Does Anyone Want a Solution?

There is a lot of stuff happening in this country and the world today. I suppose that is always the case, although in the last several months it seems worst than it has been in the past. And honestly, much of what is happening I find personally scary and alarming. The deficit, the apparent disinterest on the part of our leaders in what the average citizen is concerned about, states going bankrupt, no legislative body showing any real concern about approving a budget much less making budget cuts, giving unelected officials the right to rule and regulate our personal lives, making the EPA part of a shadow government and in the future will tax us for exhaling, politician’s accosting private citizen’s and being defended for their actions, dissention being targeted as hate speech and terrorism, government taking over entire industries, the blame game left and right…..

In my opinion anyone who isn’t alarmed by such actions and much more is either delusional or has been living in a cave for quite a while.

But I for one, would really like to stop the blame game, the partisan rhetoric, and the gotcha games and pose a very simple question: Does anyone really want a solution? Seriously, let’s consider this shall we? In private life, most people when they encounter problems whether large or small tend to want to solve the problem. They may not always succeed but there is certainly an effort to find solutions to those things that work against us. Whether they are created by another person, a circumstance or a natural disaster. For example, last year we had horrible fires at the end of the summer in my community. In fact, I posted many pictures of the fires, some of which were literally down the block from me. I’m proud to say that my community, the firefighters, the police and so forth focused on the problem and did everything in their power to solve it. It did take a while and not everything tried work but I can truthfully say that a solution was everyone’s focus. And in the end, solutions were found, used and the problem was handled.

So, when it comes to larger problems, national problems, international problems, etc. why then is not a solution the focus? Why is the American public by and large satisfied to just let our leaders lay blame. It’s so and so’s fault because he did this and now this is why I can’t do that? A person elected to be a leader is supposed to be a leader and a leader is supposed to be the guy or gal who knows how to solve problems, right? Whether it is the president of the United States or the local city council member. But rather than solving problems PR damage control is the focus. Anecdotes about conversations with children are offered rather than finding solutions, nice speeches or not so nice speeches filled with excuses and finger pointing.

And all the while, while our leaders fail to solve existing problems they legislate more rules, regulations and attempts at taking over parts of our personal lives. Laws now exist that say American citizens must buy certain products or be fined or imprisoned. The government now must decide what we may eat, breathe, think, say and do. Those are not solutions those are impositions upon personal freedoms.

And then the causes….don’t get me started on those either. When was the last time you saw any cause that was for something rather than against something? In my mind being for something is much more likely to bring it about than being against something is likely to stop it.

I admit that I am a bit of a political junkie and I find the field interesting, fascinating and somewhat nauseating – and I love debate because I think it is debate that brings about different views, and can in reality if done sincerely can bring about real change. However, most political debate is about hating the side you are not on. About smearing and belittling people and degrading them in public forums. And I’m not talking about satire I’m talking about venom, hatred and vitriole.

I wonder if some of the most popular people to attack were on ‘the other side’ if they would be so hated. If Bill Clinton had been a Republican and gotten sex in the Oval Office while he was supposed to be doing the people’s business would he have remained in office? If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, would the ladies on the View be fawning over her left and right? If Al Gore had been a conservative would anyone have gone to see An Inconvenient Truth? If George Bush had been a liberal would his bailouts, prescription medicine initiative, and budget and deficit fall-out been hailed by the media? If Maureen Dowd spewed her venom about liberals would she even have a job? If Chris Matthews loved Chris Christie and got a tingle down his leg every time he spoke, would MSNBC issue his pinkslip?

The point I guess I am trying to make is maybe if we stepped back and viewed any leader whether public or private on the merits of what they were actually saying and doing from the standpoint of truly wanting to add to the solution to the given problem, rather than adding to turmoil would things change?

Personally, I think the time has come for Americans (at least) to stop and think. Forget what ‘side’ people are on and really evaluate if that person is trying to solve anything (particularly those things for which they are responsible for solving) just trying to get you worked up into a lather about something so you won’t notice that they are solving nothing.

No one would accept that kind of behavior in their private lives. Bosses who seek to bring the company down and fire good and effective workers are hated not revered. Co-workers who goldbrick and get paid for doing nothing and resented. Businesses that treat their customers with resentment and condescension don’t long remain in business, pastors and priests who exploit members of their congregations soon find their churches empty, criminals who steal, harm and injure other citizens are thrown in jail. Why do those who supposedly lead get a pass?

At the very least, it may be something to think about.

WC

Changing of the Guard…???

In just a few short hours we will swear in a new president. To many, he represents hope and change – or perhaps it is just the hope of change. But I wonder, will any change do?

I know that too, there are many out there who will heave a collective sigh of relief when our current president returns to private life after passing the torch to his successor. And with him (some believe) a whole litany of problems, mistakes, missteps, bad moves, poor decisions and (at best) misguided strategies, with him back to the ranch. As well as runaway spending, insurmountable national debt that our children and grandchildren will inherit, bail outs and I suppose pretty much everything that is wrong with this country.

We are making history here – the first black president (well, half-black and wasn’t Bill Clinton the first one?) and apparently by virtue of that fact alone, our country and the world opinion of same will miraculously reverse and once again, the streets of America will be paved with gold.

Well…actually…not so fast, bub. According to the new administration’s plan, we will in fact, be giving more bail outs to other victims because conventional wisdom dictates that you can’t bail out one without bailing out the rest. 600,000 new jobs sounds impressive until you realize that that translates into 600,000 more government employees to interfer in your life and with your personal liberties while you kindly pay their mortgages and automatic pay raises with your tax dollars. Then too, while GW Bush will get no praise or pass from me for the deficits run up during his two terms, at least he never exceded 4% of the GNP (Gross National Product) whereas the new President Obama’s plan is estimated to be more like 15% of the GNP. The deficit will just continue to rack up into the trillions of dollars, folks. Perhaps the hope part of this scenario is more about the hope that we the taxpayers will be able to keep at least some of our paychecks?

Hillary Clinton is going to rehabilitate our tarnished reputation abroad with her mad diplomatic skilz and the new Treasury Secretary only owes a mere $40,000 in back taxes – although since he’ll be the one overseeing the IRS, I’m sure he’ll be able to work out a good payment plan for himself.

I could go on but I’m sure you get the picture. Though what you may not realize is that this post is not really about Bush or Obama, or liberal or conservative – it’s really about the status quo. What I’m trying to point out is that despite all the campaining and debating and electing and so forth that by and large there just really isn’t that much difference between politicians and parties. That no matter what they tell you or promise you they are going to continue doing what politicians do: harness more and more money and power. Largely gaining that power with your money (not theirs) while you happily surrender it and your personal freedoms because of a promise they will never keep.

So my friends, before we get all excited about the new face and the new look in the White House let’s face the fact that aside from appearances nothing is really going to change.

Barack Obama: Savior or Socialist?

I know we’ve been having some fun swapping barbs about political candidates, lately. But I’d like to actually speak in earnest about Senator Barack Obama. I know that there are a lot of people out there who think he is really something – that maybe he is a shining beacon of hope for this country.

Given his charm, good looks and eloquence as an orator, I am not surprised that many feel that he is a breath of fresh air. That perhaps we have someone special in our midst’s. But I’m going to ask you to strip away all those lovely attributes and actually look at what he stands for. Not the poetic language he uses to couch it in, but the actual issues.

Would it surprise you to know that his platform and his ‘to do’ list is almost identical to Hillary Clinton’s? Yes, it really is. Free college, free , pull out the troops, stop funding the military, raise taxes, pour more billions into a the broken educational system, more entitlements, driver’s licenses to foreign nationals who reside illegally in this country. Yep, he’s for all that. Same as Hillary, except moreso. So, for those of you who love Barack but hate Hillary, I’d have to conclude that it is a matter of personality, not issues.

Sure, he likes to use the pretty words, change, peace on earth, what America could be…starry eyes, presidential poses, a preacher’s passionate fire – but those are just words. They are not accomplishments, they are not actions, they are just dressing up the issues that both he and Hillary share. He simply doesn’t have the baggage that Hillary has. Think about it – if Hillary were a junior senator from the midwest, who was an unknown quantity and didn’t have a record or the spouse she currently has – you’d see very little difference between the two. The fact that she has all that ’stuff’ and it’s been published for years in books, newspapers and television shows just means you know who she really is. In Barack’s case, not so much. He’s just a nice, clean-cut guy from the midwest, energetic, intelligent, blah, blah.

Well, there are a couple of things that I’d like to share about him. First of all, there is this little gem – is it impossible to believe that maybe Mr. Obama would agree to some of these ‘goals’ from such avid supporters? I don’t know about you, but my religion has never been able to demand that federal buildings carry certain items on the menu of their cafeterias or provide time/places for which I may pray. Seems a little one-sided doesn’t it?

Then there is this

Yes indeed, a Che Guevara flag donning Obama’s Texas campaign office. When asked about it, Obama’s people said it maybe was ‘inappropriate.” Excuse me? Inappropriate? The man refuses to wear an American flag lapel button but this is okay? Does he know who/what Che was? If not, let me give you some highlights:

Guevara joined Castro’s revolutionary Cuban army in 1956 as a top commander and Castro’s personal physician. He helped Castro topple the regime in Havana in 1959.
As Castro’s right-hand man he ordered the execution of hundreds of people while in charge of the La Caba prison. He said about the mass killings of innocent people,

“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.”

another memorable quote:
“Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine – this is what our soldiers must become.”

and:

“Blind hate against the enemy creates a forceful impulse that cracks the boundaries of natural human limitations, transforming the soldier into an effective, selective and cold killing machine. A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary.”

I find it difficult to believe that a man who was educated in an Ivy League school would be unaware of Guevara or his political stance – but maybe he doesn’t. But if he doesn’t, should he be in a position to lead the free world?

Then there is the matter of the global poverty act. Sounds impressive doesn’t it? Sounds altruistic and humane? Yeah, it sounds good, until you stop to consider the following:

It would demand that the president develop “and implement” a policy to “cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief” and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

“It’s not our job to cut global poverty,” said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. “These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot.”
Cliff Kincaid (Accuracy in Media) published critique of the plan stated, the adoption (of global poverty act) could “result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States” and would make levels “of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”

Kincaid said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion “over and above what the U.S. already spends.”
The plan passed the House in 2007 “because most members didn’t realize what was in it,” Kincaid reported. “Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require.”

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

Mr. Obama has said of the bill:

“With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces,” Obama said. “It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America’s standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

“Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere,” he continued.

“It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day,” a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Now, I’m a little confused – I thought we weren’t supposed to be the babysitters of the world. It’s not our business that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were executing people, torturing people, and all their other many violations of human rights. Yet, somehow now it’s our job to feed the world and he wants a law that will require the United States to take nearly 1% of its Gross National Product to feed the rest of the world, above and beyond what we already give to foreign aid. This country gives more aid, financial and otherwise than any other country in the world – not to mention private charities to which millions of Americans give to daily. Yet, now our taxes (which will likely have to be raised to pay for this and many other programs) must go toward more of this?

So, which is it? Are we to stay out of things and mind our own business or take care of the whole world. Oh and making the United Nations an integral part of this is even better, don’t you think? They’ve been wanting to dictate what America can and cannot do for years now – and soon they’ll be running the country if this sort of thing comes to pass.

And last but not least, there was that statement that Mrs. Obama made a few days ago in which she stated that it was the first time in her adult life where she felt proud of her country. Okay, excuse me? The first time? Really? I mean, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that she could have been proud of before her husband, gave all these people ‘hope.’ And while we’re on the topic – are we hopeless? When did Americans become hopeless. I think that Americans are the most hopeful, positive people in the world but apparently, I’m wrong and we’re all filled with despair and longing for someone to come along and make us feel safe and loved. And apparently that person’s name is Barack Obama.

It’s making me a bit uncomfortable to realize that I am beginning to see parallels between the Obama’s and the Clinton’s. The husband is charming and charismatic, the wife is strong, angry, controlling, assertive. While Mrs. Obama has more finesse than Hillary ever did – she really still does remind me of her. The power couple, poised for success, poised for national stardom. It’s a little spooky.

But I have to ask – what exactly has this man done – period? I mean what accomplishments does he have that even give anyone an idea that he could lead the country? Truly, what are they? I’ve heard people asked about this several times and no one seems to be able to point to anything. Not one accomplishment – he’s a first term senator who thinks he’s ready to lead the country. Based on what? Giving everybody hand outs and placebos to make them believe that their lives are somehow better by having the government even more involved in their daily lives? Who would hope for that?

Personally, I think he is a socialist who comes in a nice, trendy package. But no matter how pretty wrapping might be – what’s inside isn’t any better than what Hillary has to offer. And if you believe otherwise, I’m afraid you are kidding yourself, my friend. I really do.

A Candidate Abreast?

This morning, the host and hostess on the radio station I listen to were chatting up the ‘cleavage incident’ involving Hilary and the Senate floor. She was pro, he was con. No suprise there.

He made the argument that someone running for President should show more decorum and she accused him of objectifying her because she was a woman. Typical he said, she said argument – at best a draw and really does nothing for the debate. Each were too defensive about their view to really get anything out of it. Yawn.

I didn’t have time to check it out before I went to work, so when I got home – I did a search and there it was (the above picture). Now, call me crazy, but I can barely make out whether or not the woman even has enough cleavage to be making such a big whoopty doo about – the picture isn’t good quality and the outfit didn’t exactly advertise the goods, as they say – but so what? Hilary has breasts. Are we all shocked?

Apparently we are. At least it’s being talked about a lot and for the life of me I can’t figure out why. Was it tacky? Maybe, I mean if Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry showed that much chest on the Senate floor while discussing an important issue – it would seem inappropriate to me. Besides that, it’s just too much information. If they were wearing tight, form-fitting slacks I’d find that a little icky too.

I’m not really interested in the sexuality of any legislator. I don’t want to know what kind of underwear they put on in the morning, what their cup size is, or what condom they prefer. You know why? Because it’s private and it falls into the category of their private life. I don’t want to know. I’m more interested in what they are voting for on the Hill than in what they are wearing or not wearing on the Hill.

Yet, the media has gone hog-wild over the fact that Hilary has cleavage and she dared to show it. Was it a ploy on her part? Trying to attract male supporters? I know that actresses and singers go that route – do political candidates? Should they? Is it tacky or no big deal? Personally, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was a tactical move on her part, maybe she was testing the waters. Maybe she felt it would make her seem more youthful, more real, more feminine – and maybe it does. But for me, I’m thinking she should stick to the proper attire that all the other law makers stick with. While it may not be exciting, it is certainly less distracting.

Frankly, I want to know what’s on a candidate’s mind, not what’s under their clothes. I’m not interested in dating them, you know? I’m interested in what they would do in a leadership position – not ah…er…well, any other position.

So my advice to Hilary is put it back where it was. Use your mind and your passion to guide you in your campaign – we all know you’re a woman, no need to prove it.

And shame on the media for acting like it was real news. It was salacious and pretty much crying wolf – on a slow news day you may want to actually look for something good or positive to report – I’m pretty sure we’d rather know about that, than how much giggle a presidential candidate has and any opinions regarding same.

So…what do you think?

WC

The Great Melting Pot?

A friend recently sent me the following in an email. I found it unsettling and provocative – it is indeed a galvinizing topic – but I post it here for your thought and consideration. WC

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'”

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said:

“First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

Lamm went on:
“Second, to destroy America, invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.”
“Third, we could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’ Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”
“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E. Pluribus Unum” — >From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

“Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book ‘Mexifornia.’ His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. (I edited, all but this line of the narrator’s editorial comments – as I am more interested in your comments at this point. WC)

(Origins: Richard D. Lamm was a Democrat who served as governor of Colorado for twelve years from 1975 to 1987. Of the above quoted third person account regarding his speech on the perils of multiculturalism, he told us (snopes.com) in mid-June 2005: “Yes, it is a speech I gave a year and a half ago in Washington D.C. It was a five minute speech, and I am amazed and gratified it has received so much coverage.”)

If you are interested in checking out the snopes page on this topic, you can find it here 

If you are interested in the book Mexifornia, you can find it here 

An article by the author of Mexifornia can be found here

And finally, I leave you with what I think is an appropriate quote about the great melting pot, America.
 

” …whence came all these people? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes… What, then, is the American, this new man? He is neither an European nor the descendant of an European; hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of populations which has ever appeared.” – Hector St. Jean de Crevecoeur, Letters from an American Farmer.

War

 

War hasn’t been popular since WWII – although, I understand there were some anti-war dudes back then too – by and large, the country supported it. Many believed it would be the end of the world as we knew it and that it would all be for naught – but if we hadn’t entered WWII (spurred on by an unprovoked attack on American soil – any of this sound familiar?) we’d all be speaking German and possibly have only the color brown in our wardrobes.

Korea was an unpopular war – but I think mostly because we didn’t exactly finish the job. As evidenced by what’s going on in Korea today. A little fat dude with bad hair nuclear-izing his country, while most of his citizens starve to death (ah, the better to control them).

But, by far, I think the most unpopular war was Vietnam. Yep, that was stinker. Those who were tuning out, (big kudos to Timothy Leary) took exception to the idea that perhaps they might have to stand the watch for their country. They sure did take advantage of their personal freedoms but they sure didn’t want to have to actually defend them or protect them. Nah, that was better done by others. And they took it a step further too – by rejecting everything that was up to that point normal and American. Our military suddenly was the bad guy. The country was the bad guy. We who may have supported the fight against communism, were murderers, rapists and baby killers. Soldiers were spit upon and made to feel disgrace, all for the horrible act of going when their country called. And after years of war and thousands lost, the veterans of that war were at best ignored, and at worst tossed out like yesterdays’ trash. And it was decades before they were even thanked (much less honored) for their service. Do you remember that parade through New York City? I do. And I sat and wondered how many in that cheering crowd had made it their business to spit on these brave men and women just a few years before.

I wondered too, if all the voices drowning out common sense and reality, hadn’t been so loud if we’d have been able to finish the job there. If the millions who were murdered, tortured and turned into slaves of the Communist regime that claimed Vietnam after we left, would have had different lives. Better lives. I think they would have – but no, I don’t know.

I’m very familiar with all the arguments against war. It’s inhumane, it kills innocent civilians, we aren’t the world’s babysitter, it’s none of our business, it’s really a civil war, we shouldn’t be so imperialistic and on and on. That we are an evolved society and we should not have to resort to war to resolve our differences. We should be living on a higher plane and caring for our fellows. Let the United Nations resolve the woes of the world with diplomacy and charitable acts toward those less fortunate.

Well, I suppose those arguments have some validity. I don’t like the idea of killing people or being killed. I don’t like the idea of innocent civilians being killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I too, would like to see us all live better, more evolved lives. There’s only one problem. We aren’t.

While technology races from one new discovery and innovation to the next – we aren’t anywhere near to catching up in that progression. People still hate. People still crave power. People still give in to their baser instincts. People still seek to control others in their greed and craving for riches and land. In other words, the things that actually cause war, still exist.

Bill Gates, Apple Computer, Starbuck’s Coffee and Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream have done nothing to actually alleviate the human conditions that breed war. They sure have made our lives more convenient and even tastier, but they haven’t changed men’s hearts or souls. And to me, that is what one must do in order to live in a world without war and to have peace.

What people do not like to consider or face, is that indeed, there really is evil in this world. And they are personified by the likes of Kim, Hussein, Chavez, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, et. al. Though they are probably a very small percentage of the population, the havoc they can wreak once given any sort of power is monstrous.

It only took a handful of brainwashed men and three planes to kill 3,000 of our citizens – and we didn’t even know who they were. They were not public figures, politicians, celebrities, religious leaders or 3^rd world despots – they were ordinary men on a mission. One bred by hatred and fueled by denying these men and millions others, a normal life. Food, clothing, housing, a peaceful existence. If you starve a man long enough, it takes very little to turn them into whatever you want to turn them into. Killers. Priests. Religious zealots. Slaves.

So, the arguments to me, pro or con are beside the point. You’re arguing the wrong issue. The issue isn’t really whether war is right or wrong, good or bad. The issue is, how can we change the hearts and souls of men so they do not want to go to war in the first place?

Thoughts?

WC

Why Hillary Won’t Get My Vote

The 08 elections aren’t too far off and the campaigning will really wind up once Labor Day weekend hits, so I’ve been thinking politics lately. Not the day to day stuff, sometimes I can’t keep up and frankly, sometimes, it’s just too much. But I do like speculate and look at the landscape sometimes.

I’ve made no secret that I’m not a Hillary fan and have gotten in my cracks about her with the occasional post – but this time I want to spell out why I feel as I do. Don’t worry, it won’t be too political. And really some of my reasons may surprise.

The reasons (incomplete and in no particular order) why Hillary won’t get my vote:

1. Mean eyes. It’s one of those things that can’t be covered up with makeup or false smiles, photo lenses or filters. Even when she smiles, her eyes don’t. I could never trust someone who had mean eyes.

2. Hillary-care. A behind-closed-doors health plan with the 1st Lady as its architecht? It was so bad, apparently, that even her cronies couldn’t vote for it. And it was the first attempt (of thousands) on her part to be the President of the United States without having been elected. A blatant attempt to use her husband’s power to serve her own ends.

3. No sense of humor. Even when she tries to make a joke it’s forced and usually denigrates someone. People who cannot laugh at themselves have serious problems in my estimation. Too much ego to ever have any humility and probably feels they are incapable of making a mistake.

4. Doesn’t believe in anything (no real position on any issue). Aside from (obviously) wanting to run the free world, the woman is without purpose and position. Like her husband, her position on issues change with each new audience and demographic. Everything is surveyed and polled in order to determine what position should be taken. This means there is an utter lack of conviction in anything she says. She is apparently for everything and against everything equally.

5. She cheated. A resident of Arkansas one day, then after getting a multi-million dollar advance on a tell-all book (which apparently didn’t tell all), a purchase of a multimillion dollar home and voila, she was a New Yorker. So she could run for a Senate seat that was vacating. How does that classify her as representative of the people of New York?

6. She lied. About many things – but in particular, when she ran for re-election of above mentioned Senate seat, she said she would serve her full term. That she had no intention of seeking any other office during her term as Senator. Yet, somehow she is considered the front-runner for the Democrat party. Eh? I could spend a lot of time and space on this point, but I’d need a whole blog to do so and there are others out there who do it much better than I, so I’ll leave it at that.

7. The Two-fer. During Bill Clinton’s campaign, there were countless interviews, wherein they discussed their ‘co-presidency’ and how America would be getting two-for-the-price-of-one. In my mind, junk is still junk, no matter what you paid for it.

8. The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. While I’ve no doubt that there are millions of conspiracies where politicians are concerned, this was merely a well-orchestrated ploy to take the heat off of her and Bill during the whole Monica-gate, perjury-gate, impeachment-gate fiasco. And the general incompetency of the Clinton presidency. Yet another attempt to blame others for a mess wholly and completely created by them.

9. Righteous Indignation. First of all, few people can carry this off and those who can, use it sparingly. That aside, this woman has no moral highground (at least as far as I could ever see, read or find out about) from which to pontificate. She criticizes the president for going to war, yet she voted to go to war (as did 98 out of 100 fellow Senators) then changes it up by saying he isn’t executing it wrongly. This, from a woman who has no military background whatsoever and whose husband did all he could to dismantle same. And whose largest accomplishment with the Department of Defense was to enact the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Exactly, what knowledge, experience, understanding and expertise is she employing in making such a declaration?

10. She cares about no one. I dare anyone out there to find any truly selfless or caring act on her part. Without there being a ulterior motive for the action. And I mean acts not words. Words mean nothing if they aren’t backed up by actions.

11. Makes no difference. She has virtually made no difference or improvement in conditions in this country during her Senatorship. While it’s true that that could be said about many politicians – I’m talking about someone who wants to run the free world. Hell, even Teddy Kennedy tries to do something and authors bills that at least somehow agree with his rhetoric. If you don’t believe me, look it up. Look up how many bills she has actually authored. How many solutions she has actually tried or succeeded in implementing of her own origination.

12. No imagination or vision. We all know she wants to be the next President, but why?What vision does she have for the future of the country? What imagination has she ever demonstrated beyond envisioning herself in the Oval Office? In my mind, the great ones (and even some of the not so great ones) all had a vision. Ronald Regan envisioned a shining city on the hill, for example. What is her vision? Free healthcare for everybody? Nothing’s free, someone will have to pay for it. Don’t you think it’s going to be you and me? No involvement in Iraq and withdrawal of the troops? Is that a vision or a catastrophe waiting to happen?

13. No skill. Aside from talking a pretty good game and having lots of black pantsuits what skill does she bring to anything? She’s already said she isn’t Suzie Homemaker, she doesn’t cook, doesn’t seem to have any interest in children, education, the environment, etc. She just wants everything to be free for everybody except for those who have to pay for it. She hasn’t worked a job since the Rose Law Firm about 20 years ago – she and Bill have been living off the taxpayer for decades. She can’t dance, tell a joke decently or put people at ease. She can’t write, both her books were written by ghostwriters. She can’t even do her own hair and makeup (don’t believe me? look at some early pictures of Hillary).

14. Has no self-respect. While the woman has an ego bigger than the great outdoors, the woman has no respect for herself. She has remained married to a man who has continuously, openly and publically cheated on her. Why? You have to ask yourself what self-respecting individual would remain married to a cheating, lying, unrepentent spouse? The answer – power. She is willing to give up her integrity and self respect for power. To me, not a good reason and one which will cause heartache to the nth degree.

Okay, those are my reasons why I would never vote for Hillary and I suppose an explanation of sorts of why I find her nauseating. Nope, she’ll never get my vote. Will she get yours?

WC

Update:

Apparently, someone has pasted this post into a myspace page where Hillary Clinton supporters go. As flattering as that is in a way, if anyone is using my content, without my consent, I insist it be removed. Several bloggers have linked to this post, properly, and I have no problem with that – but I do have a problem with bloggers who feel they’ve a right to go sneaky and underhanded and to use my content for their own purposes. If you have any information regarding has done this, please contact me.

Thanks,

WC

An Undeniable Force

 

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever, is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. [Philippians 4:8].

I have always believed in the lesson of Easter. The ascension of good over evil, light over darkness. To reflect on the idea that there was someone so purely good that he would die for the transgressions of the rest of humanity is staggering. Even if you don’t prescribe to Christainity or believe in any aspect of it, the story of Christ must give one pause.

I know that it is cool and hip to bash Christianity and in fact, organized religion in general these days. That depicting Christ as a criminal, a pervert or even a monster is what passes as art or edgy dialogue – but I reject that as having any validity. To disagree with something does not mean to denigrate it.

The lessons and teachings of Christ are valuable, in fact, most of the moral and belief systems in the world follow the architecture of those lessons. Ponder that for a moment.

Though I was raised as a Catholic (strong Christian attitudes there) I don’t identify myself as a Catholic. The reasons for this are not important to anyone but myself. Nonetheless, I don’t reject Christ as a saviour. Even if he was merely a man, the effect he had and continues to have on the world is worthy of respect and awe. And I can think of few who have had a comparable impact on the world, perhaps no one has.

Even if he was only a symbol of peace on Earth, that symbol brought mankind out of darkness and gave the light of hope. How could this be a bad thing? What could be a better gift to your fellows?

When I was a little girl, I always loved the stories of Jesus and his teachings – they made me feel that there was true goodness in the world. Something the world needed desperately and still does.

So over this weekend, while I am enjoying myself with food and celebration – chocolate bunnies and Easter eggs, I will reflect on how this incredible man changed the world.

Happy Easter everybody.

WC

Really Stupid Shit Part Deux

I know you’ve all been out there waiting with baited breath for a sequel to this really popular post because when you get right down to it, you just can’t get enough stupid shit. But I like to change things up lest I end up in a rut, so rather than favorite stupid shit – I think we’ll go with annoying stupid shit this time out.

Ready? Good. Here we go

Stupidest remaining Idol Contestant: Tie. Sanjaya the bad singer with the good hair and blindingly white smile – who couldn’t sing if his life truly depended on it. He is only still on the show because weeping pre-teens can’t tell the difference between love and their impending hormones. It’s sweet in a real icky kind of way. But I hate to break it to you folks, he is one of the Top Ten. Any arguments that maybe they should have stopped at season 5?

The other ‘idol’ vying for the title is Chris Sligh (Sly? Are you kidding?) who is the self-appointed “Taylor” contestant for this year. He acts like a dark horse (he thinks), sings the same songs/material as Taylor (tries to Christ-i-cize it?) and just goes off key and nasal, does the fro thang, strolls through the crowd but looks like he wants to slap them out of his way rather than interact. Oh and his fans are calling themselves the Fro-Patrol. Excuse me while I puke. This kid is about as sincere as Paris Hilton while she is hanging out with her girlfriends’ boyfriends unchaperoned. He is the biggest phoniest jackass of a contestant I’ve seen on the show. I’ll bet the voice isn’t really his – he probably pipes it in through his ass from some high tech Ipod mike accessory. Pass the barfbag.

Stupidest Title for a movie – Mimzy or some shit. I don’t CARE if it is good. You just don’t call a movie Mimzy if you expect anyone over the age of three to go see it. Hey Joe, see any good movies lately? Oh yah Marge and I saw Mimsy – it was really fabulous. Jeez – come on!

Stupidest Talk Show Host: Rosie O’Donnell. What her producers seem to be missing is that talk show hosts are supposed to encourage the guests to talk. Not to slap them, gag them and force feed them their personal, commie, leftie, eco-whacko, insane-o views. Or am I missing something?

Stupidest TV Show: Oh there are soooooooo many but let me pick one from the new batch of shows. Now, mind you I am not going after any reality shows since in my mind they really aren’t tv shows but more like amatuer contests that are televised. No, I’m going after real, shows that are supposed to be real. Okay – Studio Sixty. I mean, hello? What the frick are they thinking here? First of all is Amanda Peet really going to go for Bradley Whitford? The guy has a huge head, it’s even a little scary. Imagine that coming at you ladies for a little good night smooch. Oh yeah. And then Matthew Perry is so schizoid he needs at least 10 offices for all his personalities and the girl he is supposed to be in love with is just too normal to ever really be attracted to a malignant narccissist like him and all his self-righteous spewing crapola. And remember folks, this is supposed to be a comedy, which means funny, right? While really all they are doing is tripping over themselves to spout whatever political ‘message’ is cool and p.c. and see who can talk the fastest. In a phrase it SUCKS!

Stupidest Rock Star: Hands down Bono: Where oh where do I begin? Okay, first of all is he really even that good of a singer? He is ugly as sin – so ugly in fact, he has to wear sunglasses everywhere he goes so the ugly rays do eat the flesh from his face and that of his fans. But what really makes him suck is this pompous, sanctimonious world peace faux world leader act of his. Does he really think anybody (who doesn’t want to get free tickets to rocks concerts populated by other pompous egotistical rock stars) is even remotely interested in his world plan? Sorry bub, but you actually have to get elected by people who know they are electing you, in order to have a say in what my country is going to do about anything. And by the way champ, get the hell out of the U.S. and U.S. affairs, who the hell asked you? How do you get off even hinting at what my tax dollars should be spent on? How dare you take my tax dollars and take credit for what they buy. Kiss my grits, dude. Big time.

Stupidest shit people do to their kids: A picture                             

is worth a thousand words. It’s not bad enought that this child is probably going to be raised by some doped up biker dude and biker chick, they have to turn him into some sort of mini me before he can even learn the words to protest. This mirror image approach to child rearing is just another disease of the yuppified self-absorbed. They don’t want to have children for the joy of having them and raising them to be their own man or woman – but rather they want to raise little clones of themselves so that they will be immortal.

Stupidest phrase: Politically Correct. What in the hell is correct about talking gibberish. I mean under what set of rules, grammar or otherwise does any of this doubletalk even begin to be correct? As for politics – we all know politics are lies and run by the lying liars who lie to get into office. So if something is politically correct isn’t the translation something like perfect lying?

Stupidest Shoes: Those sneakers that are really skates, no they are sneakers no they are skates, no they are sneakers that are skates – they are two, two, two shoes in one. What they are is an accident waiting to happen. It’s bad enough some fool came up with the idea but people are putting them on 6 year old who barely have enough sense not to play in the street much less navigate skating shoes down shopping market aisles . Which of course they don’t and they run smack into you and glare as though you are the cause of all their unhappiness. Between junk food, computers, Ipods and the fact that poor little Johnny shouldn’t have to actually walk to anyplace in the world (not even bed) this ain’t helping in the fight against adolescent obesity.

Stupidest Disease: Again, sooooooooooooooooo many to choose from but let’s go after restless leg syndrome. I mean, come on is this really a disease? From what I’ve read it’s just a magnesium deficiency, which I’d guess you could fix by taking magnesium. Why does every little thing that happens have to be a disease or a genetic defect? Why in the hell isn’t there one damn thing that people are supposed to be responsible for?

Stupidest News Story: The paternity of Ana-Nicole’s daughter. Come on folks, is this really news? I mean are things out there in the big, wide world, so easy going and calm and uneventful that who fathered an aging sex symbol’s daughter gets the headline banner. Not just once but for weeks? Really? So, like world hunger, world peace, tornados, beheadings, none of that takes precedence? Just what I thought all journalists are pussies and idiots who didn’t get their parents’ moneys worth on those fancy prep schools they all attended.

Other things that are just plain stupid pisser offers:

1. People who are too afraid to drive their cars. These are the folks who cause accidents and claim to be in them.

2. Claiming the price of gas is all because of the evil oil companies, with no mention of the taxes, initiatives, regulatory fees and every other little piece of garbage that is added to the price of gasoline which is hidden. No…let’s not tell the truth, let’s blame the guy that provides the goods.

3. Property taxes. Explain something to me, if you own something why would you pay someone else a tax for owning it? What Einstein thought this one up and why the hell does anyone pay it?

4. Giving anyone too young to pay for one on their own, a cell phone. What is the matter with parents today? They give 8 year olds cell phones and Ipods and then wonder how they get hit by cars. Aren’t kids absent-minded enough, you really have to give them things that will completely blot out the world around them? Why not just invest in that Matrix Condo Development now?

5. That cashiers can’t count. You know a bagillion years ago I worked as a waitress and often had to take money at the cash register. So if the bill was $2.26 and they gave you a five so you would count their change back to them like this: 27,28,29,30, 40,50,75, $3, $4, and $5. These days, they take the receipt and pile the bills and the change on top of that and jam it into your hand while peeking at the register to see how much they gave you. Not to mention the fact that they expect you to get the hell out of the way because the guy behind you is about ready to explode because you want to put your change back in your wallet before you grab your bags.

6. Restaurant workers who don’t speak english or have such a difficult time speaking it you cannot understand a word they say – especially at the drive through window. Sorry, but if you’re in America I believe you must speak English well enough to be understood – because if you can’t speak my language do you really think I’m going to trust in the fact that you’ll get my order right or my change? Get real.

7. The cigarette police, the fat police, the second hand smoke police (take your pick) they are the self-appointed assholes who must save society from itself while getting a whole of power for themselves too. Personally, I’m holding out for the bullshit police. I’d love to have some yahoo come along and save all of us from the bullshit that we’ve had shoveled on us from day one. I mean, have you ever asked yourself why it is that despite the trillions of dollars that have been donated and funded into heart disease, cancer, AIDS and so on that there is still no cure for any of it? Don’t you wonder why? Seriously? I’ll tell you why – it’s because they are now cottage industries that hire tons of people who would actually have to find work if cures were found. Most of that money never gets to the level of those who honestly want to find cures or solutions – it gets stuck at the administrative level. Please go save someone who needs saving and leave me alone. I am willing to accept responsibility for my actions.

8. Social Security and Medicare: Is there anyone of my generation out there who has any dillusions that they will collect one cent of the social security and medicare we have funded over our working careers? Anybody? Cuz if so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to take a look at.

Alrighty then, that’s about all my wee brain can come up with today. Feel free to add to the list.

WC

Must See TV – Are We Being Scammed?

This is a long vid, folks – and if you’d prefer you can go to youtube and watch it in parts – but I would highly recommend you settle back and watch it all in one sitting.

While the Global Warming debate rages and the ‘greenies’ get more and more whacko, this documentary offers some rational and sane facts and opinions. If only for the sake of balance,  you owe it to yourself to watch it. And don’t go to that ‘I don’t have time place’ because we all know that we waste endless hours on video games, and other dumb crap that has no importance whatsoever.

(HT to  mbatm27 )

 WC