Alpine Summit

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

A Christmas Carol and Timeless Lessons

“A Christmas Carol” is a great film about what most would call the “reason for the season.” More than that though, I think it’s about our role as people on this earth with a finite life to live. While Charles Dickens most likely wanted to draw attention to the “goodwill toward men” aspect of Christmas, he also brings to light the “grace of God” aspect as well.

For starters, Scrooge is confronted by his old partner Marley. After establishing that Scrooge’s sole purpose in life is to get as rich as possible, Marley’s ghost informs Scrooge that he’s destined for eternal misery if he doesn’t change his outlook on life ASAFP… to which Scrooge dismisses as a figment of his imagination (I would argue his conscience telling him he needs to change, but I digress). As the story progresses, we learn that Scrooge has associated many negative memories with Christmas until he became so hard against Christmas that he now denigrates it and considers it a waste of time. I think Dickens makes clear this isn’t because Scrooge is inherently bad, but that his circumstances in life have led him to grow harder each year until he becomes who we are introduced to at the beginning of the story.

The ghost of Christmas past shows Scrooge his happier times when he used to view the world through a young man’s eyes; when he was the most joyous. While being shown these images, Scrooge remembers them fondly for the most part but we also learn of certain aspects of life that harden his heart and teach him the hard realities of life. The main lesson from the ghost of Christmas past though, is that while this life does have hardship and strife, it is the way of the world and we shouldn’t lose sight that we still have much to be thankful for.

When the ghost of Christmas present arrives, we learn of Bob Cratchet and his son, Tiny Tim. The point of this part of the story is to teach us that there are many people in this life right now who need help and that we should do our utmost to help them out of genuine concern for our fellow man. The illness of Tiny Tim weighs especially heavy on Scrooge and he learns of Tim’s fate through the ghost (“crutch without an owner”). We should take away from this that as people who have had the good fortune to receive God’s blessings in life, we need to remember the ones who haven’t and take our own initiative to help those in need—as Christ did for us by sacrificing himself for us.

Christmas future shows how Scrooge is remembered as a man and he discovers his reputation is left wanting. We finally see the outcome of our short lives and long rest and discover that money is not important. Scrooge may die rich, but he never enjoyed the money to begin with, never shared his wealth with those in need, and never built good relationships with even his family (nephew). So he dies a naked man despite dressing himself for a funeral before-hand. This is symbolic of not being able to take anything with you, and in fact, we will face god as naked men and women with all our faults to answer for.

The three ghosts may change Scrooge’s attitude in the end, but Dickens was really showing us ourselves in this story, and Scrooge’s transformation is really Dickens’ wish for all of us that we learn to help others as Jesus did and not let ourselves get so hard in life that we neglect those we can help. After all, Jesus didn’t neglect us!

|

Friday, March 13, 2009

Let's See Someone Defend Obama on This One

Obama and his administration have been toying with the idea of forcing veterans and wounded Soldiers to use their private insurance to pay for combat-related injuries.

Veterans groups are warning President Barack Obama against going ahead with a possible administration move to charge veterans' private health care for service-related injuries.

I sincerely hope this is not a serious consideration.  The fact this would even be considered is unconscionable.  There is no good reason for this proposal.  First of all, wounded service members have already sacrificed their health, many for the rest of their lives, to ensure the freedoms of this country.  To tell them "now you have to pay for your own health care" is just adding insult to their already painful injury.  Frostbite nerve damage from Korea? Here's your bill.  Spinal cord injury from being shot down over Germany? Hope you can afford it.  Unbelievable.

I'm hardly a fan of VA hospitals as many have certainly heard the stories about having the wrong kidney removed in a surgery or doctors leaving their wrist watches sewn up inside someone, but for many people who served in the military, this is their only option for healthcare.

The irony of the whole situation is that the group possibly considering this is so gung-ho about nationalized medicine, giving everyone else in the country free healthcare, but we're going to make service members pay for their own? Oh and by the way, if healthcare is nationalized, exactly what private companies will be around to provide said health insurance?  What sense does this make?!  If we can't even afford to take care of our nation's heroes properly, how are we supposed to foot the bill for everyone else?

My first thought with this was "what private insurance?"  Many low-income service members rely on VA benefits for their healthcare and didn't get private healthcare when they could simply because they were promised these benefits when they signed up.  Not to mention it's the least we can do for people who have defended this country and lost their health because of it.

In addition, it would add to premiums on people in the military trying to get private insurance because of the high-risk nature of the military.

So, so far, the message I'm getting from Obama's America is "don't get a job, don't produce, don't try to rise above your station in life or better yourself in any way and you will be taken care of.  If you try to better yourself or earn more than we tell you to, you will be punished and all the layabouts will get your obviously ill-gotten gains."  That about right?

|

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Government Efficacy

To all those who think when we have a problem more government is the answer:

Testifying to Congress, Harry Markopolos accused the US regulator of being scared of confronting big Wall Street investors and of being crippled by internal squabbling and incompetence.

So a government agency received a credible report that illegal activity was going on and did nothing.  As a result, many people lost their life savings and other's retirements were put in severe jeopardy... all because the government didn't do what it said it would.

And we want to give them MORE oversight and power when they can't even handle what they have now?

|

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Is This What Liberal Leadership Looks Like?

A library in Berkeley, CA can't get it's checkout machines working because the CITY of Berkeley won't let it.  Why? Because they're stupid hippies, that's why.

The checkout machines were formerly maintained by the manufacturer, a company called Checkpoint, but Checkpoint last year announced it was turning over its maintenance jobs to 3M.

Buying new machines or finding a new repair company would "have a big impact on our budget," Corbeil said. "At this point, we basically have no choice."

The Peace and Justice Commission does not see it that way. Commissioners said the library should try harder to find a company that complies with the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act.

A "peace and justice" commission by the city requires that all companies that do business in Berkeley must sign a "we hate nukes" petition first.  3M, the ones whom the manufacturer of the machines outsourced to, refuses to sign it and so the people of Berkeley must go without.

There are a couple of things we can take away from this story.  First is the obvious fact that the city of Berkeley has spent thousands on these machines which are little more useful than paperweights.  Second, the fact that the commission refuses to give a waiver for this and recommends they "try harder" to find a better solution is yet another example of liberals more interested in making problems for other people and forcing them to come up with the solution.  Hardly inspired leadership.

In other news, Obama fired a highly successful program director for the foreign AIDS relief program.  In the words of the story:

During Obama's transition, Dr. Mark Dybul was initially asked to stay on as the coordinator of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) for several months until a replacement could be found and confirmed. Because Dybul was the main architect of the program and one of its guiding visionaries, few were surprised by the offer. With Ambassador Randall Tobias, Dybul organized the most staggeringly successful foreign assistance effort since the Marshall Plan -- eventually helping support lifesaving AIDS therapy for more than 2 million people.

Of course, once Obama was inaugurated, he promptly asked for Dybul's resignation.  Why? Not because he mismanaged the program or failed at his job in some significant way, but (presumably) because he was a Bush appointee.

...someone at State or the White House determined that sacrificing Dybul would appease a few vocal, liberal interest groups. One high-ranking Obama official admitted that the decision was "political." Yet the AIDS coordinator is not a typical political job, distributed as spoils, like some deputy assistant position at the Commerce Department. It involves directing a massive emergency operation to provide lifesaving drugs, through complex logistics, to some of the most distant places on Earth. And now that operation may be months without effective leadership -- undermining morale, complicating interagency cooperation, delaying new prevention initiatives and postponing budget decisions.

Politics as usual? Nope. Change we can believe in!  I'm not one to cite opinion articles as actual news stories and there might be a larger story behind this whole thing, but I'm not holding my breath for CNN or MSNBC to cover it anytime soon unless there's a way to blame conservatives and/or Republicans.  As rush says: "Obama is too big to fail."  This just seems too petty and "politics as usual" to jive with all the rhetoric we've been getting from Obama... there HAS to be a reason for this, right? Right.

|

Monday, January 19, 2009

This Person Probably Voted for Obama

CNN, the bastion of quality news stories such as this, decided to showcase a mother hiding a terrible secret from her son.

I say this person probably voted for Obama because of stuff like this from the opening paragraph of the story:

The moment I saw that guinea pig's corpse, I made up my mind. I would not tell my son Checkers was dead ... at least not that night. Drew had five tests within the next two days. I wasn't going to let grief jeopardize his grades.

It occurs to me that only a liberal, of the type to fawn over Obama in the way some religious followers fawn over their respective deity, would think that another person was incapable of handling what they perceive to be a tough situation without some sort of intervention on their (the mom's) part. I can understand it might have been motherly over-protection, but for crying out loud let your kids grow up! We don't mature without adversities to overcome in our lives and this kid will face things a lot harder in life than his pet dying. The little things like that prepare him for the bigger things later on-- like the death of a parent (which she definitely won't be telling him about).

I may be wrong on this one, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if she did vote for Obama since some of his policies involve, among other things, "being his brother's keeper" whether his brother wants him to or not.

|

Friday, January 16, 2009

Why Fat People are Unattractive

I saw this video on YouTube.  The subject is about kids teasing another kid with, shall we say, a bit of a weight problem.  It leads me to wonder why the fat people are teased and ridiculed and what exactly others can do about it.

First of all, I'm all for people "sharpening" each other as "iron sharpens iron," but ridicule is not the way.  People should not confuse that with admonition of fat people.  The bottom line is people are fat because they can't keep food out of their gaping maws or aren't putting the right kind of food in their gaping maws.  Either way, the result is the same.

It is wrong for a person to be fat in my opinion.  It shows a severe lack of self control on their part.  I take extreme issue when fat people demand bigger seats at movie theaters or that they be charged a single seat on an airplane even though they require two.  I take issue with it because it is something they are responsible for and could fix,but would rather force others to accommodate them.

Instead of whining about how they aren't accepted for being fat, perhaps they should look to improve their own lives and bodies and view their social plight as evidence that perhaps they aren't living correctly.  On the other side of the coin, instead of feeling guilty and trying to accommodate the whiners, the rest of us should be more inclined to admonish, or at least ignore, those who think they are entitled because they have already entitled themselves to too much.  I say this because there is no excuse for someone to be fat. Period.  Sure there's the "fat" gene excuse, but I certainly don't buy it.  There are tons of resources to get in shape: online, or in magazines and books, home gyms, gym memberships, etc. 

From what I can tell on TV, people are looking for the "I want to do whatever I want and not suffer the consequences" solution which I'm sorry to say does not exist in this world for anything including weight loss.  Maybe that's the bigger problem with society in general?

|

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Hamas v. Israel: ONLY ON PAY PER VIEW!

So the latest incursion into sovereign Arab lands by the warmongering Jews has left hundreds of poor innocents dead by the hand of the Israelis for no good reason whatsoever.

At least, that's what impression you get from all the hoopla about what has been going on in the Gaza strip lately.  I think it begs remembering that the Israelis VOLUNTARILY pulled out of Gaza several months (and over a year) ago as a part of the peace process.  How were they rewarded for this? Mortar tubes and rocket platforms were moved closer in and attacks purposefully against civilian targets continued unabated.  Now that that the Israelis are fighting back and taking an offensive position, "violence against Palestinians" is back in the news and all the media is enjoying talking about how this will hurt America's image abroad etc.  I doubt that's really a concern for us at this point, but I digress.

Bottom line: One can't help but think there is some kind of underlying anti-Semitism going on in the media when Arabs bomb schools and churches (synagogues, I know) with the intent of killing unarmed civilians doesn't make news, but Israelis incidentally bombing schools and churches (mosques, I know) as collateral damage against MILITARY targets is somehow evil and requiring the UN to do what they do best: write very strongly worded letters politely asking everyone to stop fighting.

It's because these terrorists use schools and churches (mosques, I know) as cover for themselves that these places are now being "attacked" by the Israelis.  If I remember my Geneva conventions correctly, non-military targets stop being non-military targets when they are used for military purposes, i.e. militants putting a weapons cache in a school or zoo. 

But then, why would the media want to bother with anything as un-sales worthy as the truth or perspective when they can doctor photos and concentrate on how many civilians Israel is killing rather than why they might be so pissed off?

Luckily, Israel is sending and envoy to Egypt to broker some kind of deal to halt the importation of arms and explosives into Palestine which, had the democratically elected terrorist group been more proactive about, could have prevented this whole thing.

As far as I'm concerned, the blood of all those innocents in Palestine is on the hands of Hamas-- not Israel.

|

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Operation Chaos II

I remember Rush Limbaugh doing some sort of operation chaos before. His goal was to ruin exit polling data or some such thing with elections to make all of them obsolete and allow people to make up their own minds.

Thinking about this, I came up with my own version of operation chaos where people would fill out demographic information however the hell they wanted.  For example, someone who identifies himself white could mark down that he's actually black.  Who would be to argue? After all, those demographic questions are crap anyway.  What's my purpose in wanting this? Keep reading.  Since I used black in my example above, I'll stick with that.

Assume a white man says he's black.  First of all, what does this do for him? Well, it automatically qualifies him for many scholarships and handouts from various organizations (and likely some from the government).  This is where the chaos comes in. 

Since race-baiting organizations insist on promoting their own given race, and since this causes divisions among people of different persuasions, by creating chaos in demographic information, it would render such nonsense obsolete for any use and people can focus more on whether or not you're a legal American instead of black-American or Mexican-American.  Perhaps people would finally realize how ridiculous all these arbitrary distinctions are in the face of national unity based on democratic values.

|

Friday, November 28, 2008

Doing the Right Thing

It seems that governments around the world are on the right track with this financial problem by cutting rates.

For those of you not cool enough to have majored in business or finance in college, cutting federal borrowing rates means the benchmark for all rates in a given country are lower.  THIS means that it is cheaper for people to borrow money and makes borrowing more attractive for the entrepreneurs of that country.

Again, what does this mean? Well the level of economic prosperity or growth can be tied to the level of lending and borrowing going on in a country.  No business ever grows without spending more than it is making to simply do business.  Many times, profit margins are so thin that businesses can't wait to build up the cash it needs to expand or grow, so it must borrow.  This gets into time value of money and other complicated things I won't go into-- if you're interested, I'm sure Wikipedia can tell you what you want to know.  Bottom line, if there is more borrowing/lending going on, there is better economic prosperity (assuming the loans are to relatively low-risk borrowers :ahem:).

So the fact that countries are planning to either leave their rates unchanged or drop them should help businesses find some modicum of firm footing to recover.  This means that as long as government provides the benchmarks on which the private sector can rely, this economic problem can easily be resolved.  The trick is to keep politicians from thinking they're in charge of anything and simply let businesses sort this out themselves while providing the best possible conditions FOR businesses... after all, they (businesses) are the experts!  Trillion dollar bailouts are certainly not the right answer.

|

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Like Instapundit Said

"I'm starting to get tired of all thise 'Obama as FDR' talk."

He links to this blog about Obama's first 100 days and how they are trying to take FDR's first 100 days as a model for his administration.  That's all well and good, but the author lavishes praise on FDR as if he had something to do with getting the country out of the depression.

First off, the person nobody ever gives credit for pulling the world out of the depression is Adolf Hitler.  It was because of World War II that industry was able to output at levels never before seen and employ all those people who were out of work during the depression.   I guess it's not palatable for some people to think Hitler could be associated with anything positive like ending the depression.  Not that I think it was good he started a war.

Secondly, FDR's "new deal" policies did nothing to pull the country out of the depression.  Yes he employed workers and did many public work projects, but he also set a terrible precedent that we are still living with today: the idea that it is the government that should bail people out when they fall on tough financial times.  The difference today being that people expected you work for your dollar from the government as opposed to it simply being handed to you-- for that FDR certainly got it right. The country simply limped along until WWII could come.  In fact, FDR was a big advocate of joining the fight!

Which brings me to a sidebar about how Obama has backtracked on his willingness to pull troops from Iraq.  At first he said he would pull them out the day after taking office.  After being shown that this would weaken us strategically, Obama recognized the "tiger by the tail" situation we're in with that particular conflict (which I won't go into) and backtracked on that position and now says he will "examine the situation before making a decision."  I think that at least shows he's willing to correct his own flawed policies and hopefully get over this notion he seems to have that he has all the answers.

One thing I do credit the new deal with is that it gave people in the country hope that they would be okay.  It was, as most democratic things are, more about people perceiving they would be okay versus actually being okay.  For that, FDR got it right and was a widely loved president because of it.  Another accomplishment FDR made was instituting farming incentives that many conservatives hate today, but encouraged fertile land preservation which contributed to ending the dust bowl.

Bottom line: while the people in the upcoming administration are studying FDR's first 100 days, and have certainly chosen a good president to emulate, perhaps they should look at the other 5000 days and not try to follow him too closely.

|

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Left 4 Dead Sucks

This is more a venting than anything else.  It isn't that I have any real problems with the game itself; in fact, I rather enjoy it.  I like the AI, the surprises and the wholesale slaughter of the undead.

What I DON'T like about the game is that I bought a DVD at Best Buy that apparently does nothing  but point you to the download site.  Apparently all I was really buying was the software key inside the  box.  Upon inserting the disc to install, I was taken to the steam app, which I already installed for the demo, to install the game!  So assuming the steam servers aren't inundated with download requests, it should only be a matter of mere hours to get to play the game you bought that was presumably already on the DVD-- but not.  That was one.

Also, barring problems with your network, the download should go smoothly.  Again, if the game were on the disc that accompanied the key, this wouldn't be a problem or even a concern!  For the life of me, I can't understand the logic of Valve studios making people download the content versus putting no more than a setup bootstrap, to download the game, on a DVD. That's two.

Finally, if Steam isn't up to date, it conveniently crashes to let you know it isn't running the latest-- whatever it is Steam runs on.  Then when you try to get back into Steam, it continually tries updating before allowing you back in.  Unfortunately you then have to go into the Steam folder in explorer and delete the .blob file that keep making it check the same busy server over and over again before it will try updating elsewhere.  This was strike three for me.  I've already sunk the money into the game so I must continue until I have zombie killing goodness at my fingertips-- but buyers beware!

Oh, and suck it Steam. You guys suck too for making me wait 6 hours to play a game I bought ON A DVD!!!

|

Thursday, November 20, 2008

In the Name of Unity

Why is it that when liberals win high political offices, we hear about "now it's time to heal the country and put partisan hatreds aside?" On top of that, why do we usually hear nothing but "liberals tried to reconcile with conservatives, but the conservatives would not hear their arguments?"

It seems that since the media is so biased toward left-leaning ideologies the onus is on the conservatives to defend their point of view.  Maybe prominent conservatives should challenge the assumptions of their interviewers more and learn to control the media and their biases by exposing them with questions challenging their original views that led to the question asked.

An example of this is something like O'Reilly did the other night being interviewed by his old college professor.  I loved this interview, because he was so clear on what he was saying and easily "nailed" (as Colbert would say) this lefty professor and his flawed logic.

Anyway, I hope more interviews should happen like this with conservatives and not just "traditional thinkers."

|

Thursday, November 13, 2008

WoW Player Collapses

I just got done reading this highly biased UK article about video gamers who play video games too much, calling it "video game addiction."

I'm reminded of that experiment where a monkey is given two buttons: one for food and one for pleasure.  The monkey would push the pleasure button until it literally starved to death.  I'm not saying that I agree with people who say video game addictions are real (or bad), but I don't disagree with them either.  However, being sentient human beings with PARENTS to control their kid's habits before entering adulthood seems to be the first fact to realize in all this and who exactly should get the blame.

I'm wondering how long it will be until we start hearing about "big gaming" or some such other nonsense like "big tobacco," "big oil," "big pharma," or my favorite: "big fast food."  Liberals are so good at blaming the profit-makers as if it were their original goal to corrupt people somehow and that people don't make these choices of their own accord.

|

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Some Things to Expect with the New Administration

I was thinking about things that we could expect with the new administration below.

1. Talk of America being a racist country, from such places as Iran or China, can no longer be made.

2. Socialist policies that create stagnating innovation and substandard healthcare that will quickly throw the country into a new level of debt as people "work the system" for their freebies from the government.

3. No more blaming by the media on Republican policies causing problems in the country.

4. An end to American troops abroad (read: Afghanistan/Iraq) which is either good or bad depending on your point of view.  Instead, we will have many "negotiators" to give magic arguments to bloodthirsty, theocratic dictators that will show them the error of their ways and change their policies.

5. Business will be run into the ground and the stock market will fall even further once point two has been implemented.

A country where success is punished and business is killed, where the country is made impotent by our leadership's policies.  A place where the leadership's reluctance to use force to enforce the country's will will encourage our enemies and leave us vulnerable to attack. A place that will encourage disparagement in people and provide them hand outs instead of hand-ups. If we thought things were bad before, just wait... that's what I call hopenchange.

|

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Election Day

So I was thinking this blog will simply be a diary of sorts recording my thoughts about the world and culture.  I know it's kind of scattershot, but I find putting things down somewhere other than my head to be fairly soothing.  Something tells me I'm going to need it the way this election has gone so far.

|

Friday, October 31, 2008

I'm Back, Baby!

I've made it back in one piece from 15 months in Iraq.  I have many tales of adventure and a new perspective on how wars are really fought... not to mention a new view on the Army in general.  Anyway, I've decided to make this blog something more specific than my own ramblings about how messed up the world is (or how more messed up it might get).

As Robert Frost has said though:

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

I still have some time in Garrison before I make the leap to stay in or get out and I expect many more adventures before that point!

|

Saturday, July 28, 2007

The Last Post

This will be my last post as I am leaving for Iraq tomorrow. The Army's new policy-- according to our company's security rep, is that blogs are no longer authorized for soldiers deployed. Being the example to my Soldiers I am expected to be, I will not post anymore on this blog until my return in late October of 2008.

The reason for this new policy is because evidently some idiot Lieutenant (don't look at me!) decided to post details about his convoys and how the insurgents were messing it up. Well lo and behold, the insurgents learned from the mistakes they didn't know they were making and several of his Soldiers died. Now he is in prison for the deaths of those Soldiers. Like any other example story, we don't know if it's just a wives tale to scare us all into doing the Army's bidding or if it actually happened. Regardless, I'd rather not take the chance... plus I don't want to have to deal with having to discipline a soldier for breaking the rules if I'm not following them myself.

For those who know me, you will be informed about what I'm up to, but I will not discuss operational details with you. I am looking forward to seeing the states again and coming home from a successful mission deployed.

Thank you to all who have read my blog over the years and I hope you'll still be around next year when I return.

|

Sunday, July 08, 2007

My Latest Observances

So I thought I would post about something that's been bothering me lately. It came about reading stories regarding global warming and environmentalism... to a lesser extent, reporting on Islamic terrorism.

Disregarding the fact that the media shapes public discourse all the time-- coloring it towards the left more often than not-- why do politicians think they have to do something? More than that, they feel they need to have "the greatest" plan or "the most comprehensive" plan? The result is more often than not unrealistic goals placed on businesses (and the country) that inflate government power and intrusion. There's one of those inspirational picture poster things where I'm working that says "It's amazing what people can accomplish when nobody cares who gets the credit." Our political scene should be the same way. Instead of constantly fighting and bickering between party lines, perhaps a little perspective on the issues of the day.

Marriage, by definition of separation of church and state, is not something open to be defined by our government. However, the question is then how does our government maintain an accurate census or know how much each person owes in taxes or other rights and privileges afforded to married couples? These are the principle questions regarding recognizing same-sex unions. Given the central ideas of individual freedom, it should be "self-evident" that should people decide to share their finances and individual liberties as married couples do, that should be their right. So what if a man wants his male lover to visit him in the hospital? Is that such a bad thing? The question of whether or not gays should be married is one to be decided by people's respective churches.

Environmentalism is another topic of great contention in today's political scene. When a poll comes out saying people think global warming is just being over exaggerated, all we see in the news is all the latest evidence that it is happening (while ignoring the evidence that shows it isn't). I blame media bias squarely for the rhetoric in the political scene regarding this issue. As a conservative, people should want to be environmentally sound because it reduces our dependence on foreign support as well as increasing our own national security. As liberals, people want environmental responsibility because it will save some mouse or bug nobody really cares about anyway. Either way, the idea is to work to be more environmentally sound with conservation as well as energy production. This includes wind power, solar power, water power, nuclear power, ethanol and vegetable oil. In one way, it is a good thing that gas prices are going up because it makes those other sources closer to being more economical than the status quo. Giving government subsidies to research new fuel sources that can be sustainable, clean, as well as domestic, are in the country's best interest. Again, as a conservative this is good because it reduces our dependence on foreign energy (and increases our national security) and as a liberal it's good because, well, it's big government and it takes away pollution that may or may not (probably not) irreparably damage the earth.

Terrorism has been a huge issue since 9/11. Because 99% of terrorists are Muslim males from the Middle East between the ages of 18 and 45, perhaps they should be the ones we concentrate on instead of old ladies from Florida or Medal of Honor recipients. Yes this is racial profiling, but this is a measure that must be taken to ensure the safety of the masses. The main argument for this is that Muslim/Arab rights are being violated somehow. In fact, submitting to a search is voluntary (it's in the constitution). Perhaps Muslim rage should be directed at those causing us to create these unwelcome stereotypes instead of trying to tell us in the west to be ashamed for calling it how we see it.

Finally, illegal immigration has surfaced in the same vein of people coming to our country just to cause chaos and damage. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law. It goes counter to the entire idea of law. The problem now is that politicians (and enforcers)have always been willing to look the other way for so long that now simply solving the problem by deporting illegals won't do. Instead they have become their own political force leeching off the government for which they have no respect. As hard and painful for the country as it will be, illegals should be deported, business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants should be heavily fined and their assets liquidated-- owners possibly jailed for a minimum sentence term. Illegals who give birth here are usually the next question on people's minds. Here's my solution to the "birth question:" give the children American passports and dual citizenship, deport them with their illegal parents/guardians and allow them back into America when they turn 18... if they choose.

If politicians were more involved in finding real solutions instead of only caring about keeping their office, a lot more good could get done-- not to mention less concentration on which party is in power. Most people recognize this today, I think, given their approval rating is less than 20%. What is really needed are people willing to stand up and change these things: politician in their shrewdness, and activist in their passion. The underlying idea for anyone leading in our government should be two-fold: first, the founding documents are not suicide pacts, and second, that the Country comes before anything else while they are in office. I'm confident people like this exist, the trick is for them to just step up to the plate.

|

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Communism's Legacy

The next time you hear about how we should all go to Communism and how socialist politicians are "for the people," read this.

People think it's trendy to wear fashions derived from Communist movements i.e. Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, or Mao. Just remember their murderous campaigns and the legacy they hold in the countries in which they operated.

|

Monday, June 11, 2007

Who CAIRs?

CAIR's membership has plummeted 90% since 9/11 and has relied on the kindness of a handful of "fat cows" for its annual budget.

Being a huge critic of Islam in general, I'm actually happy to see that American Muslims are distancing themselves from this terrorist-sympathizing group. I am glad to see that many who were members are finally seeing CAIR for what it is: a shill for terrorism and Islamic militancy.

As much as I rail against Islam and its adherents, it's only fair I make special notice of Muslims making a step in the right direction. I've said before that the onus to present Islam as a mainstream "religion of peace" is on its adherents... not its skeptics, and I'm glad to see them finally taking a stand (for what it's worth) like this.

|