I have been absent (or say missing in action) from my blog posts and political punditry for quite some time. Truthfully, the negative campaigning and blurred (if not dishonest) messages of the midterm elections left me with so many thoughts and so much "material" that I could have quit my job and just "blogged". Alas, I have bills to pay and, to be honest, was so sick of the midterm campaigns and the chicanery that went with them, that I took myself out of the mix for awhile. (Plus, there was football season and, being the Scarlet & Gray fanatic that I am, the Buckeyes took up a ton of my time.) Add to that a very hectic schedule at my real job and I found time to be extremely limited. That limit of time kept me from reading many good books (although I found State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan to be very thought provoking and Godless by Ann Coulter to be...quintessential Ann) and reading much "news". And let's face it, much of the "news" of past several months has been celebrity drivel, Mel Gibson and Michael Richards' rants, Rosie and Trump's war of words, and Paris and Britney's...well, you know.
At any rate, in about 14 short hours it will be 2007. My resolution is to get "plugged back in" and try to post my thoughts regularly and hopefully even more frequently than I had before. I hope you read them and comment, whether you agree or disagree.
Here is hoping that you had a wonderful Christmas and will have a great and prosperous new year. God Bless our troops in harm's way.
Oh yeah, and GO BUCKEYES!
the zealot, 12/31/06
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Danny Glover is a Freaking Idiot
Because I have a real job, I sometimes have to leave gaps between my writing. It is an unfortunate reality in my life and I only wish that I had more time and availability to speak out on the issues of the day. That is my true passion.
I must, however, comment on that idiot, Danny Glover. Danny, as opposed to myself, has a job that, while lucrative, does NOT do anything to further the well being of mankind. He is an actor and he pretends to be something he is not. For the record, I am a pharmacist. I make a decent living and I actually help people.
Anyway, my issue with Danny (and I have had them before; see http://therightwingzealot.blogspot.com) is that this idiot is suddenly buddies with Hugo Chavez. Is Danny really that much of an idiot? I understand the left-wing ideology and, while I disagree, can understand a left-leaning passion. However, “representing” for Hugo Chavez is beyond ‘off the charts.’ Come on Danny, you simpleton, this guy is a dictator in a third world country and is bashing the President of the United Sates of America, the very country where you have made your fortune. Do you really want to be aligned with him? Is your leftist agenda and hatred of George Bush REALLY that strong? Even Charles Rangel (D, NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D, Ca) found Hugo’s comments offensive. Not only did you endorse him, you introduced him.
Danny, wake up. You are either a complete idiot (and that is said with my sincere apologies to all of the other idiots out there) or you are blinded by ideology. Wake up Danny, America is what made you rich and Hugo, Fidel, and the other leftist dictators of the world will only ruin the America dream. Wake up America. We are at war, we are despised, and we need to unite to fight the evil in the world. Stunts like this are beyond foolish; they are insane…and dangerous.
the zealot, 9/21/06
I must, however, comment on that idiot, Danny Glover. Danny, as opposed to myself, has a job that, while lucrative, does NOT do anything to further the well being of mankind. He is an actor and he pretends to be something he is not. For the record, I am a pharmacist. I make a decent living and I actually help people.
Anyway, my issue with Danny (and I have had them before; see http://therightwingzealot.blogspot.com) is that this idiot is suddenly buddies with Hugo Chavez. Is Danny really that much of an idiot? I understand the left-wing ideology and, while I disagree, can understand a left-leaning passion. However, “representing” for Hugo Chavez is beyond ‘off the charts.’ Come on Danny, you simpleton, this guy is a dictator in a third world country and is bashing the President of the United Sates of America, the very country where you have made your fortune. Do you really want to be aligned with him? Is your leftist agenda and hatred of George Bush REALLY that strong? Even Charles Rangel (D, NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D, Ca) found Hugo’s comments offensive. Not only did you endorse him, you introduced him.
Danny, wake up. You are either a complete idiot (and that is said with my sincere apologies to all of the other idiots out there) or you are blinded by ideology. Wake up Danny, America is what made you rich and Hugo, Fidel, and the other leftist dictators of the world will only ruin the America dream. Wake up America. We are at war, we are despised, and we need to unite to fight the evil in the world. Stunts like this are beyond foolish; they are insane…and dangerous.
the zealot, 9/21/06
Saturday, July 15, 2006
The Rear View...July '06
After a long hiatus, I want to introduce what I will call "The Rear View". This idea was inspired by Thomas Sowell and his columns entitled Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene. The Rear View will [perhaps] be odd observations of current events that I have pondered during an “absence”, but not written about. So, the Rear View for July 2006…
Why did no high profile black activists come to the aid of William Jefferson, like they did for Cynthia McKinney? Did it have anything to do with the seriousness of the crime that either is alleged to have committed? Why does she get the ‘rock star treatment’ from the Harry Bellefonte crowd, but William Jefferson only gets support from his colleagues in Congress…both Democrats and Republicans?
Speaking of William Jefferson…much has been made about the FBI raid of his office. While I do understand the Constitutional implications of this raid as they relate to the speech and debate clause, I also understand that the guy was caught with $90,000 (in cash) in the freezer at his residence. Does anyone else keep that much cash in their freezer? I will consent to the notion that this is still only alleged bribe money. I would hope that everyone else might consent to the notion that, since the guy was ignoring a subpoena, perhaps the FBI had probable cause to conduct such a raid. I am guessing that, given the same evidence and ignoring of a subpoena, I might be the “victim” of an FBI raid as well. I for one think that our lawmakers should be afforded some Constitutional ‘protections’, but this one might be a bit ridiculous.
Speaking of the ridiculous protections given to Mr. Jefferson…how about the way that congressman all circled the wagons around him? Talk about bi-partisanship! Is this what our Founders had in mind when they set out to establish a republican form of government? My guess is no. I think that the federal government has become the ultimate money laundering machine and this case pretty much proves it. Maybe Nan Pelosi is on to something with her “culture of corruption”. Unfortunately, the apples seem to fall pretty close to the tree when it comes to money in politics.
Speaking of money in politics…shy of debating “campaign finance reform”, is anyone else sick of the ongoing attempts to silence the dissenters? It seems that each party wants to keep the other side’s view hushed. Again, I am not about to debate this at present; perhaps as the November elections draw closer. But gosh, most of the ongoing discussion about campaign finance reform makes the gerrymandering that takes place in drawing congressional districts seem almost fair. [Insert overtly sarcastic tone please.]
Back to Cynthia McKinney…does anyone else think that they could “engage” a police officer in the manner she did and NOT be charged, much less not be convicted of anything? As an aside, what about Patrick Kennedy and his “drive” to the Capitol where he side-swiped a few cars? Again, apparently the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree and it is obvious that his mother didn’t teach him how to drive. But, it is standard operating procedure for the Capitol Hill police to drive an intoxicated person home when something like this occurs. I think I might go take a cruise around the Capitol after I’ve had a few martinis and put the theory to the test.
What about all of this global warming nonsense? For the life of me, I cannot believe that so many people are taken in by all of this. I mean, I realize that the political agenda of the environmentalists has succeeded in squelching any scientific dissension, but is no one out there curious? Are Americans so dumbed-down that they cannot think out-of-the-box on this issue? (Don’t answer that.) There is tons of evidence that this global warming phenomenon is likely naturally occurring (if occurring at all) and that human produced “greenhouse gas emissions” likely don’t contribute extensively to what may or may not be happening. I’ve heard that Brad Pitt is encouraging the reconstruction in New Orleans to “go green”. Like Brad Pitt is a scientific authority on anything (see below). I have even heard suggestions that we should eat less red meat to decrease livestock herds and thus decrease the methane that these large herds produce. I am not kidding! Is that an alliance of the left or what? (The Greens and PETA tell us all how to live.)
Speaking of global warming…I will consider that it might be a problem when Al Gore and his hangers-on and all of the leftists who are on the global warming bandwagon COMPLETELY abandon everything that they do that contributes to said alleged global warming (that is allegedly caused by human initiated CO2 emissions). Again, everything. No flights on jets (private or commercial), period. You have to cross an ocean…sailboat. No limos. Get rid of the mansions, not to mention multiple homes. Do a movie where everything is done in the enviro-friendly manner you support. (I guess you’re going to need some windmills to generate electricity. Just don’t build them off the coast of Massachusetts.) And then, suggest a treaty to replace Kyoto that places extremely harsh standards on all nations, not just the USA, and keep these demands going. When I see Al Gore living in a teepee, riding a bike everywhere he goes and truly leaving the absolute minimal “carbon footprint” that any human could possibly leave, then, and only then, will I consider giving up my gas-guzzling pick-up.
Is anyone else perplexed by the “outrage” over Ann Coulter’s latest book, Godless? Ann is just expressing her opinion and exercising her First Amendment rights in doing so. No one is mad at the New York Times for doing [supposedly] the exact same thing “in the public interest.” [Oops. Quite a few people are mad at the Times; myself included.] Ok, nobody is mad at Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson for their (obviously frivolous) lawsuit regarding Valerie’s “outing” as a CIA “operative”. Man, did they not get the memo that the special prosecutor didn’t find that the “alleged crime” of “outing an agent” was committed? Note to Val and Joe, your fifteen minutes of fame are over…unless the New York Times decides that it is in the public interest to give another fifteen (God forbid). [Note to complainers: I am not a lapdog for Ann Coulter. I just find it refreshing that she is not afraid to say what she thinks and her ‘no holds barred’ style is refreshing in its own right.]
I must end this edition with a comment on the world scene. Why is it that the UN can immediately issue a resolution against Israel and the action being taken by the Israelis in response to the ongoing terrorists’ attacks that they face, and yet resolutions against obvious terror states never materialize? The UN is a non-factor in global issues. It has failed on so many levels that it isn’t even relevant anymore. The UN cannot even support its own resolutions (unless of course it is by US military might). It is time to abandon a failed “institution” and develop a union of nations who will try to lead other nations to a more unified and peaceful world (even if it means it is sometimes done by military force). We need a union of nations that will fight terrorists, rogue states, and corruption (read Oil For Food) around the globe and truly advance a peace. The UN wants global government and control of the masses. I want American sovereignty and peace through superior firepower. Here’s to expelling the UN from New York and being global leaders for a true global good.
God Bless America!
Why did no high profile black activists come to the aid of William Jefferson, like they did for Cynthia McKinney? Did it have anything to do with the seriousness of the crime that either is alleged to have committed? Why does she get the ‘rock star treatment’ from the Harry Bellefonte crowd, but William Jefferson only gets support from his colleagues in Congress…both Democrats and Republicans?
Speaking of William Jefferson…much has been made about the FBI raid of his office. While I do understand the Constitutional implications of this raid as they relate to the speech and debate clause, I also understand that the guy was caught with $90,000 (in cash) in the freezer at his residence. Does anyone else keep that much cash in their freezer? I will consent to the notion that this is still only alleged bribe money. I would hope that everyone else might consent to the notion that, since the guy was ignoring a subpoena, perhaps the FBI had probable cause to conduct such a raid. I am guessing that, given the same evidence and ignoring of a subpoena, I might be the “victim” of an FBI raid as well. I for one think that our lawmakers should be afforded some Constitutional ‘protections’, but this one might be a bit ridiculous.
Speaking of the ridiculous protections given to Mr. Jefferson…how about the way that congressman all circled the wagons around him? Talk about bi-partisanship! Is this what our Founders had in mind when they set out to establish a republican form of government? My guess is no. I think that the federal government has become the ultimate money laundering machine and this case pretty much proves it. Maybe Nan Pelosi is on to something with her “culture of corruption”. Unfortunately, the apples seem to fall pretty close to the tree when it comes to money in politics.
Speaking of money in politics…shy of debating “campaign finance reform”, is anyone else sick of the ongoing attempts to silence the dissenters? It seems that each party wants to keep the other side’s view hushed. Again, I am not about to debate this at present; perhaps as the November elections draw closer. But gosh, most of the ongoing discussion about campaign finance reform makes the gerrymandering that takes place in drawing congressional districts seem almost fair. [Insert overtly sarcastic tone please.]
Back to Cynthia McKinney…does anyone else think that they could “engage” a police officer in the manner she did and NOT be charged, much less not be convicted of anything? As an aside, what about Patrick Kennedy and his “drive” to the Capitol where he side-swiped a few cars? Again, apparently the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree and it is obvious that his mother didn’t teach him how to drive. But, it is standard operating procedure for the Capitol Hill police to drive an intoxicated person home when something like this occurs. I think I might go take a cruise around the Capitol after I’ve had a few martinis and put the theory to the test.
What about all of this global warming nonsense? For the life of me, I cannot believe that so many people are taken in by all of this. I mean, I realize that the political agenda of the environmentalists has succeeded in squelching any scientific dissension, but is no one out there curious? Are Americans so dumbed-down that they cannot think out-of-the-box on this issue? (Don’t answer that.) There is tons of evidence that this global warming phenomenon is likely naturally occurring (if occurring at all) and that human produced “greenhouse gas emissions” likely don’t contribute extensively to what may or may not be happening. I’ve heard that Brad Pitt is encouraging the reconstruction in New Orleans to “go green”. Like Brad Pitt is a scientific authority on anything (see below). I have even heard suggestions that we should eat less red meat to decrease livestock herds and thus decrease the methane that these large herds produce. I am not kidding! Is that an alliance of the left or what? (The Greens and PETA tell us all how to live.)
Speaking of global warming…I will consider that it might be a problem when Al Gore and his hangers-on and all of the leftists who are on the global warming bandwagon COMPLETELY abandon everything that they do that contributes to said alleged global warming (that is allegedly caused by human initiated CO2 emissions). Again, everything. No flights on jets (private or commercial), period. You have to cross an ocean…sailboat. No limos. Get rid of the mansions, not to mention multiple homes. Do a movie where everything is done in the enviro-friendly manner you support. (I guess you’re going to need some windmills to generate electricity. Just don’t build them off the coast of Massachusetts.) And then, suggest a treaty to replace Kyoto that places extremely harsh standards on all nations, not just the USA, and keep these demands going. When I see Al Gore living in a teepee, riding a bike everywhere he goes and truly leaving the absolute minimal “carbon footprint” that any human could possibly leave, then, and only then, will I consider giving up my gas-guzzling pick-up.
Is anyone else perplexed by the “outrage” over Ann Coulter’s latest book, Godless? Ann is just expressing her opinion and exercising her First Amendment rights in doing so. No one is mad at the New York Times for doing [supposedly] the exact same thing “in the public interest.” [Oops. Quite a few people are mad at the Times; myself included.] Ok, nobody is mad at Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson for their (obviously frivolous) lawsuit regarding Valerie’s “outing” as a CIA “operative”. Man, did they not get the memo that the special prosecutor didn’t find that the “alleged crime” of “outing an agent” was committed? Note to Val and Joe, your fifteen minutes of fame are over…unless the New York Times decides that it is in the public interest to give another fifteen (God forbid). [Note to complainers: I am not a lapdog for Ann Coulter. I just find it refreshing that she is not afraid to say what she thinks and her ‘no holds barred’ style is refreshing in its own right.]
I must end this edition with a comment on the world scene. Why is it that the UN can immediately issue a resolution against Israel and the action being taken by the Israelis in response to the ongoing terrorists’ attacks that they face, and yet resolutions against obvious terror states never materialize? The UN is a non-factor in global issues. It has failed on so many levels that it isn’t even relevant anymore. The UN cannot even support its own resolutions (unless of course it is by US military might). It is time to abandon a failed “institution” and develop a union of nations who will try to lead other nations to a more unified and peaceful world (even if it means it is sometimes done by military force). We need a union of nations that will fight terrorists, rogue states, and corruption (read Oil For Food) around the globe and truly advance a peace. The UN wants global government and control of the masses. I want American sovereignty and peace through superior firepower. Here’s to expelling the UN from New York and being global leaders for a true global good.
God Bless America!
Monday, May 29, 2006
Remembering Those Who Served
On this day, Memorial Day 2006, I wish to pause for a moment and thank all of the veterans of the United States Armed Forces for their service and sacrifice to our nation. Your devotion to this great nation has made and kept us all free and able to do whatever it is we do in the greatest nation in history.
And to all of those serving today, thank you for unwavering service in a time much like the Vietnam-era, where dissenting political views have added enormously to the challenge of your mission. Please realize that many, if not the vast majority of Americans see the big picture and are glad that you are doing what you are doing.
God bless you all and God bless America.
the right wing zealot, 5/29/06
And to all of those serving today, thank you for unwavering service in a time much like the Vietnam-era, where dissenting political views have added enormously to the challenge of your mission. Please realize that many, if not the vast majority of Americans see the big picture and are glad that you are doing what you are doing.
God bless you all and God bless America.
the right wing zealot, 5/29/06
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Did We Blow the Dubai Ports Deal?
I wonder what the negative ramifications of not letting the deal to allow Dubai Ports World to operate in several US ports will be. There certainly was a tremendous amount of political grandstanding on this one. A threatened veto from a president who has never cast one lead to bipartisan outcry over the legal takeover of a British company by a company owned by a government in the United Arab Emirates. We all know the outcome and many have speculated on the future results of the outcome. Will we have a friend in the UAE anymore? Has this hurt our standing in the Arab world that is presently friendly to us? What will happen next and how will history judge this decision?
Personally, I think the deal would have been harmless had it gone through. Cargo that is sent to the United States ports comes from everywhere in the world and the real threat is to know where it has originated and where it progresses from on its way here. That is a reason that the argument that we don't inspect enough cargo in our ports is a bit weak. We likely inspect the vast majority of what we need to inspect, based on a container's point of origin and path of travel. Also, most terrorism experts agree that smuggling into the US via containers on ships is not the way terrorists would likely do it simply because of our inspection process. So why the fuss over DPW taking over a portion of the operation of several American ports? After all, they service our Navy ships around the world.
I think it is politics, and I think it is misinformed politics at that. We refuse to profile Arabs in this country under the auspices of protecting civil rights, yet we have back-handedly killed a deal with a friendly Arab government because they are...well, because they are Arab. Did this deal need a longer and more thorough investigation? Perhaps. But, all of the politicos and pundits who came out against it seem to want to retreat from the suggestion that their opposition basically amounted to profiling. Also, where are those who oppose this deal on other issues of national security? I cannot tell you, but my guess is that inspection of those outspoken critics' records would show a bit of inconsistency in the positions they've taken. I even heard that one US Senator or Representative suggested that the American people had nixed the deal because of their common sense, blah, blah, blah. Fine, but I have followed this story fairly closely and I can tell you that a vast majority of everyday Americans were mislead that this somehow would allow the Dubai company to run security at the ports, which is not true. I also can tell you that, like me, I am assuming that most everyday Americans are not experts in port operation. Lastly, I am going to go out on a limb and also suggest that very few Americans realize that China runs port operations in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California.
So, where does this lead? Well, one suggestion was to give Congress "oversight" in all deals involving "infrastructure critical to US national security", or something to that effect. Why, I ask, should we trust Congress to have sole veto over these deals? Do they really know more than us? If we do grant Congress that right, where will it stop? Just think eminent domain for a moment and you may realize how bad that idea could be. Also, why hasn't Congress addressed pressing national security needs, such as closing the porous borders, those who overstay visas, or those who (under the First Amendment) are allowed to spew anti-American rhetoric all day long for all who will listen. That could incite rage on the order of that recently seen in France or that seen in the Middle East over the cartoon flap. Sedition laws have been used in the past to quell such speech. Is it time that we consider doing that? If so, many in Congress will be the first to be silenced. These suggestions lose their appeal when thought of in those contexts, I suppose. But, if we are going to be truly safe, then perhaps we need to take extraordinary measures to be safe. Is it worth all of that? That is for each and every individual American to decide. Once you have decided, maybe it would be beneficial to communicate that decision to your elected officials and hold them accountable if they speak out of turn. Do we want safety at all costs? Or, do we feel the way Ben Franklin felt when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
History will judge this decision which seems to me to be mostly political and only slightly practical. We have turned away a company with great experience in running ports because of who they are. In turn, we have a suggestion by some of our elected officials that we may do this to others in the future, essentially leading us to a potentially isolationist position in a global economy. We have shown the world that we can only trust a particular section of its population on the terms that we set forth. The consequences of that will likely be subtle, but far-reaching. And, in the long run, we likely aren't any safer now than we were yesterday. Sound familiar? Hopefully we will make the correct choices in the future after serious and thorough investigation and constructive debate, not based on posturing all along the political continuum. And hopefully history will not judge us poorly on the outcome we have elicited on this particular deal.
I wonder what Ben Franklin thinks?
Personally, I think the deal would have been harmless had it gone through. Cargo that is sent to the United States ports comes from everywhere in the world and the real threat is to know where it has originated and where it progresses from on its way here. That is a reason that the argument that we don't inspect enough cargo in our ports is a bit weak. We likely inspect the vast majority of what we need to inspect, based on a container's point of origin and path of travel. Also, most terrorism experts agree that smuggling into the US via containers on ships is not the way terrorists would likely do it simply because of our inspection process. So why the fuss over DPW taking over a portion of the operation of several American ports? After all, they service our Navy ships around the world.
I think it is politics, and I think it is misinformed politics at that. We refuse to profile Arabs in this country under the auspices of protecting civil rights, yet we have back-handedly killed a deal with a friendly Arab government because they are...well, because they are Arab. Did this deal need a longer and more thorough investigation? Perhaps. But, all of the politicos and pundits who came out against it seem to want to retreat from the suggestion that their opposition basically amounted to profiling. Also, where are those who oppose this deal on other issues of national security? I cannot tell you, but my guess is that inspection of those outspoken critics' records would show a bit of inconsistency in the positions they've taken. I even heard that one US Senator or Representative suggested that the American people had nixed the deal because of their common sense, blah, blah, blah. Fine, but I have followed this story fairly closely and I can tell you that a vast majority of everyday Americans were mislead that this somehow would allow the Dubai company to run security at the ports, which is not true. I also can tell you that, like me, I am assuming that most everyday Americans are not experts in port operation. Lastly, I am going to go out on a limb and also suggest that very few Americans realize that China runs port operations in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California.
So, where does this lead? Well, one suggestion was to give Congress "oversight" in all deals involving "infrastructure critical to US national security", or something to that effect. Why, I ask, should we trust Congress to have sole veto over these deals? Do they really know more than us? If we do grant Congress that right, where will it stop? Just think eminent domain for a moment and you may realize how bad that idea could be. Also, why hasn't Congress addressed pressing national security needs, such as closing the porous borders, those who overstay visas, or those who (under the First Amendment) are allowed to spew anti-American rhetoric all day long for all who will listen. That could incite rage on the order of that recently seen in France or that seen in the Middle East over the cartoon flap. Sedition laws have been used in the past to quell such speech. Is it time that we consider doing that? If so, many in Congress will be the first to be silenced. These suggestions lose their appeal when thought of in those contexts, I suppose. But, if we are going to be truly safe, then perhaps we need to take extraordinary measures to be safe. Is it worth all of that? That is for each and every individual American to decide. Once you have decided, maybe it would be beneficial to communicate that decision to your elected officials and hold them accountable if they speak out of turn. Do we want safety at all costs? Or, do we feel the way Ben Franklin felt when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
History will judge this decision which seems to me to be mostly political and only slightly practical. We have turned away a company with great experience in running ports because of who they are. In turn, we have a suggestion by some of our elected officials that we may do this to others in the future, essentially leading us to a potentially isolationist position in a global economy. We have shown the world that we can only trust a particular section of its population on the terms that we set forth. The consequences of that will likely be subtle, but far-reaching. And, in the long run, we likely aren't any safer now than we were yesterday. Sound familiar? Hopefully we will make the correct choices in the future after serious and thorough investigation and constructive debate, not based on posturing all along the political continuum. And hopefully history will not judge us poorly on the outcome we have elicited on this particular deal.
I wonder what Ben Franklin thinks?
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Of Safe Gun Handling and Sane Responses
I decided to wait for the story of Dick Cheney's hunting accident to die down a bit before I commented. I am assuming the time is now, but then again, some "fresh" Abu Ghraib photos just surfaced, so who knows. Anyway, here goes.
There are many, many rules that go along with hunting, recreational shooting, and shooting sports. Any firearms enthusiast came name them all and will likely tell you what I am about to tell you. Mr. Cheney made a mistake, one that likely could have killed his hunting buddy. There are two safety rules that immediately came to my mind when the story "finally broke". The first was part of Hunting 101: Identify your target. You can never shoot without actually seeing what you are shooting at. It is just plain wrong if you do. The next rule is a basic firearms safety rule: Know your background. This basically means that you need to know what you might hit if your round misses its mark and continues on. You have to know how far it will go and what is out there that it may potentially hit. There were suggestions that Harry Whittington somehow wandered into the Vice President's background and there were some comments and opinions that he was being blamed for getting shot. While there may be some truth to the fact that he got himself into the line of fire, the simple fact remains: Dick Cheney pulled the trigger.
And you know what? He admitted to all of this. He took the blame.
The "story" here really is the fact that the VP's staff apparently left the decision to him as to how to handle "getting the story out" and he decided to wait, assure that Mr. Whittington was ok, let his family get their bearings and then gave the story to a local newspaper [The Corpus Christi Caller-Times] with Katharine Armstrong (the ranch owner on whose property the accident occurred) delivering the account. A shocker to be sure, but at this point end of story.
Wrong! Not even close.
Anyone who is reading this knows the details by now. We all have an opinion about how it was handled. From a purely political point-of-view, perhaps it was botched. I really cannot say. You see, I am not the vice president of the United States of America and I did not accidentally shoot a guy while I was hunting. But for the sake of argument, let us all put ourselves in Mr. Cheney's position. Not as the VP, but as who we are right now. Wonder if we had done the same thing? How would we feel knowing full well that the whole world was going to hear about this eventually? Does this warrant the "delay" in getting the story out? From a political standpoint, perhaps not. From a personal standpoint, you betcha!
First and foremost, everyone in the media appears to have forgotten that the victim in this situation is not a public official and because of that, they have no right to his information. Seriously. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) grants Mr. Whittington privacy regarding his medical condition. To be sure, it really is no one else's business how he is doing. Then, the White House press corps goes crazy about the slow response in getting the story out. Personally, I see it as sour grapes that they were left out of the scoop on this story. No one called them to tell them, so they had to then begin the multi-day assault of Scott McClellan on what they felt went wrong in the disseminating of this story. Some of them tied it to Hurricane Katrina and other issues they have with the Bush Administration. Now that is a leap of faith. Or is it somehow journalistic license?
Then came the "official" comments from the politicos, those wacky Democrats like Nancy Pelosi who tied this to her "culture of corruption". That catch phrase is worse than the vast right wing conspiracy. (SHH. I am a member of the VRWC, but the lefties still think it is a joke. Or do they?)
Finally, we had the likes of George Clooney wondering why no one was fired over this incident, Alec Baldwin ranting and raving on the Huffington Post discussing the civil trial between Mr. Whittington and VP Cheney and then somehow making the progression to Enron and Arnold Schwarzenegger being governor of California, and I think even Richard Dreyfuss chimed in, but he is about as incoherent as Al Gore these days, so I am not certain what his point was.
So what is the story here really all about? Will it become about the need for more "gun control"? It shouldn't, but the anti-Second Amendment crowd will likely get some mileage out of it, to be sure. Will it be about Dick Cheney drinking? Well, it shouldn't because from all factual accounts, his beer at lunch had no bearing on what happened. Besides, what difference does that make? If a liberal Hollywood star had a substance abuse problem and did something stupid, we'd be asked to sympathize. It would never make the 'world news', although Entertainment Tonight and Jon Stewart would likely treat it as a monumental story. And God forbid that we could even think to handle this the way we were told to handle the Bill and Monica story, as a "private matter". No, that could never happen because of Bush, Halliburton, the Iraq War, wiretapping, and tax cuts.
To quote a famous line from Cool Hand Luke, "what we have here is failure to communicate." At least a failure based on the way the mainstream media believes it should be done. We have a story that is really (fortunately by the outcome) not a big story at all. But in our instant information society, it did not come fast enough and also did not come through the "proper channels". We have politics in play in a terribly polarized political landscape and we let this story become big. It took on a life of its own and it crowded out the real stories of the week. The media should be ashamed of that. If anything, they are guilty of negligence in doing their jobs because they decided to "overlook" just about everything else that went on this week. We have high profile liberals using their celebrity to make baseless comments about a guy who has a real job where he doesn't just pretend to be someone he is not. And when that guy makes a mistake, everything else in the world is his fault simply because his policies aren't the same as Alec's or George's. We have a hunting accident that no one involved with feels was a big deal and yet it becomes the "shot heard 'round the world".
The only thing left to say is this: it was a big deal! Mr. Cheney did not identify his target and he apparently lost track of his background. I am certain he will remember this the next time he goes hunting. I just wonder if he will remember to tell everyone or if he will only tell Fox News. God help us all if that is his decision.
There are many, many rules that go along with hunting, recreational shooting, and shooting sports. Any firearms enthusiast came name them all and will likely tell you what I am about to tell you. Mr. Cheney made a mistake, one that likely could have killed his hunting buddy. There are two safety rules that immediately came to my mind when the story "finally broke". The first was part of Hunting 101: Identify your target. You can never shoot without actually seeing what you are shooting at. It is just plain wrong if you do. The next rule is a basic firearms safety rule: Know your background. This basically means that you need to know what you might hit if your round misses its mark and continues on. You have to know how far it will go and what is out there that it may potentially hit. There were suggestions that Harry Whittington somehow wandered into the Vice President's background and there were some comments and opinions that he was being blamed for getting shot. While there may be some truth to the fact that he got himself into the line of fire, the simple fact remains: Dick Cheney pulled the trigger.
And you know what? He admitted to all of this. He took the blame.
The "story" here really is the fact that the VP's staff apparently left the decision to him as to how to handle "getting the story out" and he decided to wait, assure that Mr. Whittington was ok, let his family get their bearings and then gave the story to a local newspaper [The Corpus Christi Caller-Times] with Katharine Armstrong (the ranch owner on whose property the accident occurred) delivering the account. A shocker to be sure, but at this point end of story.
Wrong! Not even close.
Anyone who is reading this knows the details by now. We all have an opinion about how it was handled. From a purely political point-of-view, perhaps it was botched. I really cannot say. You see, I am not the vice president of the United States of America and I did not accidentally shoot a guy while I was hunting. But for the sake of argument, let us all put ourselves in Mr. Cheney's position. Not as the VP, but as who we are right now. Wonder if we had done the same thing? How would we feel knowing full well that the whole world was going to hear about this eventually? Does this warrant the "delay" in getting the story out? From a political standpoint, perhaps not. From a personal standpoint, you betcha!
First and foremost, everyone in the media appears to have forgotten that the victim in this situation is not a public official and because of that, they have no right to his information. Seriously. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) grants Mr. Whittington privacy regarding his medical condition. To be sure, it really is no one else's business how he is doing. Then, the White House press corps goes crazy about the slow response in getting the story out. Personally, I see it as sour grapes that they were left out of the scoop on this story. No one called them to tell them, so they had to then begin the multi-day assault of Scott McClellan on what they felt went wrong in the disseminating of this story. Some of them tied it to Hurricane Katrina and other issues they have with the Bush Administration. Now that is a leap of faith. Or is it somehow journalistic license?
Then came the "official" comments from the politicos, those wacky Democrats like Nancy Pelosi who tied this to her "culture of corruption". That catch phrase is worse than the vast right wing conspiracy. (SHH. I am a member of the VRWC, but the lefties still think it is a joke. Or do they?)
Finally, we had the likes of George Clooney wondering why no one was fired over this incident, Alec Baldwin ranting and raving on the Huffington Post discussing the civil trial between Mr. Whittington and VP Cheney and then somehow making the progression to Enron and Arnold Schwarzenegger being governor of California, and I think even Richard Dreyfuss chimed in, but he is about as incoherent as Al Gore these days, so I am not certain what his point was.
So what is the story here really all about? Will it become about the need for more "gun control"? It shouldn't, but the anti-Second Amendment crowd will likely get some mileage out of it, to be sure. Will it be about Dick Cheney drinking? Well, it shouldn't because from all factual accounts, his beer at lunch had no bearing on what happened. Besides, what difference does that make? If a liberal Hollywood star had a substance abuse problem and did something stupid, we'd be asked to sympathize. It would never make the 'world news', although Entertainment Tonight and Jon Stewart would likely treat it as a monumental story. And God forbid that we could even think to handle this the way we were told to handle the Bill and Monica story, as a "private matter". No, that could never happen because of Bush, Halliburton, the Iraq War, wiretapping, and tax cuts.
To quote a famous line from Cool Hand Luke, "what we have here is failure to communicate." At least a failure based on the way the mainstream media believes it should be done. We have a story that is really (fortunately by the outcome) not a big story at all. But in our instant information society, it did not come fast enough and also did not come through the "proper channels". We have politics in play in a terribly polarized political landscape and we let this story become big. It took on a life of its own and it crowded out the real stories of the week. The media should be ashamed of that. If anything, they are guilty of negligence in doing their jobs because they decided to "overlook" just about everything else that went on this week. We have high profile liberals using their celebrity to make baseless comments about a guy who has a real job where he doesn't just pretend to be someone he is not. And when that guy makes a mistake, everything else in the world is his fault simply because his policies aren't the same as Alec's or George's. We have a hunting accident that no one involved with feels was a big deal and yet it becomes the "shot heard 'round the world".
The only thing left to say is this: it was a big deal! Mr. Cheney did not identify his target and he apparently lost track of his background. I am certain he will remember this the next time he goes hunting. I just wonder if he will remember to tell everyone or if he will only tell Fox News. God help us all if that is his decision.
Monday, January 30, 2006
A Note from the Zealot
A hectic work schedule has kept me busy the past few weeks, but fear not; more ranting on the affairs of the day is to come. With the State of the Union speech scheduled for tomorrow evening, I am sure that the political rhetoric will soon heat up. I will be there to comment and do my own stirring of the pot.
the right wing zealot
the right wing zealot
Sunday, January 15, 2006
The Farce of the Alito Hearings
I actually agree with Joe Biden on something. The senator from Delaware said last week that he felt Senate Judiciary committee hearings for nominees for the Supreme Court should be eliminated and a nominee should go straight to the Senate for a full confirmation vote. I could not agree more, but my guess is my reasons for feeling this way are a bit different than those of Senator Biden.
At the outset I must say that personally, I think we should know as much as possible about a potential justice who is about to receive a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. The reason is that the Supreme Court, over time, has been made the sole arbiter of all of the laws of the land. While the Black Robes (Supreme Court justices) are supposed to interpret the law, specifically the U.S. Constitution, quite often they make the law. This is called judicial activism and that is a hip catch phrase today that is applied to a nominee by opposing political factions to stigmatize that nominee (or sitting judge) as being "out of the mainstream" because they are not afraid to "legislate from the bench". Thus they are guilty of creating their own laws. This is an issue for everyone, regardless of political leanings, yet only the guy with the other ideology ever seems to partake in it. While I see citation of foreign law in a Supreme Court decision as a clear example of such judiciary "legislation", I could likely find dozens of other examples of judicial activism. The point, however, is that no one really wants to admit to it but everyone admits, perhaps claims is a better word, that it goes on. That we actually have to have such a discussion is what bothers me the most.
Since his re-election, President Bush has had the opportunity to replace two Supreme Court justices. Part of the process of vetting a candidate is the Senate Judiciary committee hearings which these days are televised for anyone who is interested to watch. If these hearings really meant something, they might be compelling; compelling in content, as an insight into a nominee's judicial record, and maybe compelling enough that the average citizen (who is really the one who should be leery of how a justice might rule) might pay attention and watch. Yet, the hearings have become a platform for the senators on the committee to pontificate, ridicule, and even personally attack a nominee. Most of them really don't even ask any questions. What poses for questions is really nothing short of a sermon (if not even a tirade) by a given senator who hopes the nominee will somehow blunder in his or her response. That is assuming that a nominee really gives a response. Most of the time, the response is little more than a rebuttal to the senator's long winded stump-type speech. Basically, the process goes nowhere.
Since Samuel Alito, if confirmed, will be replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key 'swing vote' on the Court, the Democrats, backed by numerous far left organizations, tried to be at the top of their game in attempting to discredit, if not even smear, Judge Alito in hopes of somehow derailing his appointment. Joe Biden started out ranting about how he did not like Princeton, Mr. Alito's alma mater. This was in reference to Mr. Alito's membership in CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton), a conservative organization which was against quotas at Princeton. By being (in part) against quotas (read, against women and minorities), membership in this group somehow made Judge Alito a bigot. Ted Kennedy (D, Ma) ranted on and on about this, even threatening to shut the hearings (and ultimately the confirmation process) down while he subpoenaed documents pertaining to Alito's membership in CAP. The hearings erupted when committee chair Arlen Spector (R, Pa) reminded Sen. Kennedy who ran the committee. He [Spector] ultimately made a phone call at a recess to make arrangements to get the senator from Massachusetts the documents he wanted.
The most intriguing part of the hearings came during the quest to ascertain Judge Alito's position on abortion and what he might do to Roe v. Wade as a court case. Diane Feinstein (D, Ca) as much as said that Roe v. Wade was her major (if not only) concern going into the hearings. But, the abortion issue was best illustrated by Charles Schumer (D, NY) in his questioning of Alito. As he sat and waved a copy of the U.S. Constitution, he asked the nominee about Roe v. Wade. Judge Alito answered that any potential challenge to the abortion ruling would likely be decided on merit along with stare decisis (or legal precedent) but he would not say that the ruling or abortion could never be visited by the court. Wrong answer Judge! Schumer pressed on baiting the judge to say that abortion and a woman's right to choose were guaranteed in the Constitution. The judge throughout all of the questioning referenced stare decisis but would not say that a right to an abortion was actually written in the Constitution. Ultimately Alito referenced and compared the 'right' to abortion to the right to free speech since the right to free speech is explicitly in the Constitution...it says so in the First Amendment. It was as if Sen. Schumer had never actually read the words in the Constitution and (even though he is a lawyer) had no idea of law as it is written in the Constitution versus a decision long held based on precedent, i.e., stare decisis. Correct answer Judge!!
The highlight of the entire hearing was when the TV cameras caught Mrs. Alito breaking down in tears during Senator Lindsey Graham's (R, SC) apology to the judge for the cruel treatment he was receiving in the hearings. Sen. Graham indicated he felt the process was unfair and an embarrassment not only to the nominee, but to the Senate, and (by implication) the entire country. And like Joe Biden's statements about the hearings, I agree.
I am not a big fan of the Supreme Court because of the ability of the Court to basically legislate from the bench. The abortion issue is tired. It is a rallying cry of the left and an issue that the far right refuses to acknowledge might just be decided law because of stare decisis. (Whether it is a right or not will likely be the subject of debate long after I have passed on.) But, the far-reaching actions of the Court on subjects like eminent domain weren't even mentioned during the hearings. The Kelo decision is one where the Court's view, to me, is flat out incorrect and there should be many challenges to that ruling as far as I am concerned. There will obviously be challenges to presidential powers, particularly in light of the NSA intercepts that the Bush Administration authorized in the post 9/11 era as part of an ongoing war on terror. That issue was demagogued, but nothing of substance was really discussed on the issue. Judge Alito really did not answer because it is a case that will undoubtedly come before him if he is confirmed to the Court. Opponents say that he gives too much authority to the Executive branch. Yet the lackeys of these opponents (lackeys being Senate judicial committee members, predominantly the Democratic ones) just used the subject as a way to pontificate during their time to 'ask questions'. The hearings process has eroded to political grandstanding (by both parties) and outright character assassination of the nominee. Is this the best that we can expect?
The next step in the drama appears to be a delay of a full Senate vote on Judge Alito. Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D, Nv) wants to delay the vote so that Democrats can spend more time considering the nominee. That just equates to more time for attack ads on TV slamming a man who is obviously very qualified for the job. On the last day of the hearings, several of his peers and colleagues (of both political persuasions) came to testify on his behalf. All of them found his judicial temperament acceptable. Yet, we waited until the last day to hear what we needed to hear and what should have been asked and ascertained by the members of the judicial committee in the first place. It is a sad testament to our system, one which (by virtue of a bitterly divided two party system) has become more parliamentary in recent years. I am no fan of the lifetime appointment because I think it only exacerbates the problems we have seen in these hearings. It also allows for the development of a rogue justice because, once confirmed, a justice on the Supreme Court has no reason to not become an ideologue. While justice is supposed to be blind, political pressures have been allowed to creep into our courts. They are almost invited.
The entire process needs to be changed, or this is what we will get. Made for TV drama that no one really watches and, sadly, likely cares about, even though it ultimately affects us all. Until then, I think we need to hear what Senators Biden and Graham are saying. The hearings are pointless and they are an embarrassment, not just to the nominee, but to every proud citizen of the United States.
At the outset I must say that personally, I think we should know as much as possible about a potential justice who is about to receive a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. The reason is that the Supreme Court, over time, has been made the sole arbiter of all of the laws of the land. While the Black Robes (Supreme Court justices) are supposed to interpret the law, specifically the U.S. Constitution, quite often they make the law. This is called judicial activism and that is a hip catch phrase today that is applied to a nominee by opposing political factions to stigmatize that nominee (or sitting judge) as being "out of the mainstream" because they are not afraid to "legislate from the bench". Thus they are guilty of creating their own laws. This is an issue for everyone, regardless of political leanings, yet only the guy with the other ideology ever seems to partake in it. While I see citation of foreign law in a Supreme Court decision as a clear example of such judiciary "legislation", I could likely find dozens of other examples of judicial activism. The point, however, is that no one really wants to admit to it but everyone admits, perhaps claims is a better word, that it goes on. That we actually have to have such a discussion is what bothers me the most.
Since his re-election, President Bush has had the opportunity to replace two Supreme Court justices. Part of the process of vetting a candidate is the Senate Judiciary committee hearings which these days are televised for anyone who is interested to watch. If these hearings really meant something, they might be compelling; compelling in content, as an insight into a nominee's judicial record, and maybe compelling enough that the average citizen (who is really the one who should be leery of how a justice might rule) might pay attention and watch. Yet, the hearings have become a platform for the senators on the committee to pontificate, ridicule, and even personally attack a nominee. Most of them really don't even ask any questions. What poses for questions is really nothing short of a sermon (if not even a tirade) by a given senator who hopes the nominee will somehow blunder in his or her response. That is assuming that a nominee really gives a response. Most of the time, the response is little more than a rebuttal to the senator's long winded stump-type speech. Basically, the process goes nowhere.
Since Samuel Alito, if confirmed, will be replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key 'swing vote' on the Court, the Democrats, backed by numerous far left organizations, tried to be at the top of their game in attempting to discredit, if not even smear, Judge Alito in hopes of somehow derailing his appointment. Joe Biden started out ranting about how he did not like Princeton, Mr. Alito's alma mater. This was in reference to Mr. Alito's membership in CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton), a conservative organization which was against quotas at Princeton. By being (in part) against quotas (read, against women and minorities), membership in this group somehow made Judge Alito a bigot. Ted Kennedy (D, Ma) ranted on and on about this, even threatening to shut the hearings (and ultimately the confirmation process) down while he subpoenaed documents pertaining to Alito's membership in CAP. The hearings erupted when committee chair Arlen Spector (R, Pa) reminded Sen. Kennedy who ran the committee. He [Spector] ultimately made a phone call at a recess to make arrangements to get the senator from Massachusetts the documents he wanted.
The most intriguing part of the hearings came during the quest to ascertain Judge Alito's position on abortion and what he might do to Roe v. Wade as a court case. Diane Feinstein (D, Ca) as much as said that Roe v. Wade was her major (if not only) concern going into the hearings. But, the abortion issue was best illustrated by Charles Schumer (D, NY) in his questioning of Alito. As he sat and waved a copy of the U.S. Constitution, he asked the nominee about Roe v. Wade. Judge Alito answered that any potential challenge to the abortion ruling would likely be decided on merit along with stare decisis (or legal precedent) but he would not say that the ruling or abortion could never be visited by the court. Wrong answer Judge! Schumer pressed on baiting the judge to say that abortion and a woman's right to choose were guaranteed in the Constitution. The judge throughout all of the questioning referenced stare decisis but would not say that a right to an abortion was actually written in the Constitution. Ultimately Alito referenced and compared the 'right' to abortion to the right to free speech since the right to free speech is explicitly in the Constitution...it says so in the First Amendment. It was as if Sen. Schumer had never actually read the words in the Constitution and (even though he is a lawyer) had no idea of law as it is written in the Constitution versus a decision long held based on precedent, i.e., stare decisis. Correct answer Judge!!
The highlight of the entire hearing was when the TV cameras caught Mrs. Alito breaking down in tears during Senator Lindsey Graham's (R, SC) apology to the judge for the cruel treatment he was receiving in the hearings. Sen. Graham indicated he felt the process was unfair and an embarrassment not only to the nominee, but to the Senate, and (by implication) the entire country. And like Joe Biden's statements about the hearings, I agree.
I am not a big fan of the Supreme Court because of the ability of the Court to basically legislate from the bench. The abortion issue is tired. It is a rallying cry of the left and an issue that the far right refuses to acknowledge might just be decided law because of stare decisis. (Whether it is a right or not will likely be the subject of debate long after I have passed on.) But, the far-reaching actions of the Court on subjects like eminent domain weren't even mentioned during the hearings. The Kelo decision is one where the Court's view, to me, is flat out incorrect and there should be many challenges to that ruling as far as I am concerned. There will obviously be challenges to presidential powers, particularly in light of the NSA intercepts that the Bush Administration authorized in the post 9/11 era as part of an ongoing war on terror. That issue was demagogued, but nothing of substance was really discussed on the issue. Judge Alito really did not answer because it is a case that will undoubtedly come before him if he is confirmed to the Court. Opponents say that he gives too much authority to the Executive branch. Yet the lackeys of these opponents (lackeys being Senate judicial committee members, predominantly the Democratic ones) just used the subject as a way to pontificate during their time to 'ask questions'. The hearings process has eroded to political grandstanding (by both parties) and outright character assassination of the nominee. Is this the best that we can expect?
The next step in the drama appears to be a delay of a full Senate vote on Judge Alito. Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D, Nv) wants to delay the vote so that Democrats can spend more time considering the nominee. That just equates to more time for attack ads on TV slamming a man who is obviously very qualified for the job. On the last day of the hearings, several of his peers and colleagues (of both political persuasions) came to testify on his behalf. All of them found his judicial temperament acceptable. Yet, we waited until the last day to hear what we needed to hear and what should have been asked and ascertained by the members of the judicial committee in the first place. It is a sad testament to our system, one which (by virtue of a bitterly divided two party system) has become more parliamentary in recent years. I am no fan of the lifetime appointment because I think it only exacerbates the problems we have seen in these hearings. It also allows for the development of a rogue justice because, once confirmed, a justice on the Supreme Court has no reason to not become an ideologue. While justice is supposed to be blind, political pressures have been allowed to creep into our courts. They are almost invited.
The entire process needs to be changed, or this is what we will get. Made for TV drama that no one really watches and, sadly, likely cares about, even though it ultimately affects us all. Until then, I think we need to hear what Senators Biden and Graham are saying. The hearings are pointless and they are an embarrassment, not just to the nominee, but to every proud citizen of the United States.
Monday, January 09, 2006
The Lunacy of the Extremes
What the Hell was Pat Robertson thinking? Does he really believe that God is mad at Ariel Sharon for "dividing his [God's] land" and that is why the Israeli Prime Minister is having serious health problems at present? An even more intriguing question is who are the "...not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of American people...[who] support your revolution" that Harry Belafonte was talking about when he visited Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez? Has Pat lost his mind? Is Harry so far beyond Geritol that we have to start talking senility? Do these guys take themselves seriously or are they just trying to ruin America?
I am admittedly conservative and hold many political views that are on the right of the political spectrum. I believe strongly about many issues because I have researched them and have meticulously thought through them on my way to formulating my opinions. I would likely never be classified as a moderate, regardless of where I might fall on a particular subject. My beliefs are strong, never moderate. Still, I respect the opinions of others and I can agree to disagree on many issues. I truly believe that the political left in the United States is somewhat 'off the hook' of late, however. Be it in Congress, the media, the entertainment elites, or the intelligentsia, those on the left truly seem to be losing their grip. Yet, over a year ago I commented to a relative that the religious right could possibly be the undoing of the Republican Party. Now, the only play in the left's playbook is to do the opposite of whatever George Bush proposes. Take the nomination of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. He is being attacked as an ideologue and his character was assassinated on the first day of his hearings. Senator Dianne Feinstein has come out and said Roe v. Wade is her only real concern regarding Judge Alito. She wants to know before hand how he feels about abortion and wants to disqualify him on personal opinions, not his ability to be an impartial judge. (More on all of this in a later post.) The left asserts that George Bush nominated Alito to pander to the religious right base of the Republican Party. Assuming that is true then we are back to the extremes, one far left view versus one [perceived] far right view. And the division in America continues.
Keep in mind, I do not oppose anyone's right to their own opinion. I also don't oppose the freedom they have to voice said opinion. I personally believe strongly in free speech. So when Pat and Harry make the comments they make, they do have the right. But, I must find fault in the way they went about expressing their thoughts.
First, does Pat Robertson really believe what he said and, if so, why then did he have to say it in the public domain? Is Pat somehow closer to God than anyone else? Does he really know that God is punishing Mr. Sharon? I doubt it. What I take from Pat's comments makes me feel like he is somehow exercising and expressing some form of divine judgment with regard to Mr. Sharon. Personally, I don't think even Pat is that close to God. Besides, the Prime Minister is still living. My guess is that we can leave all of the divine judgment to God himself. That can be between him and Ariel Sharon, accomplished on God's time table, not Pat's.
Then there is Harry. He is suddenly pals with the dictator, umm, elected leader of Venezuela. He traveled there (with liberal pals Danny Glover and Cornel West no less) to extol the virtues of Mr. Chavez and all he stands for. Well, Harry, I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Mr. Chavez is the man of the year. (And why AARP gave you their award is beyond me. Oh, they are a liberal group as well. My mistake.) My big issue with Harry is not that he makes such statements, but that he (like so many Hollywood types and out-of-power liberals) managed to bad mouth this country on foreign soil. He called George Bush "the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world," all the while chumming it up with Hugo Chavez. Now, George Bush was actually elected in real elections twice, so to me Mr. Belafonte has done a good job of insulting a majority of Americans and therefore he has insulted his country. Dissent is fine. Doing it on foreign soil to me is not. Cheap shots and character assassination of the president of the United States is not. You can disagree, fine. But Mr. Belafonte's actions are irresponsible. They are also in poor taste.
The point to me is this...be you liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, be responsible in your comments. Start by being intellectually honest in your thoughts. Do not make outrageous public comments or characterizations based on ideology and lacking in fact. And do not assume because you have the pulpit, as a civic or political leader, as a religious leader, or as a 'celebrity' that your opinion is fact. As as an ordinary citizen...an American...don't let fools like Pat and Harry make your decisions through their comments. And don't be afraid to point out how inappropriate their comments are because you are an 'everyday American', you are the 'mainstream', and your voice resounds as loudly as does Harry's or Pat's.
I am admittedly conservative and hold many political views that are on the right of the political spectrum. I believe strongly about many issues because I have researched them and have meticulously thought through them on my way to formulating my opinions. I would likely never be classified as a moderate, regardless of where I might fall on a particular subject. My beliefs are strong, never moderate. Still, I respect the opinions of others and I can agree to disagree on many issues. I truly believe that the political left in the United States is somewhat 'off the hook' of late, however. Be it in Congress, the media, the entertainment elites, or the intelligentsia, those on the left truly seem to be losing their grip. Yet, over a year ago I commented to a relative that the religious right could possibly be the undoing of the Republican Party. Now, the only play in the left's playbook is to do the opposite of whatever George Bush proposes. Take the nomination of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. He is being attacked as an ideologue and his character was assassinated on the first day of his hearings. Senator Dianne Feinstein has come out and said Roe v. Wade is her only real concern regarding Judge Alito. She wants to know before hand how he feels about abortion and wants to disqualify him on personal opinions, not his ability to be an impartial judge. (More on all of this in a later post.) The left asserts that George Bush nominated Alito to pander to the religious right base of the Republican Party. Assuming that is true then we are back to the extremes, one far left view versus one [perceived] far right view. And the division in America continues.
Keep in mind, I do not oppose anyone's right to their own opinion. I also don't oppose the freedom they have to voice said opinion. I personally believe strongly in free speech. So when Pat and Harry make the comments they make, they do have the right. But, I must find fault in the way they went about expressing their thoughts.
First, does Pat Robertson really believe what he said and, if so, why then did he have to say it in the public domain? Is Pat somehow closer to God than anyone else? Does he really know that God is punishing Mr. Sharon? I doubt it. What I take from Pat's comments makes me feel like he is somehow exercising and expressing some form of divine judgment with regard to Mr. Sharon. Personally, I don't think even Pat is that close to God. Besides, the Prime Minister is still living. My guess is that we can leave all of the divine judgment to God himself. That can be between him and Ariel Sharon, accomplished on God's time table, not Pat's.
Then there is Harry. He is suddenly pals with the dictator, umm, elected leader of Venezuela. He traveled there (with liberal pals Danny Glover and Cornel West no less) to extol the virtues of Mr. Chavez and all he stands for. Well, Harry, I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Mr. Chavez is the man of the year. (And why AARP gave you their award is beyond me. Oh, they are a liberal group as well. My mistake.) My big issue with Harry is not that he makes such statements, but that he (like so many Hollywood types and out-of-power liberals) managed to bad mouth this country on foreign soil. He called George Bush "the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world," all the while chumming it up with Hugo Chavez. Now, George Bush was actually elected in real elections twice, so to me Mr. Belafonte has done a good job of insulting a majority of Americans and therefore he has insulted his country. Dissent is fine. Doing it on foreign soil to me is not. Cheap shots and character assassination of the president of the United States is not. You can disagree, fine. But Mr. Belafonte's actions are irresponsible. They are also in poor taste.
The point to me is this...be you liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, be responsible in your comments. Start by being intellectually honest in your thoughts. Do not make outrageous public comments or characterizations based on ideology and lacking in fact. And do not assume because you have the pulpit, as a civic or political leader, as a religious leader, or as a 'celebrity' that your opinion is fact. As as an ordinary citizen...an American...don't let fools like Pat and Harry make your decisions through their comments. And don't be afraid to point out how inappropriate their comments are because you are an 'everyday American', you are the 'mainstream', and your voice resounds as loudly as does Harry's or Pat's.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Welcome Home Mike
There are men and women serving the United States in various places around this world of ours. Some of those places are likely relatively safe and boring. Some are very dangerous and are places where a soldier's life is not guaranteed from one moment to the next. Yet, the brave individuals who make up our Armed Forces follow the orders that they are given, regardless of the risk. They protect us, whether they know us or not. They all have families and they all have something to lose. But they serve, no questions asked.
This soldier just got back from Iraq. It is a very dangerous place. And, it is a place where many think we should not be. I think otherwise because I fear what might happen if we don't fight this war somewhere besides here, on our soil. Nevertheless, this is a picture of a soldier and his dad after he returned from Iraq. It makes me proud to know someone who would serve my country and ultimately me in the manner that he did. Please, think about this before you speak out against the war. People that you will never meet are willing to risk their own lives to serve, to fight, and to protect you and your liberty...today and into the future. Thank God for our troops.
Welcome home, Mike.
the right wing zealot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
