When you're reading about all the fancy new stuff kids are getting access to in school, do you ever wonder how we made it through and miraculously aren't morons? They spend WAY more on education now and the children are somehow more ignorant.
Fair readers, let me direct you to the to object of my ire today. School vs Education My schools were built in the 50's and 60's, we didn't have air conditioning, and the classrooms were pretty boring. However, I managed to graduate in spite of all that, and surprisingly I'm not stupid. Considering my state is completely freakin' broke, and many teachers have been laid off, how can anyone justify this? Here's a great quote from the article"
"Still, even LA Unified Superintendent Ramon Cortines derided some of the extravagance, noting that donations should have been sought to fund the RFK project's talking benches commemorating the site's history."
Talking benches?! Are you serious? Talking benches!!!!! Like high school kids even give a crap about that stuff! How about teaching them to balance a checkbook, fill out job applications or take a job interview? Or something that is of particular concern to me: the ability to SPELL. Last year I volunteered on a scholarship committee at my job. The high school kids had to write an essay saying if they could pass any law, what would it be and why. For one, most of the kids parroted all the liberal BS they're currently learning from their teachers, but without the cognitive ability to state their argument even though they were proponents. Two, the grammar and spelling was so atrocious that after two schools I was ready to throw in the towel. It says a lot that the one child whose essay was so far above the others we thought he plagiarized it!
Does the building in which students learn really matter? Besides the obvious safety concerns, do they need all this other fancy stuff? Are they of an age they actually appreciate it? At what point do we put the responsibility back on the students and parents? And lastly, were the voters aware the Los Angeles School District was going to build such a monstrosity with bond money when there are other schools in the district who need the money more?
I'm sure there are parents who would rather use the bond money to bus their kids to better neighborhoods than build one overpriced piece of artwork. As test scores show, LA reaaaallllyyyy knows what they're doing. Not!
Monday, August 23, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
She said WHAT?!
Nothing that Nancy Pelosi does should surprise me anymore. I mean, this woman is like a scary, hypnotized, teenage cheerleader when she gets near the One, but I never thought she would go this far.
I think we can all agree that our First Amendment right to free speech is one of if not THE most important right we have. It covers a lot, and inserts itself into every aspect of our lives. It covers our political speech, our right to say anything we like or dislike (ok, except for inciting a riot, etc), whether we agree with each other's opinion or not. There are a couple people I work with that are politically diametrically opposed to me and I've had political discussions with them. Never have we resorted to name calling, hostile behavior or any other sort of retribution. We also don't hold each other's opinions against the other. They're great people, and have a reason to feel the way they do, just like I do. I just don't happen to agree with them.
I've noticed, however, that slowly over the past few years our right to free speech seems to have come under fire for protecting "offensive" speech. Or rather, what others deem to be offensive. Just because it's offensive doesn't mean the person doesn't have a right to say it. Which leads me to Pelosi. I've been writing about the park51 mosque and how angry people are getting. Our out of touch politicians who are stumping for Imam Rauf seem to completely not get this argument. It is not saying no to building the mosque, its we don't want it built THERE. Not on the place where 3000 Americans from all walks of life were murdered by a group of dudes screaming they did it in the name of Islam. However, our public opposition to anything is our Constitutional right. Now Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate the people leading the charge. When called on her folly, she reiterated that funding behind the opposition groups be researched. Are you kidding me?! Lady, it's a 501(c)3 charity for the family of victims from this tragedy! I doubt Nancy Pelosi would ever have the nads to go face to face with these people, and tell them that their pain means nothing in the name of softy, Kumbayah, hand holding politics.
I am beyond the point of hoping that our current politicians in office actually understand the Constitution, because they don't. They see it as a living document to be twisted to their needs. Our Constitution gives us these rights as endowed by our Creator, and that innumerable people have died to protect. I actually hope she does something and is slapped with a Civil Rights lawsuit, because not even Pelosi can take that away from us.
Ah Nancy... if you weren't so damn dangerous I might laugh at your cluelessness.
I think we can all agree that our First Amendment right to free speech is one of if not THE most important right we have. It covers a lot, and inserts itself into every aspect of our lives. It covers our political speech, our right to say anything we like or dislike (ok, except for inciting a riot, etc), whether we agree with each other's opinion or not. There are a couple people I work with that are politically diametrically opposed to me and I've had political discussions with them. Never have we resorted to name calling, hostile behavior or any other sort of retribution. We also don't hold each other's opinions against the other. They're great people, and have a reason to feel the way they do, just like I do. I just don't happen to agree with them.
I've noticed, however, that slowly over the past few years our right to free speech seems to have come under fire for protecting "offensive" speech. Or rather, what others deem to be offensive. Just because it's offensive doesn't mean the person doesn't have a right to say it. Which leads me to Pelosi. I've been writing about the park51 mosque and how angry people are getting. Our out of touch politicians who are stumping for Imam Rauf seem to completely not get this argument. It is not saying no to building the mosque, its we don't want it built THERE. Not on the place where 3000 Americans from all walks of life were murdered by a group of dudes screaming they did it in the name of Islam. However, our public opposition to anything is our Constitutional right. Now Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate the people leading the charge. When called on her folly, she reiterated that funding behind the opposition groups be researched. Are you kidding me?! Lady, it's a 501(c)3 charity for the family of victims from this tragedy! I doubt Nancy Pelosi would ever have the nads to go face to face with these people, and tell them that their pain means nothing in the name of softy, Kumbayah, hand holding politics.
I am beyond the point of hoping that our current politicians in office actually understand the Constitution, because they don't. They see it as a living document to be twisted to their needs. Our Constitution gives us these rights as endowed by our Creator, and that innumerable people have died to protect. I actually hope she does something and is slapped with a Civil Rights lawsuit, because not even Pelosi can take that away from us.
Ah Nancy... if you weren't so damn dangerous I might laugh at your cluelessness.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Gaffe's ahoy!
Ahhh... a few months left until the election that most people hope will make a big change in how our country is being run as of late. And from what I'm seeing, call me crazy, the Left seems to be falling like a roof crumbling in on itself. I mean, I can see this in two different ways: the people making these gaffes are either so completely trusting of the sycophantic media to their cause, OR they really are that stupid. Maybe a mixture of both?
Let's examine some things that happened this week that might be the beginnings of a very large crack in the armor. One, Gibbsy goes a little cuckoo on his own party and publicly takes some cracks at them. Two, a couple of politicians from New Hampshire twittered some really nasty musings about Sarah Palin. More specifically, about Sarah Palin dying. More in depth than that, hoping she dies. Three, ole' Barry completely misreads a very contentious public argument about the Park51 mosque and comments on it. Or did he really misunderstand? Theres a lot of people who think he is a closet Muslim, but that isn't the point of today's post.
I'm talking about the psychology that's behind these comments. I'm assuming these people didn't get their jobs because they were perceived to be morons, so that leaves the first option. They are utterly convinced, with the MSM's blessing, that everyone else in America agrees with them. I mean, if they're always surrounded by people who think in the same elitist way, how are they going to be exposed to anything different? Are they that myopic? They have to be! The audacity to joke about a public figure's death, when she did nothing but exist as a political opponent, is shocking.
Now Gibbsy's flipout is another story. I can only presume from what I'm reading in many other sources that the middle left is severely cut off from the shot calling far left. Interesting to see the tug of war that's going on there.
And lastly, in typical Barry fashion, claiming to really mean something else than what came out of his mouth. Now, considering the President actually reads his speeches that his writers make up for him BEFORE he says it, you would think he would have clarified his meaning so as not to have been railed on by everyone and their mother. But he didn't. Which leads me to believe he's endorsing it because he doesn't see what's wrong. I can't claim to understand why Bloomberg is endorsing it, either. However, for our own President not to understand that this isn't about the freedom of religion but about respect for a memory, that is truly offensive.
Keep on keeping it classy, Democrats! We eagerly await the next dumbass thing that will come out of your mouths! And the closer we get to November, there will be no shortage of commercials to remind us!
Let's examine some things that happened this week that might be the beginnings of a very large crack in the armor. One, Gibbsy goes a little cuckoo on his own party and publicly takes some cracks at them. Two, a couple of politicians from New Hampshire twittered some really nasty musings about Sarah Palin. More specifically, about Sarah Palin dying. More in depth than that, hoping she dies. Three, ole' Barry completely misreads a very contentious public argument about the Park51 mosque and comments on it. Or did he really misunderstand? Theres a lot of people who think he is a closet Muslim, but that isn't the point of today's post.
I'm talking about the psychology that's behind these comments. I'm assuming these people didn't get their jobs because they were perceived to be morons, so that leaves the first option. They are utterly convinced, with the MSM's blessing, that everyone else in America agrees with them. I mean, if they're always surrounded by people who think in the same elitist way, how are they going to be exposed to anything different? Are they that myopic? They have to be! The audacity to joke about a public figure's death, when she did nothing but exist as a political opponent, is shocking.
Now Gibbsy's flipout is another story. I can only presume from what I'm reading in many other sources that the middle left is severely cut off from the shot calling far left. Interesting to see the tug of war that's going on there.
And lastly, in typical Barry fashion, claiming to really mean something else than what came out of his mouth. Now, considering the President actually reads his speeches that his writers make up for him BEFORE he says it, you would think he would have clarified his meaning so as not to have been railed on by everyone and their mother. But he didn't. Which leads me to believe he's endorsing it because he doesn't see what's wrong. I can't claim to understand why Bloomberg is endorsing it, either. However, for our own President not to understand that this isn't about the freedom of religion but about respect for a memory, that is truly offensive.
Keep on keeping it classy, Democrats! We eagerly await the next dumbass thing that will come out of your mouths! And the closer we get to November, there will be no shortage of commercials to remind us!
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Are you kidding me?!
This morning while eating my breakfast and perusing today's world news, I came across this: Imam's trip paid for by the US and almost choked on my food.
As everyone reading LL knows, I am NOT happy about the Park51 project at Ground Zero. Not one bit. I feel it is disrespectful. New York City already has a bunch of other mosques, why does there need to be yet another one? Imam Rauf isn't even claiming it's because his congregation is getting too big. Nope. It's to foster "tolerance". Really? How about tolerance for this nation's pain? Even Pope John Paul II told some Benedictine nuns to vacate a building they had rented years ago on the outskirts of the ruins of Auschwitz because people were getting upset. Yes, they wanted to pray for the souls of the people who were murdered there, but there were a lot of people who felt they were co-opting the pain of the Jews. I agree with the Pope on that ruling, and I'm Catholic. He was right. The intentions might indeed be good, but their mere presence caused more harm than any good intentions they hoped to show.
Which leads me back to Park51. Now that people are good and pissed off about it, Imam Rauf has to go around and explain himself? And paid for by the US government, excuse me, the US taxpayers? Listen Rauf, you have $100 million in investments in this place but refuse to identify your backers. How about asking them for money, since they seem to have a lot of it? Are you afraid the American public will not be pleased if they know who it is? I mean, I'm sure it's all on the up and up. After all, your dalliances with the extremist Turkish group who tried to break the Israeli blockade was just trivial. I'm sure they didn't give you any money. Or any other group that hates Americans.
Why are MY tax dollars going to pay for some guy to go around the world and explain his disrespectful venture? I hope Greg Gutfeld succeeds in building a gay bar next door to it. I would *heart*him for life!!!
DailyGut
As everyone reading LL knows, I am NOT happy about the Park51 project at Ground Zero. Not one bit. I feel it is disrespectful. New York City already has a bunch of other mosques, why does there need to be yet another one? Imam Rauf isn't even claiming it's because his congregation is getting too big. Nope. It's to foster "tolerance". Really? How about tolerance for this nation's pain? Even Pope John Paul II told some Benedictine nuns to vacate a building they had rented years ago on the outskirts of the ruins of Auschwitz because people were getting upset. Yes, they wanted to pray for the souls of the people who were murdered there, but there were a lot of people who felt they were co-opting the pain of the Jews. I agree with the Pope on that ruling, and I'm Catholic. He was right. The intentions might indeed be good, but their mere presence caused more harm than any good intentions they hoped to show.
Which leads me back to Park51. Now that people are good and pissed off about it, Imam Rauf has to go around and explain himself? And paid for by the US government, excuse me, the US taxpayers? Listen Rauf, you have $100 million in investments in this place but refuse to identify your backers. How about asking them for money, since they seem to have a lot of it? Are you afraid the American public will not be pleased if they know who it is? I mean, I'm sure it's all on the up and up. After all, your dalliances with the extremist Turkish group who tried to break the Israeli blockade was just trivial. I'm sure they didn't give you any money. Or any other group that hates Americans.
Why are MY tax dollars going to pay for some guy to go around the world and explain his disrespectful venture? I hope Greg Gutfeld succeeds in building a gay bar next door to it. I would *heart*
DailyGut
Monday, August 2, 2010
Ok, who approved this permit?!
Since I just started this blog in the past week, there's obviously a lot of content I've yet to opine on. However, I was given a little reminder today of this particular issue: Mosque at Ground Zero.
I'm a freedom loving person. I wholehearted believe in the right of my fellow citizens to practice whatever religion they want, and to build houses of worship to do just that. Except this one.
You can call me biased, maybe so. This is the way I see it. When rabid members of a particular religious group kill 3000 Americans, in the name of said religion, it's going to be a little difficult convincing the local inhabitants that it's really peace loving. I know plenty of peaceful Muslims. I work with them and they're great people. However, not one of them would ever think this new mega-mosque is a good idea. It's rubbing salt in the wound.
Now besides the somewhat fringe opinion that the building of the actual mosque symbolizes conquest. Historically in Muslim conquests back in the day, the caliphs would make deals with the locals. Those who submitted got to keep their churches. Those who didn't had their worship places confiscated and turned into mosques (check out the history of Islam in Damascus). I don't think that is the case here necessarily.
My concern is: Who the hell in the building permit office, in NEW-FREAKIN-YORK of all places, would EVER have approved this? Did this person have no pride in their city or their country? Was there never another option? How about, "Oh sure Mr. Imam, you can build a new mosque, just not there at the site of a really painful spot for all Americans. How about some blocks away? Yeah? All right then, you can have your permit." This line of thinking obviously never occurred for the individual who made this decision. I've noticed the media has made careful the person's name has never been mentioned in any story. Well, if the media is mentioning it all, which is hardly. If it weren't for Foxnews, HotAir and some other websites there are a lot of Americans who wouldn't even know this is even happening, or the protest associated with it.
So that's what I'm saying. Mr. Imam, if you care so much about Americans, and are wanting to build some interfaith respect, move your mosque. Building it at Ground Zero is an affront to all Americans, no matter color, religion, creed or origin. It is an affront to everything this country stands for. Go build your mosque a respectful distance away.
***UPDATE 8/3/10
Board clears way for mosque All right people. It's official. My heart is officially broken for the city of New York. While I understand the 152-year old building that needs to be razed has no architectural specialness to keep it around, this doesn't mean it's still ok to build the mosque there. Hey Bloomberg, have you lost your mind?! Is there no respect left? I'm still praying there will be some kind of last-minute reprieve to this argument. Come on NY, keep shouting!
I'm a freedom loving person. I wholehearted believe in the right of my fellow citizens to practice whatever religion they want, and to build houses of worship to do just that. Except this one.
You can call me biased, maybe so. This is the way I see it. When rabid members of a particular religious group kill 3000 Americans, in the name of said religion, it's going to be a little difficult convincing the local inhabitants that it's really peace loving. I know plenty of peaceful Muslims. I work with them and they're great people. However, not one of them would ever think this new mega-mosque is a good idea. It's rubbing salt in the wound.
Now besides the somewhat fringe opinion that the building of the actual mosque symbolizes conquest. Historically in Muslim conquests back in the day, the caliphs would make deals with the locals. Those who submitted got to keep their churches. Those who didn't had their worship places confiscated and turned into mosques (check out the history of Islam in Damascus). I don't think that is the case here necessarily.
My concern is: Who the hell in the building permit office, in NEW-FREAKIN-YORK of all places, would EVER have approved this? Did this person have no pride in their city or their country? Was there never another option? How about, "Oh sure Mr. Imam, you can build a new mosque, just not there at the site of a really painful spot for all Americans. How about some blocks away? Yeah? All right then, you can have your permit." This line of thinking obviously never occurred for the individual who made this decision. I've noticed the media has made careful the person's name has never been mentioned in any story. Well, if the media is mentioning it all, which is hardly. If it weren't for Foxnews, HotAir and some other websites there are a lot of Americans who wouldn't even know this is even happening, or the protest associated with it.
So that's what I'm saying. Mr. Imam, if you care so much about Americans, and are wanting to build some interfaith respect, move your mosque. Building it at Ground Zero is an affront to all Americans, no matter color, religion, creed or origin. It is an affront to everything this country stands for. Go build your mosque a respectful distance away.
***UPDATE 8/3/10
Board clears way for mosque All right people. It's official. My heart is officially broken for the city of New York. While I understand the 152-year old building that needs to be razed has no architectural specialness to keep it around, this doesn't mean it's still ok to build the mosque there. Hey Bloomberg, have you lost your mind?! Is there no respect left? I'm still praying there will be some kind of last-minute reprieve to this argument. Come on NY, keep shouting!
Sunday, August 1, 2010
I shouldn't be surprised...
But I am. Legalizing immigrants without reform.
Considering the hoopjumping around lawful procedures this administration has already done, why should I be surprised to this article today?
I'm under no illusions that we need reform. We have many states in our nation that depend on people who work in agriculture. My answer is close the border and get a guest worker program in place. Make the employers responsible for worker's comp, housing, food allowance, and attendance. The employee takes off while here, the employer gets fined. Said employer makes roster of employees available to the government. Seasonal immigrant workers with criminal records need not apply. They are also not allowed to bring over family while here and go home at the end of the season.
How is this not feasible? Well for one, closing the border at least stops the influx for now while we deal with what's in our country. Legalizing large groups of illegal immigrants should not be in those cards. How is it fair this group of lawbreakers get to jump ahead of people already legally in the citizenship process? How is it smart to legalize what is mostly unskilled, uneducated labor, versus possibly more skilled labor coming from other countries?
There is one other concern. Health. Illegal immigrants and health care. Legal immigrants go through a health screening to make sure their entry into our country doesn't pose a risk to our populace. Dr. Manny's blog posting certainly brings a unique point to this argument.
The fact remains: The Left is getting so desperate for votes that it doesn't surprise me they would attempt this, considering historically most recent immigrants vote Democrat.
I will be interested to see how this entire situation pans out.
Considering the hoopjumping around lawful procedures this administration has already done, why should I be surprised to this article today?
I'm under no illusions that we need reform. We have many states in our nation that depend on people who work in agriculture. My answer is close the border and get a guest worker program in place. Make the employers responsible for worker's comp, housing, food allowance, and attendance. The employee takes off while here, the employer gets fined. Said employer makes roster of employees available to the government. Seasonal immigrant workers with criminal records need not apply. They are also not allowed to bring over family while here and go home at the end of the season.
How is this not feasible? Well for one, closing the border at least stops the influx for now while we deal with what's in our country. Legalizing large groups of illegal immigrants should not be in those cards. How is it fair this group of lawbreakers get to jump ahead of people already legally in the citizenship process? How is it smart to legalize what is mostly unskilled, uneducated labor, versus possibly more skilled labor coming from other countries?
There is one other concern. Health. Illegal immigrants and health care. Legal immigrants go through a health screening to make sure their entry into our country doesn't pose a risk to our populace. Dr. Manny's blog posting certainly brings a unique point to this argument.
The fact remains: The Left is getting so desperate for votes that it doesn't surprise me they would attempt this, considering historically most recent immigrants vote Democrat.
I will be interested to see how this entire situation pans out.
What happened to ethics?
I'm sure it's obvious to a lot of people that most politicians are self-serving, whichever party you happen to affiliate with. However, I don't think I can remember such blatant disregard for rules without threat of any punishment. Charlie gets a slap.
This past week's story on Charlie Rangel had started off on an exciting foot. Will there be a deal or not? What information has he been privy to and will he drag everyone else down with him? Apparently this was the case, considering he basically got off with a slap on the wrist and a stern finger-wagging to never cheat the public again. Yeah. Right. Sure.
Charlie is the "distinguished" Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee. They are the hands controlling the purse strings. They were pissed when Charlie was brought up on ethics charges. Which is actually pretty funny considering a Democrat run House passed new gift rules regarding corporate sponsored travel in 2006. Sorry Charlie! This guy obviously thought he'd never be punished for not claiming rental income, for using official letterhead to garner donations for a building named after himself, for using a rent-controlled building for other than legal purposes and going on conference junkets sponsored by corporations. Yet he did it anyway! And you have to ask yourself, were they more mad at the information that could come out of the ethics trial or this was yet one more nail in the Leftie coffin for November? I'm guessing both, but that's just me.
We have to place part of the blame on ourselves for not standing up sooner and making a stink. Rangel is just a symptom of the systemic corruption within our government. We need to take charge as the voting public and make sure our informed voice is heard. This guy has been in Congress for 40 years, and is a great reason for term limits.
And to add to the Dem misery this week, Maxine Waters is up for review by the ethics panel as well. The only difference here is she chose to go in front of the panel herself. Maxine Waters to the ethics committee.
Which makes me wonder, in my very cynical way of thinking, if she doesn't already know the outcome. Or figures she will just get a slap on the wrist. Ol' Charlie did get the slap on the wrist, but that was AFTER Water subjected herself. Considering all three branches are overrun by the same party, and considering most of these fools think themselves above the law, it could just be a ploy to make the public think they're the most transparent Congress EVER!
Am I truly a cynic? It's quite possible. Nothing surprises me anymore. It's sad that I do not expect my elected officials to represent me. I expect them to represent their own self-interests. I expect power to corrupt them absolutely. Lastly, I expect them never to pay criminally for their misdeeds that would put the rest of us in prison for a good few years. Society has to ask itself what happened to it's moral compass that we have created an entire class of people not to be trusted with our interests. Can our system of government survive going into the future?
Thank God for November...
This past week's story on Charlie Rangel had started off on an exciting foot. Will there be a deal or not? What information has he been privy to and will he drag everyone else down with him? Apparently this was the case, considering he basically got off with a slap on the wrist and a stern finger-wagging to never cheat the public again. Yeah. Right. Sure.
Charlie is the "distinguished" Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee. They are the hands controlling the purse strings. They were pissed when Charlie was brought up on ethics charges. Which is actually pretty funny considering a Democrat run House passed new gift rules regarding corporate sponsored travel in 2006. Sorry Charlie! This guy obviously thought he'd never be punished for not claiming rental income, for using official letterhead to garner donations for a building named after himself, for using a rent-controlled building for other than legal purposes and going on conference junkets sponsored by corporations. Yet he did it anyway! And you have to ask yourself, were they more mad at the information that could come out of the ethics trial or this was yet one more nail in the Leftie coffin for November? I'm guessing both, but that's just me.
We have to place part of the blame on ourselves for not standing up sooner and making a stink. Rangel is just a symptom of the systemic corruption within our government. We need to take charge as the voting public and make sure our informed voice is heard. This guy has been in Congress for 40 years, and is a great reason for term limits.
And to add to the Dem misery this week, Maxine Waters is up for review by the ethics panel as well. The only difference here is she chose to go in front of the panel herself. Maxine Waters to the ethics committee.
Which makes me wonder, in my very cynical way of thinking, if she doesn't already know the outcome. Or figures she will just get a slap on the wrist. Ol' Charlie did get the slap on the wrist, but that was AFTER Water subjected herself. Considering all three branches are overrun by the same party, and considering most of these fools think themselves above the law, it could just be a ploy to make the public think they're the most transparent Congress EVER!
Am I truly a cynic? It's quite possible. Nothing surprises me anymore. It's sad that I do not expect my elected officials to represent me. I expect them to represent their own self-interests. I expect power to corrupt them absolutely. Lastly, I expect them never to pay criminally for their misdeeds that would put the rest of us in prison for a good few years. Society has to ask itself what happened to it's moral compass that we have created an entire class of people not to be trusted with our interests. Can our system of government survive going into the future?
Thank God for November...
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Loose lips sink ships! Or just troops in Afghanistan
The big story this week has been the leaking of thousands of classified documents on the war in Afghanistan. There only thing is, those papers didn't tell us anything we didn't already know: things weren't looking too good up until the troop surge. Isn't anything sacred anymore? Has ideology trumped any pride or desire for national security? In WWII people were extremely vigilant about the release of ANY information, however benign, should it benefit the enemy in any way. Even regular citizens. What did this incident gain anyone besides the adulation of a treasonous esteem-lacking young man by the rabidly anti-war Left? Hopefully not the blood of our military personnel or innocent Afghanis seeking to end Taliban rule. Has it occurred to anyone that we could have been out of there years ago had we gone in with the intention of actually winning? No one likes to go to war, but you don't go with the intention of caving. War sucks. Innocent people die. It's been happening since time immemorial. But once you commit to "helping" a group of people escape subjugation, you don't bail on them because the leadership isn't on board or it isn't popular anymore.
We learned 35 years ago what happens when politicians bail on a war effort. Contrary to what the media would like people to believe, we DID win in Vietnam. It's called the cease-fire. However, we left the South Vietnamese hanging, and let them fall victim to the communists by not providing them with money and arms. If you don't think the communists didn't know exactly who was helping the Americans, and tortured them for it, you have been living under a rock for 35 years. This is what will happen in Afghanistan if we back off. Actually, since these un-redacted papers were released, along with the names of hundreds of indigenous informants, the Taliban is now actively hunting them. Taliban hunting informants.
God help you, Mr. Bradley Manning. In my opinion you no longer rate your military rank. You have made it possible to put your own fellow military members at risk. How dare you! And why isn't the Left more outraged if they are so pro-military and pro-national security?
There is precedent for people like this.We threw Benedict Arnold out of the country. Maybe you should go live in Afghanistan with your Taliban buddies, Manning. I'm sure they'd like you for helping them, but if you ever betrayed them like you did your own country, they'd see to it you lost your head. Literally.
We learned 35 years ago what happens when politicians bail on a war effort. Contrary to what the media would like people to believe, we DID win in Vietnam. It's called the cease-fire. However, we left the South Vietnamese hanging, and let them fall victim to the communists by not providing them with money and arms. If you don't think the communists didn't know exactly who was helping the Americans, and tortured them for it, you have been living under a rock for 35 years. This is what will happen in Afghanistan if we back off. Actually, since these un-redacted papers were released, along with the names of hundreds of indigenous informants, the Taliban is now actively hunting them. Taliban hunting informants.
God help you, Mr. Bradley Manning. In my opinion you no longer rate your military rank. You have made it possible to put your own fellow military members at risk. How dare you! And why isn't the Left more outraged if they are so pro-military and pro-national security?
There is precedent for people like this.We threw Benedict Arnold out of the country. Maybe you should go live in Afghanistan with your Taliban buddies, Manning. I'm sure they'd like you for helping them, but if you ever betrayed them like you did your own country, they'd see to it you lost your head. Literally.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The aftermath.. or is it?
On Wednesday, Federal Judge Susan Bolton put a temporary injuction on parts of Arizona's SB1070. One of the provisions she messed with was the requirement for all law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of everyone they have detained for a criminal reason. Now, while on the surface this seems like she knocked it out the running but officers can still voluntarily check the status of their detainees, providing they weren't stopped due to racial profiling and they have reasonable cause to believe they're here illegally. A lot of people argue that this last statement is a gambit. Well it isn't, if you've ever worked in law enforcement. It's common sense. We all have to carry ID on us. If you don't, an officer can still look you up to see if you have a driver's license or state ID card. If the information you're giving them doesn't add up, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they're hiding something.
One of the other provisions she struck down really does piss me off, though. She struck down the article that all immigrants have to carry their papers. This has been federal law since 1940! I have to carry my driver's license or get a citation. Why is it that immigrants don't in AZ? This has taken the equal protection rule waaay out of line. If the actual American citizens of AZ have to carry their DL, and the legal immigrants know they have to carry their green card according to federal law already in place, why on earth would you throw that out of the provisions? AZ isn't doing anything that isn't already law. Law enforcement has the power to put people on immigration holds already due to a law signed by former president Clinton.
AZ filed an appeal to the ruling yesterday, although the fastest it could get to the 9th Circuit would be 6 months from now, with a miracle. I suggest AZ sue the federal government for not only not doing their job but preventing AZ from keeping their citizens safe.
However, even though Judge Bolton did what she did, it didn't prevent jackasses from tying up traffic in downtown LA for 5 hours. I feel bad for the LAPD having to put on their kid gloves in dealing with those people, who brought along their lawyers for the protest. Thank you protesters! Keep doing what you're doing, because you're winning any fans to your cause by ticking everyone else off.
One of the other provisions she struck down really does piss me off, though. She struck down the article that all immigrants have to carry their papers. This has been federal law since 1940! I have to carry my driver's license or get a citation. Why is it that immigrants don't in AZ? This has taken the equal protection rule waaay out of line. If the actual American citizens of AZ have to carry their DL, and the legal immigrants know they have to carry their green card according to federal law already in place, why on earth would you throw that out of the provisions? AZ isn't doing anything that isn't already law. Law enforcement has the power to put people on immigration holds already due to a law signed by former president Clinton.
AZ filed an appeal to the ruling yesterday, although the fastest it could get to the 9th Circuit would be 6 months from now, with a miracle. I suggest AZ sue the federal government for not only not doing their job but preventing AZ from keeping their citizens safe.
However, even though Judge Bolton did what she did, it didn't prevent jackasses from tying up traffic in downtown LA for 5 hours. I feel bad for the LAPD having to put on their kid gloves in dealing with those people, who brought along their lawyers for the protest. Thank you protesters! Keep doing what you're doing, because you're winning any fans to your cause by ticking everyone else off.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Lessons learned in an unlikely place
I went to Scotland recently, mostly for the rich historical background and landscape. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a history geek with my nose constantly buried in a book. Lately I've been reading a lot about the Protestant Reformation in Britain, including the Tudors, the Scots and the French. Scotland seemed a pretty valid choice for my vacation.
Our country's Second Amendment, I learned was not only thought of by our own Founding Fathers. In Scotland, it came from the preamble to their Militia Act to give the Scots the coequal right to have weapons and build their own local militias to protect themselves. The Scots had lived in constant warfare for centuries, and just as our ancestors, were also subject to the rule of the English. I always thought the farmers-turned-Minutemen were the reason behind the 2nd Amendment, but this added an entirely new context for me.
We can also surmise the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is directly related to the religious upheaval in the two centuries since Martin Luther and Henry VIII caused such trauma. However, in the colonies, people still had the freedom to worship even under the crown. Over in Scotland, they were fighting to have the freedom to practice whatever they wanted without interference or sanctioning by the King.
Both of these examples provided me with a new level of depth as to the ideas and experiences that went into building our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We succeeded where the Scots and the Irish didn't, but many of their ideas made it into the American experience. Although the Irish have been an independent Republic for almost 90 years, after centuries of occupation and subjegation. Scotland went through devolution a few years ago, and now retain much of their own local power with respect to countrywide and realm-wide decisions that are made in England by the Queen.
I will end with this, a quote from the Declaration of Arbroath made in 1320. Tell me if this doesn't sound distinctlyAmerican:
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Our country's Second Amendment, I learned was not only thought of by our own Founding Fathers. In Scotland, it came from the preamble to their Militia Act to give the Scots the coequal right to have weapons and build their own local militias to protect themselves. The Scots had lived in constant warfare for centuries, and just as our ancestors, were also subject to the rule of the English. I always thought the farmers-turned-Minutemen were the reason behind the 2nd Amendment, but this added an entirely new context for me.
We can also surmise the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is directly related to the religious upheaval in the two centuries since Martin Luther and Henry VIII caused such trauma. However, in the colonies, people still had the freedom to worship even under the crown. Over in Scotland, they were fighting to have the freedom to practice whatever they wanted without interference or sanctioning by the King.
Both of these examples provided me with a new level of depth as to the ideas and experiences that went into building our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We succeeded where the Scots and the Irish didn't, but many of their ideas made it into the American experience. Although the Irish have been an independent Republic for almost 90 years, after centuries of occupation and subjegation. Scotland went through devolution a few years ago, and now retain much of their own local power with respect to countrywide and realm-wide decisions that are made in England by the Queen.
I will end with this, a quote from the Declaration of Arbroath made in 1320. Tell me if this doesn't sound distinctlyAmerican:
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)