Watch the attached video (turn up your volume). There's nothing more I can add. Today, please say a prayer for a soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or coastie that you know.
http://www.iwo.com/heroes.htm
Monday, May 29, 2006
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Time Magazine and My Black Labrador
Like a loyal Labrador Retriever, Time magazine followed the mandolin and banjo-infused melody and came trotting over to give the Dixie Chicks another fifteen minutes of fame for their latest public remarks about President Bush. The band's recent retraction of an obviously insincere apology issued several years ago for anti-American comments has rekindled another tempest.
If you aren't a country music fan and don't know the back story, here's a synopsis: The controversy over the band began awhile back during a concert in Europe when lead singer Natalie Maines expressed her shame that Mr. Bush was from her home state of Texas. What was probably meant as another general anti-war, anti-Bush wisecrack lit a storm of protest in the listener community. Country music fans are predominately conservative and quite overt in their support of our military. Maines' comment turned fans into CD-burning activists overnight, and the band's music was dropped from the playlists of many country stations nationwide. The band apologized, and the uproar faded. A meteoric career was instantly stonewalled, and the Dixie Chicks retreated from touring and performing for several years.
Fast forward to the most recent issue of Time, and you can see the Dixie Chicks on the cover, now suddenly unapologetic and ready to release their latest album, featuring the single "I'm Not Ready to Make Nice." Well, Natalie, people may not be ready to listen to you, either. The retraction -- something akin to "Bush doesn't deserve any respect" -- earned them a nice cover photo. I don't have an issue with what they said; the Dixie Chicks should enjoy First Amendment freedoms just as the rest of us. I'm amazed that Time found their remarks so profound as to warrant their placement on the cover. If that's the best the publishers can do with everything else going on in the world, what can you say? It must have been a slow day.
This entire episode isn't a free speech issue for me. Here is my gripe: Why does the mainstream media insist on being first in line to publicize the political speech of celebrities, now matter how erudite (not often, mind you) or asinine the comments are? What makes the ideologically charged rantings of famous people front page news? Does celebrity make one's opinions the conscience of a nation? Turn on any television and you're bound to hear Tim Robbins, Jeneane Garafalo, Alex Baldwin, or Sean Penn (yes, the Sean Penn whose john boat overturned in New Orleans in Katrina's aftermath -- THAT was news!) making some insulting, mean-spirited comment about W or Republicans. It's a shame the pandering media becomes useful idiots to these enlightened individuals by giving them a platform. Personally, I ignore them or change the channel and refuse to patronize any of their movies or buy their music. When's the last time a conservative celebrity (there are a few out there, right?) had a public forum to advocate their ideas?
I wish the Dixie Chicks luck in their "new" career. I used to like their music; maybe I'll give them another chance. I can't say the same for Time magazine. Where's my National Review?!!
If you aren't a country music fan and don't know the back story, here's a synopsis: The controversy over the band began awhile back during a concert in Europe when lead singer Natalie Maines expressed her shame that Mr. Bush was from her home state of Texas. What was probably meant as another general anti-war, anti-Bush wisecrack lit a storm of protest in the listener community. Country music fans are predominately conservative and quite overt in their support of our military. Maines' comment turned fans into CD-burning activists overnight, and the band's music was dropped from the playlists of many country stations nationwide. The band apologized, and the uproar faded. A meteoric career was instantly stonewalled, and the Dixie Chicks retreated from touring and performing for several years.
Fast forward to the most recent issue of Time, and you can see the Dixie Chicks on the cover, now suddenly unapologetic and ready to release their latest album, featuring the single "I'm Not Ready to Make Nice." Well, Natalie, people may not be ready to listen to you, either. The retraction -- something akin to "Bush doesn't deserve any respect" -- earned them a nice cover photo. I don't have an issue with what they said; the Dixie Chicks should enjoy First Amendment freedoms just as the rest of us. I'm amazed that Time found their remarks so profound as to warrant their placement on the cover. If that's the best the publishers can do with everything else going on in the world, what can you say? It must have been a slow day.
This entire episode isn't a free speech issue for me. Here is my gripe: Why does the mainstream media insist on being first in line to publicize the political speech of celebrities, now matter how erudite (not often, mind you) or asinine the comments are? What makes the ideologically charged rantings of famous people front page news? Does celebrity make one's opinions the conscience of a nation? Turn on any television and you're bound to hear Tim Robbins, Jeneane Garafalo, Alex Baldwin, or Sean Penn (yes, the Sean Penn whose john boat overturned in New Orleans in Katrina's aftermath -- THAT was news!) making some insulting, mean-spirited comment about W or Republicans. It's a shame the pandering media becomes useful idiots to these enlightened individuals by giving them a platform. Personally, I ignore them or change the channel and refuse to patronize any of their movies or buy their music. When's the last time a conservative celebrity (there are a few out there, right?) had a public forum to advocate their ideas?
I wish the Dixie Chicks luck in their "new" career. I used to like their music; maybe I'll give them another chance. I can't say the same for Time magazine. Where's my National Review?!!
Monday, May 15, 2006
Catch and Release....We Talking Marlins or Mexicans?
Ok, so President Bush's immigration reform speech is over, and like me, there are thousands of bloggers, pundits, wags, and wonks lining up to toss their two cents into the opinion pool. The evening talk shows are providing support, spin, or opposition. Sounds like every other day in Washington....
Regardless, it was mildly encouraging to hear the president admit that America can't control its borders. Sort of like the first step in a 12-step program: "Hi, I'm America, and I've lost control of my borders." Yes, admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery. If only it was that easy! At least Mr. Bush acknowledged the quasi-criminality of the illegal immigrants: "...[illegals] are beyond the reach and protection of American laws." This was a pretty good start to the speech, in my opinion.
First and foremost, any solution to the immigration problem must address border security, and President Bush made this apparent in his first point. Shutting the border to illegal entrants is a key aspect of a successful program. Easier said than done. Increasing the Border Patrol force by 6,000 agents will provide for greater coverage of key areas. Additionally, using technology as a force multiplier sounds like a great idea. Infra-red cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles will give our security personnel valuable tools to catch more of these pesky border hoppers. Obviously, the White House released some of the talking points prior to the speech tonight, and earlier today the nation got a glimpse of the plan to use the National Guard to supplement the Border Security forces. Another 6,000 soldiers is a step in the right direction, but I think that's not going to be enough, even if they aren't providing direct law enforcement support, which would violate posse comitatus. Deploying the Guard is a good idea, as long as there is a clear and well-defined mission. Throwing those soldiers on border duty with no purposeful objective is a recipe for trouble and wasted money.
As a true believer in the ability of the individual states to determine what is in their own best interests, I was glad to hear the president propose additional funding for local law enforcement. Hey, maybe we can cut the Department of Education or slash some other wasteful entitlement program to free up some extra cash....But I digress. Certainly, the federal government has a constitutional duty to protect our sovereign borders. Allowing localized decisions will help limit the scope of federal involvement. You didn't expect me to support a bigger federal bureaucracy again, did you?
The Federal Catch and Release Program, which evidently has been applied to immigrants as well as trout, salmon, and marlin will end, according to President Bush. This country's been too nice in trusting these illegals to return for their day in court to be out-processed from the USA. Rather than follow the law, the aliens caught by authorities are no-shows and blend into society as yet another illegal who has slipped through our porous security net. The president didn't elaborate on how this will work, and my guess is some other administrative body will have to get involved, but he's on the right track.
President Bush wants a temporary worker program with specific limits and restrictions on immigrants who enter the country. He proposed an identification card as a means of keeping track of those who come to the U.S. My question is which federal agency will be responsible for administering and tracking these cards? Using biometric information is a great plan to avoid fraud, but will the ICE, police, or some other group run this part of the immigration program?
Finally, Mr. Bush, in his own words, opposes amnesty. Granted, anything less than outright deportation or prosecution of illegal immigrants will sound like amnesty to supporters on the far right of this issue, but it's time for a sanity check. 12 million, 20 million....whatever the number -- it will be impossible to round these individuals up for the next train south. I absolutely oppose blanket amnesty. Those here illegally must be made to earn their right to stay. Paying taxes and learning English is a start. I also would advocate that the social welfare spigot be closed off from now on. Eliminating the incentive for illegally immigrating would stem the flow in conjunction with the proposed reforms. Too many financial resources are wasted on social services for illegals. If you cannot prove you immigrated legally, you will be denied welfare and social benefits. By the way, English as a Foreign Language classes meet Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. Sign up or hit the road.
The last issue is one Mr. Bush completely ignored. He failed to mention Mexico's role in this process. President Fox must be held accountable for his citizens, especially when he blatantly advocates that Mexican citizens attempt to get to the U.S. any way they can. Hey, why spend welfare pesos when George W. will pick up the tab? Well Vicente, the buck stops here, mi amigo. Perhaps some trade talks are necessary to get some compliance from our neighbors to the south. President Bush should demand a plan of action from Mexico, and hold them responsible.
Perhaps Mr. Bush quieted his critics from the conservative base, perhaps not. I hope his plan isn't too little, too late. Those who placed him in office have been waiting too long for some real action on this issue. Congress and the president must act quickly and decisively. I'm watching closely and will use my vote to express my happiness or displeasure with our government. I urge you to do the same.
Regardless, it was mildly encouraging to hear the president admit that America can't control its borders. Sort of like the first step in a 12-step program: "Hi, I'm America, and I've lost control of my borders." Yes, admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery. If only it was that easy! At least Mr. Bush acknowledged the quasi-criminality of the illegal immigrants: "...[illegals] are beyond the reach and protection of American laws." This was a pretty good start to the speech, in my opinion.
First and foremost, any solution to the immigration problem must address border security, and President Bush made this apparent in his first point. Shutting the border to illegal entrants is a key aspect of a successful program. Easier said than done. Increasing the Border Patrol force by 6,000 agents will provide for greater coverage of key areas. Additionally, using technology as a force multiplier sounds like a great idea. Infra-red cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles will give our security personnel valuable tools to catch more of these pesky border hoppers. Obviously, the White House released some of the talking points prior to the speech tonight, and earlier today the nation got a glimpse of the plan to use the National Guard to supplement the Border Security forces. Another 6,000 soldiers is a step in the right direction, but I think that's not going to be enough, even if they aren't providing direct law enforcement support, which would violate posse comitatus. Deploying the Guard is a good idea, as long as there is a clear and well-defined mission. Throwing those soldiers on border duty with no purposeful objective is a recipe for trouble and wasted money.
As a true believer in the ability of the individual states to determine what is in their own best interests, I was glad to hear the president propose additional funding for local law enforcement. Hey, maybe we can cut the Department of Education or slash some other wasteful entitlement program to free up some extra cash....But I digress. Certainly, the federal government has a constitutional duty to protect our sovereign borders. Allowing localized decisions will help limit the scope of federal involvement. You didn't expect me to support a bigger federal bureaucracy again, did you?
The Federal Catch and Release Program, which evidently has been applied to immigrants as well as trout, salmon, and marlin will end, according to President Bush. This country's been too nice in trusting these illegals to return for their day in court to be out-processed from the USA. Rather than follow the law, the aliens caught by authorities are no-shows and blend into society as yet another illegal who has slipped through our porous security net. The president didn't elaborate on how this will work, and my guess is some other administrative body will have to get involved, but he's on the right track.
President Bush wants a temporary worker program with specific limits and restrictions on immigrants who enter the country. He proposed an identification card as a means of keeping track of those who come to the U.S. My question is which federal agency will be responsible for administering and tracking these cards? Using biometric information is a great plan to avoid fraud, but will the ICE, police, or some other group run this part of the immigration program?
Finally, Mr. Bush, in his own words, opposes amnesty. Granted, anything less than outright deportation or prosecution of illegal immigrants will sound like amnesty to supporters on the far right of this issue, but it's time for a sanity check. 12 million, 20 million....whatever the number -- it will be impossible to round these individuals up for the next train south. I absolutely oppose blanket amnesty. Those here illegally must be made to earn their right to stay. Paying taxes and learning English is a start. I also would advocate that the social welfare spigot be closed off from now on. Eliminating the incentive for illegally immigrating would stem the flow in conjunction with the proposed reforms. Too many financial resources are wasted on social services for illegals. If you cannot prove you immigrated legally, you will be denied welfare and social benefits. By the way, English as a Foreign Language classes meet Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. Sign up or hit the road.
The last issue is one Mr. Bush completely ignored. He failed to mention Mexico's role in this process. President Fox must be held accountable for his citizens, especially when he blatantly advocates that Mexican citizens attempt to get to the U.S. any way they can. Hey, why spend welfare pesos when George W. will pick up the tab? Well Vicente, the buck stops here, mi amigo. Perhaps some trade talks are necessary to get some compliance from our neighbors to the south. President Bush should demand a plan of action from Mexico, and hold them responsible.
Perhaps Mr. Bush quieted his critics from the conservative base, perhaps not. I hope his plan isn't too little, too late. Those who placed him in office have been waiting too long for some real action on this issue. Congress and the president must act quickly and decisively. I'm watching closely and will use my vote to express my happiness or displeasure with our government. I urge you to do the same.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Well Said, Mr. Sowell
"Some people say it is 'name-calling' if you refer to someone as a liberal. There is nothing inherently negative about the word 'liberal.' If it has acquired negative overtones, that is because of what liberals have done and the consequences that followed." -- Thomas Sowell
I ran across this quote on another website. What a perfect definition for those who avoid the word "liberal" like the plague, yet prove from their actions and policies, replete with factless, America-hating, emotionalized arguments, that indeed this is the proper nomenclature. Or, to paraphrase one unnamed senator, "I decided to be a liberal before I decided not to be a liberal."
When Howie Dean & Co. develop a coherent platform that makes it worthwhile for rank-and-file Democrats (that's everyone outside of moveon.org) to support, then the liberals might have a fighting chance. It will at least make the debate more interesting than the current mantra -- Bush lied, people died... No war for oil....You have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything...like interns, I suppose.
I ran across this quote on another website. What a perfect definition for those who avoid the word "liberal" like the plague, yet prove from their actions and policies, replete with factless, America-hating, emotionalized arguments, that indeed this is the proper nomenclature. Or, to paraphrase one unnamed senator, "I decided to be a liberal before I decided not to be a liberal."
When Howie Dean & Co. develop a coherent platform that makes it worthwhile for rank-and-file Democrats (that's everyone outside of moveon.org) to support, then the liberals might have a fighting chance. It will at least make the debate more interesting than the current mantra -- Bush lied, people died... No war for oil....You have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything...like interns, I suppose.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Did I Wake Up and It's November Already?
If I have to hear another liberal...Ok...Democratic wonk gush longingly about "Speaker Nancy Pelosi" one more time, I'm moving to my secret, undisclosed bunker in Montana to plan the government takeover. Wow, if I had the foresight these heavy intellectuals evidently possess, I'd be predicting more productive things like....interest rates......football scores...lottery numbers...rather than waxing hopeful about my party's electoral future. George Stephanopolous and Tim Russert apparently don't even see the need for an election in six months implying in recent weekend comments that Republicans should capitulate and return to the minority. This, despite the fact the Republicans have been acting like the minority party for years now. I for one have not lost faith. It ain't over till it's over, to quote one eminently more insightful than these liberal media darlings.
Today's conventional wisdom has the Republicans facing a daunting uphill battle to maintain control of Congress. Although they maintain a 15-seat advantage in the house, as many as 40 seats may be in play, depending on the source one cites. As for the Senate, your guess is as good as mine, my friend. I even observed some conservatives tonight jumping on the doom and gloom bandwagon, predicting the Republicans' base will either abandon the party or simply refuse to show up on election day out of apathy.
It's a sad fact that the Bush administration has not acted like true conservatives. Government spending, even before the Iraqi war, has increased at levels that would make FDR smile. Many conservatives feel betrayed by Bush's moderate stance on the illegal immigration problems. Certainly, this has given pundits fodder to feed the recent speculations on the midterm elections.
Regardless, I think when the reality sets in that Democrats could actually win back Congress, conservatives currently disenchanted with the Republican party will show up, perhaps voting for the lesser of two evils, but acknowledging the fact that a weak administration failing to follow a conservative agenda is infinitely better than hearing, "Today on Meet the Press, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
Today's conventional wisdom has the Republicans facing a daunting uphill battle to maintain control of Congress. Although they maintain a 15-seat advantage in the house, as many as 40 seats may be in play, depending on the source one cites. As for the Senate, your guess is as good as mine, my friend. I even observed some conservatives tonight jumping on the doom and gloom bandwagon, predicting the Republicans' base will either abandon the party or simply refuse to show up on election day out of apathy.
It's a sad fact that the Bush administration has not acted like true conservatives. Government spending, even before the Iraqi war, has increased at levels that would make FDR smile. Many conservatives feel betrayed by Bush's moderate stance on the illegal immigration problems. Certainly, this has given pundits fodder to feed the recent speculations on the midterm elections.
Regardless, I think when the reality sets in that Democrats could actually win back Congress, conservatives currently disenchanted with the Republican party will show up, perhaps voting for the lesser of two evils, but acknowledging the fact that a weak administration failing to follow a conservative agenda is infinitely better than hearing, "Today on Meet the Press, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
Thursday, May 04, 2006
I Hear Colorado's Nice This Time of Year, Zacarias
Many Americans have expressed outrage at Zacarias Moussaoui's life sentence, preferring instead that he be executed. As one who supports the death penalty, I fully expected the jury to sentence him to death. The tremendous loss of American life during the 9/11 attacks absolutely justified Moussaoui's execution. Why then, would this man receive a life sentence instead? Perhaps the jurors will speak out at some point. It would be interesting to hear their rationales for deciding as they did, especially since the same jury voted to make him eligible for the death penalty last month. A curious verdict yesterday, for certain.
Personally, I'm not as outraged as many seem to be. His trial should transcend political agendas on both sides. Given the fact that any terrorist remotely connected with the 9/11 attacks deserves an I.V. in the arm courtesy of the Department of Justice, what spared Moussaoui's life?
It appears that the jury bought the argument that he was really a bit player in the attacks, suffering from some delusion of self-importance as the supposed pilot of the plane that was planning to attack the White House. Never proven, perhaps this was a tactic to incite the American people. His idiotic outbursts during the sentencing obviously were made to further enrage those watching. Moussaoui didn't care what he said, and if he's a true believer, then he's going to have to wait for his 72 virgins in paradise a bit longer. Ironically, I bet there might be 72 inmates waiting on a new virgin's arrival in paradise.
Rather than separate this cretin from the general population, I think a fitting job for Moussaoui in his new federal resort condominium should be as the chief bacon preparer. Perhaps there's some pigs he can tend as a side duty. Now we really have a chance to make this nutjob's life on earth a living hell as he defiles himself playing with Babe and his friends. No prayer mat, no Koran, and no comforts...Wait, I forgot the ACLU will most likely watch his incarceration with eagle eyes, ready to jump at the slightest opportunity to display sympathy for the devil once again. His bunk mate should be some strapping hunk of burning love, ready, willing, and able to hold poor Zacarias' hand during the long, cold nights. Or how about a game of naked inmate pyramid, made famous by his fellow jihadists at Club Abu Ghraib? The possibilities are limitless to make sure he's never heard from again. Enjoy the good life, Zack!
Personally, I'm not as outraged as many seem to be. His trial should transcend political agendas on both sides. Given the fact that any terrorist remotely connected with the 9/11 attacks deserves an I.V. in the arm courtesy of the Department of Justice, what spared Moussaoui's life?
It appears that the jury bought the argument that he was really a bit player in the attacks, suffering from some delusion of self-importance as the supposed pilot of the plane that was planning to attack the White House. Never proven, perhaps this was a tactic to incite the American people. His idiotic outbursts during the sentencing obviously were made to further enrage those watching. Moussaoui didn't care what he said, and if he's a true believer, then he's going to have to wait for his 72 virgins in paradise a bit longer. Ironically, I bet there might be 72 inmates waiting on a new virgin's arrival in paradise.
Rather than separate this cretin from the general population, I think a fitting job for Moussaoui in his new federal resort condominium should be as the chief bacon preparer. Perhaps there's some pigs he can tend as a side duty. Now we really have a chance to make this nutjob's life on earth a living hell as he defiles himself playing with Babe and his friends. No prayer mat, no Koran, and no comforts...Wait, I forgot the ACLU will most likely watch his incarceration with eagle eyes, ready to jump at the slightest opportunity to display sympathy for the devil once again. His bunk mate should be some strapping hunk of burning love, ready, willing, and able to hold poor Zacarias' hand during the long, cold nights. Or how about a game of naked inmate pyramid, made famous by his fellow jihadists at Club Abu Ghraib? The possibilities are limitless to make sure he's never heard from again. Enjoy the good life, Zack!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)