumane. We could build an impenetrable wall along the lenght of our border with Mexico, but that would cost billions of dollars and take years to build.
There is no good solution to the illegal immigration problem. The previous amnesty law (1986), which was intended to stop the influx of illegals, unleashed a tsunami of unlawful border crossings which continues unabated. If the compromise immigration bill passes and becomes law, we will have more than 20 million new citizens within eight to 13 years.
It is not inconceivable that by the year 2020, a majority of voters in California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico will chose to secede from the union and petition for annexation by Mexico. Then Mexifornia, Mexas, Mexizona and Nuevo Mexico will become new states in northern Mexico.
Where do they get this 12 million estimate from? No one really knows how many illegal aliens there are in this country. There are probably more than 20 million. 12 or 20 million, that is a staggering number. It will be logistically impossible to deport millions of illegal aliens. Besides, if we were to deport just a couple of million or so, the results would be catastrophic.
Americans thrive on cheap labor. The illegals work on our farms, in construction, on our garbage trucks, in our homes as domestics, on our yards, in our food processing plants, and in many other kinds of low-skilled jobs. Thus, deporting significant numbers of illegals could bring our country close to economic collapse. But, calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers" is akin to calling illegal drug dealers "unlicensed pharmacists" and will not solve anything. So what is the answer to this immense problem?
Well, if we do nothing, which is what we are doing now, they will just keep coming. We can discourage this invasion by not allowing their children to attend our public schools, by denying them free medical services and by denying them any welfare benefits. But, many people would consider the denial of these services to be cruel and inhumane. We could build an impenetrable wall along the lenght of our border with Mexico, but that would cost billions of dollars and take years to build.
There is no good solution to the illegal immigration problem. The previous amnesty law (1986), which was intended to stop the influx of illegals, unleashed a tsunami of unlawful border crossings which continues unabated. If the compromise immigration bill passes and becomes law, we will have more than 20 million new citizens within eight to 13 years.
It is not inconceivable that by the year 2020, a majority of voters in California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico will chose to secede from the union and petition for annexation by Mexico. Then Mexifornia, Mexas, Mexizona and Nuevo Mexico will become new states in northern Mexico.
Friday, May 18, 2007
CALLED BY GOD OR THE DEVIL?
I suspect that most of you have read or heard about the stupid sadistic asshole from Arkansas who placed his two month old infant daughter inside a microwave oven and turned it on for up to 20 seconds. As a result, the child suffered critical burns to her face, neck, shoulder and a hand.
Joshua Mauldin, 19, told Galveston (Texas) police investigators that he was under stress over being left alone with the baby in a hotel room. He became agitated and tossed the baby on one of the two beds, then on the other before hitting her in the groin. Mauldin then put the baby in the hotel room safe, then in a refrigerator and finally inside the microwave oven.
Mauldin told the police that he left the small town of Warren, Arkansas because "he was called to be a minister by God." He decided to start his ministry as a preacher in Galveston, a city once known for its wide open gambling and prostitution. Let's hope Mauldin confused God with the Devil. Otherwise, his calling will give preachers a bad rap.
There are only three other known instances in which a child was burned in this manner. In 2006, an Ohio mother was charged with killing her baby by cooking the child to death in a microwave oven. It is extemely hard to contemplate the commission of such a horrendous cruel crime.
Mauldin is being held in jail, unable to come up with his bail, which has been set at $250,000. Thank the almighty God for that. A grand jury has indicted Mauldin on a charge of injury to a child causing serious bodily harm. If convicted, he faces a sentence of five to 99 years in prison. Considering the nature of this crime, or the one in which a mother recently mutilated the genitals of her three month old infant son, how can any self-respecting person be opposed to the death penalty?
Joshua Mauldin, 19, told Galveston (Texas) police investigators that he was under stress over being left alone with the baby in a hotel room. He became agitated and tossed the baby on one of the two beds, then on the other before hitting her in the groin. Mauldin then put the baby in the hotel room safe, then in a refrigerator and finally inside the microwave oven.
Mauldin told the police that he left the small town of Warren, Arkansas because "he was called to be a minister by God." He decided to start his ministry as a preacher in Galveston, a city once known for its wide open gambling and prostitution. Let's hope Mauldin confused God with the Devil. Otherwise, his calling will give preachers a bad rap.
There are only three other known instances in which a child was burned in this manner. In 2006, an Ohio mother was charged with killing her baby by cooking the child to death in a microwave oven. It is extemely hard to contemplate the commission of such a horrendous cruel crime.
Mauldin is being held in jail, unable to come up with his bail, which has been set at $250,000. Thank the almighty God for that. A grand jury has indicted Mauldin on a charge of injury to a child causing serious bodily harm. If convicted, he faces a sentence of five to 99 years in prison. Considering the nature of this crime, or the one in which a mother recently mutilated the genitals of her three month old infant son, how can any self-respecting person be opposed to the death penalty?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
A BUMP IN THE ROAD TO RUIN
"Somebody help me." You've probably seen the television commercial with that plea by the guy who had it all - wife and kids, huge house, beautiful lawn, riding lawnmower, sumptuous swimming pool, large SUV and big boat - but was "in debt up to my eyeballs."
I'm sure you've seen the commercial which says, "Lower your payments an average of $400 a month." Or the one which says, "Consolidate your debts into one low monthly payment.." These commercials are ads for the refinancing of homes or for a debt consolidation loan. Unless the debtor changes his spending ways, these solutions are merely a bump in the road to ruin.
The major cause of debt is that good old American invention - the credit card. If you don't have cash on hand, buy it with a credit card. You don't have to be uneducated to run up huge debts. Studies have shown that college students, who run up substantial debts with credit cards, will continue with their undisciplined spending habits once they have graduated and entered the real world.
The ideal financial situation is the one in which a consumer is relatively debt free. That requires a lot of self-discipline - one should never spend beyond one's means. The most glaring example of undisciplined spending is our federal government, with Congress and the Administration running up a humongous deficit by breaking every principle of fiscal responsibility.
Except for a mortgage and for automobile payments, one's purchases should never exceed one's ability to pay them off within 30 days. Debt can lead to a lot of problems. It is the leading cause for our high divorce rate. When good people become desperate debtors, they may turn into thieves and robbers.
Keeping up with the Joneses is one of Anerica's most serious financial diseases. That, and the easy availability of credit cards, is a prescription for finacial disaster. I know of several people who kept getting pre-approved credit card applications long after they went through bankruptcy. I know of dead beats who are being hounded by bill collectors, including collectors for credit card companies, that keep geting those same credit card applications.
Refinancing a home or obtaining a debt consolidation loan simply enables the debtor to keep on spending like there's no tomorrow. The only way to get out of debt is to change one's lifestyle. No more unnecessary purchases. No impulse buying. No more going out to eat every night. No more cruises or other costly vacations if one cannot afford them. No boats or other recrecatioal vehicles. It means driving a compact car instead of a luxury vehicle.
Getting out from under debt also requires one to cancel and destroy each and every credit card once they have been paid off. Home refinancing and debt consolidation, by themselves, are only temporary fixes - a bump that might slow one down for a short while, before it's full speed ahead again on the road to ruin.
I'm sure you've seen the commercial which says, "Lower your payments an average of $400 a month." Or the one which says, "Consolidate your debts into one low monthly payment.." These commercials are ads for the refinancing of homes or for a debt consolidation loan. Unless the debtor changes his spending ways, these solutions are merely a bump in the road to ruin.
The major cause of debt is that good old American invention - the credit card. If you don't have cash on hand, buy it with a credit card. You don't have to be uneducated to run up huge debts. Studies have shown that college students, who run up substantial debts with credit cards, will continue with their undisciplined spending habits once they have graduated and entered the real world.
The ideal financial situation is the one in which a consumer is relatively debt free. That requires a lot of self-discipline - one should never spend beyond one's means. The most glaring example of undisciplined spending is our federal government, with Congress and the Administration running up a humongous deficit by breaking every principle of fiscal responsibility.
Except for a mortgage and for automobile payments, one's purchases should never exceed one's ability to pay them off within 30 days. Debt can lead to a lot of problems. It is the leading cause for our high divorce rate. When good people become desperate debtors, they may turn into thieves and robbers.
Keeping up with the Joneses is one of Anerica's most serious financial diseases. That, and the easy availability of credit cards, is a prescription for finacial disaster. I know of several people who kept getting pre-approved credit card applications long after they went through bankruptcy. I know of dead beats who are being hounded by bill collectors, including collectors for credit card companies, that keep geting those same credit card applications.
Refinancing a home or obtaining a debt consolidation loan simply enables the debtor to keep on spending like there's no tomorrow. The only way to get out of debt is to change one's lifestyle. No more unnecessary purchases. No impulse buying. No more going out to eat every night. No more cruises or other costly vacations if one cannot afford them. No boats or other recrecatioal vehicles. It means driving a compact car instead of a luxury vehicle.
Getting out from under debt also requires one to cancel and destroy each and every credit card once they have been paid off. Home refinancing and debt consolidation, by themselves, are only temporary fixes - a bump that might slow one down for a short while, before it's full speed ahead again on the road to ruin.
Monday, May 14, 2007
RESTAURATEUR OF THE YEAR
It's really great to know that money doesn't count for everything to some people. Jeff Ruby, the owner of a swanky steakhouse in Louisville, gave O.J. Simpson and his entourage the heave-ho from his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby.
Simpson and a party of twelve had been seated in the restaurant. Another customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing the legally innocent but morallly guilty murderer of his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman. It was then that Ruby asked Simpson to leave. He and his guests left quietly. His lawyer, calling the ouster a publicity stunt, announced that Simpson would not sue Ruby.
Ruby explained that he was sickened by the attention Simpson still gets. "I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families (Nicole's and Goldman's). The way he continues to torture the lives of those families with his behavior, attitude and conduct." Ruby did not want to experience the attention Simpson was getting in the steakhouse, saying that it "makes me sick to my stomach."
Jeff Ruby gets my vote for Restaurateur of the Year. Can you imagine how much he would have made had he served Simpson's party of twelve? How many other restaurateurs would have sacrificed a large sum of money like that? And what does it say about the people who make up Simpson's entourage? To me, they're nothing but a bunch of pukes who have no shame.
Simpson and a party of twelve had been seated in the restaurant. Another customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing the legally innocent but morallly guilty murderer of his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman. It was then that Ruby asked Simpson to leave. He and his guests left quietly. His lawyer, calling the ouster a publicity stunt, announced that Simpson would not sue Ruby.
Ruby explained that he was sickened by the attention Simpson still gets. "I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families (Nicole's and Goldman's). The way he continues to torture the lives of those families with his behavior, attitude and conduct." Ruby did not want to experience the attention Simpson was getting in the steakhouse, saying that it "makes me sick to my stomach."
Jeff Ruby gets my vote for Restaurateur of the Year. Can you imagine how much he would have made had he served Simpson's party of twelve? How many other restaurateurs would have sacrificed a large sum of money like that? And what does it say about the people who make up Simpson's entourage? To me, they're nothing but a bunch of pukes who have no shame.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
THOSE PRODUCT REGISTRATION CARDS
Have you recently purchased a new television set, a new computer printer, a new refrigerator, or any other new product which carries a 90 day, a one year, or a limited life-time warranty? If so, did you return the product registration card? When you fail to return the registration card, you may be in for a rude awakening if the product develops a defect within the stated warranty period.
Consumer protection laws require the manufacturer to stand behind their warranties, whether or not the purchaser registered the product purchase. What I don't like about those cards is that they include a check list for a lot of personal information such as your annual income, your educational attainment, your occupation, your family and household make-up, your hobbies, and other crap. They do that to sell this information to other merchandizers. That's why you get more and more junk mail.
Let me tell you what happened to me. Believing that the warranties would be good even if I didn't mail in the product registration cards, I just stopped mailing them in. When a new (top brand) computer printer I had purchased went on the blink, I contacted the manufacturer in accordance with the instructions in the owner's manual. I was informed that because I did not register the product at the time of purchase, the warraanty period started on the date of manufacture, rather than on the date of purchase. While my printer was serviced in accordance with the warranty, I lost half of the covered one year period by not returning the product registration card.
Now, I always return the product registration cards and I strongly suggest all of you do the same if you want to be covered for the entire warranty period. However, when I send the cards in, I do not check off any of the personal information items. I only list my name, address, and phone number, the product name and model number, the serial number if called for, and the place and date of purchase. By the way, the manufacturers also want your registration so they can notify you in case of a product recall. So, for your own protection, don't forget to return those product registration cards.
Consumer protection laws require the manufacturer to stand behind their warranties, whether or not the purchaser registered the product purchase. What I don't like about those cards is that they include a check list for a lot of personal information such as your annual income, your educational attainment, your occupation, your family and household make-up, your hobbies, and other crap. They do that to sell this information to other merchandizers. That's why you get more and more junk mail.
Let me tell you what happened to me. Believing that the warranties would be good even if I didn't mail in the product registration cards, I just stopped mailing them in. When a new (top brand) computer printer I had purchased went on the blink, I contacted the manufacturer in accordance with the instructions in the owner's manual. I was informed that because I did not register the product at the time of purchase, the warraanty period started on the date of manufacture, rather than on the date of purchase. While my printer was serviced in accordance with the warranty, I lost half of the covered one year period by not returning the product registration card.
Now, I always return the product registration cards and I strongly suggest all of you do the same if you want to be covered for the entire warranty period. However, when I send the cards in, I do not check off any of the personal information items. I only list my name, address, and phone number, the product name and model number, the serial number if called for, and the place and date of purchase. By the way, the manufacturers also want your registration so they can notify you in case of a product recall. So, for your own protection, don't forget to return those product registration cards.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
STINKO DE MAYO
In the United States, Cinco de Mayo is a holiday which is celebrated by people of Mexican descent to honor Mexico's victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. Parades are held in cities with large populations of Mexicans, including citizens of this country and those who are not citizens, whether they are here legally or illegally. Mexiczn flags are prominently displayed in those parades.
The public display of the Mexican flag is a symbol of loyalty to Mexico and, accordingly, it is an affront to many Americans. Parade sponsors try to sugarcoat the holiday by claiming that it is only a celebration of culture and diversity. The defenders of Mexican nationalism point out that other ethnic groups in this country have their own celebrations. Fair enough - let's look at some other celebrations.
The Irish celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Parades held on that day, by and large, do not involve the carrying of the flag of Ireland. Many people, whether Irish or not, wear green items of clothing on the holiday which celebrates the fable that St. Patrick chased all the snakes out of Ireland. That explains why many a good Irishman drinks to excess - they found themselves seeing a bunch of slithering snakes which were supposed to be extinct, an experience more frightening than seeing pink elephants.
Columbus Day is a celebration of pride for Italians in this country. It honors their countryman who, while financed by the Queen of Spain, is given credit for the discovery of America. That discovery is also notable for an exchange of gifts between the Europeans and the American Indians. The Europeans gave the Indians smallpox and other diseases, while the Indians returned the favor by giving the Europeans syphilis. You will see few, if any, Italian flags carried in Columbus Day parades.
The Chinese and Vietnamese have their own New Year celebrations. No foreign flags there. The only Vietnamese flags ever publicly displayed were those carried by disloyal American anti-war protestors during the '60s and '70s. These New Year celebrations are notable for dragon dances in which six or more men line up underneath a dragon costume and, starting with the second one in line, butt their heads against the butt of the man in front of them.
Cinco de Mayo and its Mexican flag waving is fine when celebrated in Mexico. You don't see Mexicans in Texas celebrating San Jacinto Day, a holiday honoring the defeat of the Mexican army by a small rag-tag band of Texans. General Santa Anna, who slaughtered the vastly outnumbered defenders of the Alamo, bravely led his troops at San Jacinto while naked in the sack, thrusting his weenie into the pistil of The Yellow Rose Of Texas.
(Colonel James Morgan, a wealthy landowner who lived in close proximity to the San Jacinto battlefield, claimed he sent Emily West, his mulatto paramour, to shack-up with Santa Anna so as to divert the general's attention away from leading his troops. In recognition of that historic seduction, Morgan's identured servant Emily came to be known as The Yellow Rose Of Texas.)
To those who say that we do not have a right to be affronted by the Mexican flag waving, I say horseshit. When the San Jose major league soccer team relocated to Houston, it was renamed the Houston 1836. 1836 was the year that the City of Houston was founded, but it also happened to be the year of Santa Ana's defeat at San Jacinto. Houston's Mexican community was so offended by the name that the team changed it to the Houston Dynamo. Cinco de Mayo? No, its Stinko de Mayo!
The public display of the Mexican flag is a symbol of loyalty to Mexico and, accordingly, it is an affront to many Americans. Parade sponsors try to sugarcoat the holiday by claiming that it is only a celebration of culture and diversity. The defenders of Mexican nationalism point out that other ethnic groups in this country have their own celebrations. Fair enough - let's look at some other celebrations.
The Irish celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Parades held on that day, by and large, do not involve the carrying of the flag of Ireland. Many people, whether Irish or not, wear green items of clothing on the holiday which celebrates the fable that St. Patrick chased all the snakes out of Ireland. That explains why many a good Irishman drinks to excess - they found themselves seeing a bunch of slithering snakes which were supposed to be extinct, an experience more frightening than seeing pink elephants.
Columbus Day is a celebration of pride for Italians in this country. It honors their countryman who, while financed by the Queen of Spain, is given credit for the discovery of America. That discovery is also notable for an exchange of gifts between the Europeans and the American Indians. The Europeans gave the Indians smallpox and other diseases, while the Indians returned the favor by giving the Europeans syphilis. You will see few, if any, Italian flags carried in Columbus Day parades.
The Chinese and Vietnamese have their own New Year celebrations. No foreign flags there. The only Vietnamese flags ever publicly displayed were those carried by disloyal American anti-war protestors during the '60s and '70s. These New Year celebrations are notable for dragon dances in which six or more men line up underneath a dragon costume and, starting with the second one in line, butt their heads against the butt of the man in front of them.
Cinco de Mayo and its Mexican flag waving is fine when celebrated in Mexico. You don't see Mexicans in Texas celebrating San Jacinto Day, a holiday honoring the defeat of the Mexican army by a small rag-tag band of Texans. General Santa Anna, who slaughtered the vastly outnumbered defenders of the Alamo, bravely led his troops at San Jacinto while naked in the sack, thrusting his weenie into the pistil of The Yellow Rose Of Texas.
(Colonel James Morgan, a wealthy landowner who lived in close proximity to the San Jacinto battlefield, claimed he sent Emily West, his mulatto paramour, to shack-up with Santa Anna so as to divert the general's attention away from leading his troops. In recognition of that historic seduction, Morgan's identured servant Emily came to be known as The Yellow Rose Of Texas.)
To those who say that we do not have a right to be affronted by the Mexican flag waving, I say horseshit. When the San Jose major league soccer team relocated to Houston, it was renamed the Houston 1836. 1836 was the year that the City of Houston was founded, but it also happened to be the year of Santa Ana's defeat at San Jacinto. Houston's Mexican community was so offended by the name that the team changed it to the Houston Dynamo. Cinco de Mayo? No, its Stinko de Mayo!
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF - - - -
Like many others, I make contributions to a number of charities. I give what I think I can afford, once a year, except for some emergencies, such as the Katrina disaster, when I made additional contributions to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Since I do not earn enough to itemize deductions, my contributions are not intended lower my income taxe payments. I chose organizations that do work in areas of special interest to me.
Since charitable organizations are exempt from the fedetral and state "no call" lists, every week I get a number of telephone solicitations that start out with, "Mr. - - -, I'm calling on behalf of - - - - -." These telemarketing calls are a real nuisance, especially since they are usually made while I am occupied with something that requires my complete attention. My response is a truthful one - "We do not accept solicitations over the phone."
Most of these solicitations are from professional fund raisers who, by contract, may retain up to 50% or more of what they raise by these calls. Some are outright scams. The most notorious scams are from telephone solicitors purporting to represent the rank and file officers of local, state or federal police agencies. These scam artists will usually resort to an intimidating tone once you start to turn them down.
What really frosts me is that I get calls or written solicitations from charities which are already the recipients of my annual contributions. Many years ago, I started out giving $100 each year to the Special Olympics. Ever since, I have been getting mailings from that charity at the rate of about once a month. I got so aggravated by these frequent mail solicitations that I reduced my contributions, first to $50, then eventually to $25. The only reason I am still donating to Special Olympics is because it is a worthy cause.
For 35 years, I was a member of a Zoo, paying $100 anually for my membership. From time to time during those years, I gave additional money to the zoo's "Adopt an Animal" program. When the zoo was raising money to construct a new primate section, I made a substantial contribution to that project. For eight years, I worked as a volunteer in the primate section. Three days a week I cleaned cages and habitats. I became a real expert in one area - just call me a Professor of Primate Poop.
One evening a couple of years ago, I received a telephone call which really ticked me off. "Mr. - - -, this is Judy from the zoo." I knew there was no Judy on the staff and I found out the zoo had hired a professional fund raiser. After donating nearly $5,000 to the zoo, I get hustled by a deceptive out-of-state telemarketer - no thanks. You can bet that her true name is not even "Judy." That, together with the cavalier way I was shown the gate when I stopped volunteering, is the reason this zoo will never see another red cent from me. (I quit because, at my age, I no longer felt safe driving the 26 miles between my home and the zoo.)
Another thing that bugs me about charities is that once you start contributing to them, most will include your name, address and phone number on a list of their donors which they sell to other fund raising organizations, a practice which only leads to more of those annoying mailings and telemarketing calls.
Now, when I get a call from a charity to which I am already making annual contributions, this is what I tell them - "Look, I donate to - - - - - once a year what I can afford and I get sick and tired of getting calls from you for more. If you call again, - - - - - will never get another dime from me." Their usual response - "Oh, I'm sorry, we'll put you on our no call list."
There are many worthwhile charities and I intend to keep on giving to those which share my interests, provided they stop hustling me for additional contributions. My suggestion is that you check to see how much of your contribution is applied to fund raising. Anything above 10% is too much. The Smile Train and the Nature Conservancy are two outstanding charities.
The Smile Train, an organization of physicians which performs cleft surgery on little children in third world countries, applies 100% of all contributions to these surgeries and to the training of doctors in those countries. The fund raising costs are borne entirely by the doctors who do the cleft surgeries for The Smile Train.
The Nature Conservancy does not send me annoying mailings. It goes about quietly buying up large tracts of land for nature preserves all over the world, land that is threatened by development. Unlike the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, The Nature Conservancy does not ask anyone to sign petitions, nor does it politicize its cause.
Since charitable organizations are exempt from the fedetral and state "no call" lists, every week I get a number of telephone solicitations that start out with, "Mr. - - -, I'm calling on behalf of - - - - -." These telemarketing calls are a real nuisance, especially since they are usually made while I am occupied with something that requires my complete attention. My response is a truthful one - "We do not accept solicitations over the phone."
Most of these solicitations are from professional fund raisers who, by contract, may retain up to 50% or more of what they raise by these calls. Some are outright scams. The most notorious scams are from telephone solicitors purporting to represent the rank and file officers of local, state or federal police agencies. These scam artists will usually resort to an intimidating tone once you start to turn them down.
What really frosts me is that I get calls or written solicitations from charities which are already the recipients of my annual contributions. Many years ago, I started out giving $100 each year to the Special Olympics. Ever since, I have been getting mailings from that charity at the rate of about once a month. I got so aggravated by these frequent mail solicitations that I reduced my contributions, first to $50, then eventually to $25. The only reason I am still donating to Special Olympics is because it is a worthy cause.
For 35 years, I was a member of a Zoo, paying $100 anually for my membership. From time to time during those years, I gave additional money to the zoo's "Adopt an Animal" program. When the zoo was raising money to construct a new primate section, I made a substantial contribution to that project. For eight years, I worked as a volunteer in the primate section. Three days a week I cleaned cages and habitats. I became a real expert in one area - just call me a Professor of Primate Poop.
One evening a couple of years ago, I received a telephone call which really ticked me off. "Mr. - - -, this is Judy from the zoo." I knew there was no Judy on the staff and I found out the zoo had hired a professional fund raiser. After donating nearly $5,000 to the zoo, I get hustled by a deceptive out-of-state telemarketer - no thanks. You can bet that her true name is not even "Judy." That, together with the cavalier way I was shown the gate when I stopped volunteering, is the reason this zoo will never see another red cent from me. (I quit because, at my age, I no longer felt safe driving the 26 miles between my home and the zoo.)
Another thing that bugs me about charities is that once you start contributing to them, most will include your name, address and phone number on a list of their donors which they sell to other fund raising organizations, a practice which only leads to more of those annoying mailings and telemarketing calls.
Now, when I get a call from a charity to which I am already making annual contributions, this is what I tell them - "Look, I donate to - - - - - once a year what I can afford and I get sick and tired of getting calls from you for more. If you call again, - - - - - will never get another dime from me." Their usual response - "Oh, I'm sorry, we'll put you on our no call list."
There are many worthwhile charities and I intend to keep on giving to those which share my interests, provided they stop hustling me for additional contributions. My suggestion is that you check to see how much of your contribution is applied to fund raising. Anything above 10% is too much. The Smile Train and the Nature Conservancy are two outstanding charities.
The Smile Train, an organization of physicians which performs cleft surgery on little children in third world countries, applies 100% of all contributions to these surgeries and to the training of doctors in those countries. The fund raising costs are borne entirely by the doctors who do the cleft surgeries for The Smile Train.
The Nature Conservancy does not send me annoying mailings. It goes about quietly buying up large tracts of land for nature preserves all over the world, land that is threatened by development. Unlike the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, The Nature Conservancy does not ask anyone to sign petitions, nor does it politicize its cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)