Merry Christmas 2007 to all, especially all of those whose profession requires them to protect and/or serve the rest of us, and thus requires the day be spent away from family and friends.
God Bless the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. Stay safe!
the rwz, 12/25/2007
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Sunday, July 08, 2007
She's baaack!!!
Leave it to Cindy Sheehan to compel me to write a blog entry after so long out of the blogging fray. I, apparently unlike Cindy, have a real job that places real demands on my time. I don’t have the luxury of not working because I have bills to pay and so forth, much like the rest of Americans. But, alas, I am back at it to note the latest antics of my now favorite war protestor. After her alleged retirement from the protesting business, Cindy is back, far-fetched as ever.
Now, Cindy’s target is another of my favorite liberals, San Fran Nan. Yes, none other than the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.
Cindy has announced her intentions to run against Nancy if her highness, check that, her speakerness, doesn’t bring articles of impeachment against President Bush. I do not wish to debate that subject now as the mere mention of impeachment leads to frantic and crazed debate from both sides of the political spectrum. However, I do want to mention that Ms. Pelosi has been quoted as saying that she would NOT seek said articles of impeachment against the President. Will the pressure of a potential challenge from Cindy change her mind? If it does, let the debate then rage over how power thirsty all of our elected officials are, from both parties. It boggles the mind.
But, here comes Cindy, yet again. What exactly qualifies her to be a US Representative? I mean, what qualifies most of them, but especially what qualifies Cindy? To my knowledge, she hasn’t held a job for the past two years. Now she wants to run on an antiwar platform to unseat one of her own. Cindy is disgruntled with all aspects of politics and feels that the Democrats haven’t done any better than the Republicans since the takeover of the November 2006 elections. To be honest, I have to agree with Cindy on that note, but obviously for far different reasons.
What is the point, Mr. Right Wing Zealot? The point is two-fold: First, Cindy just keeps on going, like the Energizer bunny. It is frightening that someone as shrill as she is can keep getting the media attention that she gets. The left seems to want to stop the war, fair enough, but also claims to support the troops. Yet, their version of “support” leaves quite a bit to be desired in my humble opinion. Point number two: Will Nancy Pelosi stand for this? The media is obviously going to run with this story, especially if Cindy actually does challenge her. I mean hell; even I took the time to write about it. But where will this leave Nancy, arguably the most powerful woman in American politics (sorry Hillary) and the now (dare I say) “mainstream” whacky liberal Democrats? And we all thought the 2008 presidential campaign would be exciting.
Cindy, perhaps NOW is the time to take the swan song and just fade away. I think Nancy might be a bit too much for even you to handle.
Now, Cindy’s target is another of my favorite liberals, San Fran Nan. Yes, none other than the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.
Cindy has announced her intentions to run against Nancy if her highness, check that, her speakerness, doesn’t bring articles of impeachment against President Bush. I do not wish to debate that subject now as the mere mention of impeachment leads to frantic and crazed debate from both sides of the political spectrum. However, I do want to mention that Ms. Pelosi has been quoted as saying that she would NOT seek said articles of impeachment against the President. Will the pressure of a potential challenge from Cindy change her mind? If it does, let the debate then rage over how power thirsty all of our elected officials are, from both parties. It boggles the mind.
But, here comes Cindy, yet again. What exactly qualifies her to be a US Representative? I mean, what qualifies most of them, but especially what qualifies Cindy? To my knowledge, she hasn’t held a job for the past two years. Now she wants to run on an antiwar platform to unseat one of her own. Cindy is disgruntled with all aspects of politics and feels that the Democrats haven’t done any better than the Republicans since the takeover of the November 2006 elections. To be honest, I have to agree with Cindy on that note, but obviously for far different reasons.
What is the point, Mr. Right Wing Zealot? The point is two-fold: First, Cindy just keeps on going, like the Energizer bunny. It is frightening that someone as shrill as she is can keep getting the media attention that she gets. The left seems to want to stop the war, fair enough, but also claims to support the troops. Yet, their version of “support” leaves quite a bit to be desired in my humble opinion. Point number two: Will Nancy Pelosi stand for this? The media is obviously going to run with this story, especially if Cindy actually does challenge her. I mean hell; even I took the time to write about it. But where will this leave Nancy, arguably the most powerful woman in American politics (sorry Hillary) and the now (dare I say) “mainstream” whacky liberal Democrats? And we all thought the 2008 presidential campaign would be exciting.
Cindy, perhaps NOW is the time to take the swan song and just fade away. I think Nancy might be a bit too much for even you to handle.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
So much for New Year's resolutions
So much for my New Year’s resolution (to blog more often). Are they really made to be broken?
As always, a hectic schedule in “the real world” has made it difficult for ‘the zealot’ to pontificate; but, fear not. There is much for me to discuss, and the 20/20 hindsight might be just the ticket to sorting through some of what we have seen so far in 2007, the bizarre, the extreme, the ridiculous, and the tragic.
More to come…check back soon.
the RWZ
As always, a hectic schedule in “the real world” has made it difficult for ‘the zealot’ to pontificate; but, fear not. There is much for me to discuss, and the 20/20 hindsight might be just the ticket to sorting through some of what we have seen so far in 2007, the bizarre, the extreme, the ridiculous, and the tragic.
More to come…check back soon.
the RWZ
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Enough Already (Cindy Does Not Speak For Me, part ii)
Did anyone catch Cindy Sheehan’s performance as the new Democratic Congressional leaders tried to have a press event yesterday? I suppose you couldn’t miss it if you watched the news. When will this woman’s fifteen minutes of fame expire? Enough already! What makes the whole matter worse is her tone. Am I the only one who thinks she whines (or perhaps even squeals) as opposed to speaking? Actually, it is more like a whining shout.
Cindy and the far-left, antiwar lunatics continue their crusade against the war in Iraq. Like many conservatives, I have come to admit that the effort is not going well in many ways. However, I also feel that there was (and still is) a good reason for being there. My sentiments can be summed up by looking at a map of the Middle East and realizing the geographic location of Iraq. Couple that with the recent election results in Iran*, as well as other leaders in the region backing off (read, Khaddafi), and I think that the American presence is a good thing (hey, we’re still in Germany, Japan, and South Korea…not to mention Bosnia), but likely being administered in an awkward manner.
But back to Cindy…why does anyone care what she thinks (perhaps no one does) and why is she “newsworthy”, other than the fact that she is rude and thrusts herself upon the public at large? Why do I mention her? Answer: Because she keeps getting publicity. Much like Ann Coulter’s exposure of the ‘Jersey Girls’ in her book Godless, Cindy’s “victimhood” should not afford her special or sympathetic treatment when she inserts herself into the political arena. She gave up the mantra of ‘just a mother who lost a son in Iraq’ long ago. While I understand her right to take a stance and would fight (and die) for her right to protest and dissent, I cannot put up with her rhetoric. She is being unrealistic about what the reality of the world is and needs to realize that there is much to be said about the phrase “peace through superior firepower.” Or, to quote John Randolph, “The surest way to prevent war is not to fear it.”
Perhaps people like Cindy, and we as Americans, need to once again become willing to fight now in order to prevent the fight in the future.
*As a side note: I do believe Iran to be a threat, but I also liken Ahmadinejad to a barking dog. A barking dog is warning one of its intent while a quiet dog may be waiting to bite without provocation. This guy is a paper tiger; perhaps dangerous, but not much of a ‘poker player’. He will fall and fall hard at the hands of the US or Israeli military.
Cindy and the far-left, antiwar lunatics continue their crusade against the war in Iraq. Like many conservatives, I have come to admit that the effort is not going well in many ways. However, I also feel that there was (and still is) a good reason for being there. My sentiments can be summed up by looking at a map of the Middle East and realizing the geographic location of Iraq. Couple that with the recent election results in Iran*, as well as other leaders in the region backing off (read, Khaddafi), and I think that the American presence is a good thing (hey, we’re still in Germany, Japan, and South Korea…not to mention Bosnia), but likely being administered in an awkward manner.
But back to Cindy…why does anyone care what she thinks (perhaps no one does) and why is she “newsworthy”, other than the fact that she is rude and thrusts herself upon the public at large? Why do I mention her? Answer: Because she keeps getting publicity. Much like Ann Coulter’s exposure of the ‘Jersey Girls’ in her book Godless, Cindy’s “victimhood” should not afford her special or sympathetic treatment when she inserts herself into the political arena. She gave up the mantra of ‘just a mother who lost a son in Iraq’ long ago. While I understand her right to take a stance and would fight (and die) for her right to protest and dissent, I cannot put up with her rhetoric. She is being unrealistic about what the reality of the world is and needs to realize that there is much to be said about the phrase “peace through superior firepower.” Or, to quote John Randolph, “The surest way to prevent war is not to fear it.”
Perhaps people like Cindy, and we as Americans, need to once again become willing to fight now in order to prevent the fight in the future.
*As a side note: I do believe Iran to be a threat, but I also liken Ahmadinejad to a barking dog. A barking dog is warning one of its intent while a quiet dog may be waiting to bite without provocation. This guy is a paper tiger; perhaps dangerous, but not much of a ‘poker player’. He will fall and fall hard at the hands of the US or Israeli military.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
A Tragic Example of Ignorance
It certainly did not take long for me to get “plugged back in” to blogging. Less than two short days into the New Year, I am already fulfilling my New Year’s resolution. It was not coverage of the passing of former President Ford or the apparent back-tracking on “bipartisanship” promised by Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats that got my ire up, however. It was something I heard on ESPN’s debate program Pardon the Interruption that made me shake my head in disbelief.
The topic was the tragic (and obviously senseless) murder of Denver Bronco defensive back Darrent Williams. As the segment began with the somber acknowledgement of his death, co-host Tony Kornheiser admitted upfront he knew little about the crime and little about Williams the man, thus setting the stage for the rest of his entirely ignorant comments. His sentiments were those of outrage that there are so many guns and so many people in America who can get them [I paraphrase].
Typical liberal speak and another not so veiled attempt to advance an antigun agenda by someone whom I think brings little to the table. (In my opinion, he was a terrible addition to Monday Night Football. Dennis Miller, for example, was much funnier and way more thought provoking.)
I, too, must say that I know little of the crime other than the small amount already reported. I know even less about Darrent Williams, other than what has been said about him since his passing. And I find it a tragedy of epic proportions that a man that is spoken of so highly was taken from this world at the hands of a criminal. However, I will not take the “too many guns” stance. Mr. Kornheiser shows his ignorance of firearms, firearms laws, the U.S. Constitution, and the ugly reality of crime in America. To blame the gun and not the perpetrator (now criminal) is the typical knee jerk reaction that constantly takes place whenever there is a tragic, high profile murderous shooting in America (but aren’t they all tragic?).
Guns are tools. They are tools that serve an unsavory purpose when in the wrong hands. I cannot disagree that in this case a gun was in the wrong hands. However, there are millions of law-abiding gun owners in America. Owning a firearm (unless legally prohibited from doing so for a specific reason) is a Constitutional (and individual) right. That is a debate for another day, though. But for a man like Mr. Kornheiser to have that, and only that, to say about this tragedy is ridiculous. I will go out on a similar limb to the one Mr. Kornheiser went out on; I am assuming that he does not like guns, is anti-gun in his political views (and likely very liberal), and I am certain he knows little about guns. To assume that he has rarely, if ever, fired a gun is probably a near certainty. But he quickly demonizes the firearm and not the criminal who pursued his victims, drew the gun, aimed it, and fired it, in this case very much at random into the vehicle Mr. Williams was in. I would think that any reasonable person might want justice against the perpetrator. But Mr. Kornheiser took the time to admit his ignorance of the event at hand and then took the time to demonize firearms. Again, a classic example of knee jerk reactionary thinking…convenient, but hardly intellectually honest.
I am a shooting enthusiast. I have never fired a gun to kill anyone, yet I understand the violent nature of the world we live in and I am honest in the admission that I would defend myself if my life were in danger. Does that make me a bad person or a criminal? I think not. Does everyone have to hold the same beliefs as me? Certainly, no. But until Mr. Kornheiser can find it in his heart to condemn criminals and support harsh penalties for those criminals, he should not immediately lash out at guns. My guess is, when the facts are in, it will be discovered that the perpetrator likely did not have a legal right to possess a gun due to prior criminal history or the like. That in and of itself is a crime and is a shining example of a law broken, yet a crime unpunished. But until the facts are in, the perpetrator is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Perhaps Mr. Kornheiser could extend that same presumption to “people with guns” in America. If he’d like to educate himself on firearms so as to never again appear so ignorant, I’ll even take him to the range one day so that he might learn about guns in the proper context. Anyone think he’d show up?
The topic was the tragic (and obviously senseless) murder of Denver Bronco defensive back Darrent Williams. As the segment began with the somber acknowledgement of his death, co-host Tony Kornheiser admitted upfront he knew little about the crime and little about Williams the man, thus setting the stage for the rest of his entirely ignorant comments. His sentiments were those of outrage that there are so many guns and so many people in America who can get them [I paraphrase].
Typical liberal speak and another not so veiled attempt to advance an antigun agenda by someone whom I think brings little to the table. (In my opinion, he was a terrible addition to Monday Night Football. Dennis Miller, for example, was much funnier and way more thought provoking.)
I, too, must say that I know little of the crime other than the small amount already reported. I know even less about Darrent Williams, other than what has been said about him since his passing. And I find it a tragedy of epic proportions that a man that is spoken of so highly was taken from this world at the hands of a criminal. However, I will not take the “too many guns” stance. Mr. Kornheiser shows his ignorance of firearms, firearms laws, the U.S. Constitution, and the ugly reality of crime in America. To blame the gun and not the perpetrator (now criminal) is the typical knee jerk reaction that constantly takes place whenever there is a tragic, high profile murderous shooting in America (but aren’t they all tragic?).
Guns are tools. They are tools that serve an unsavory purpose when in the wrong hands. I cannot disagree that in this case a gun was in the wrong hands. However, there are millions of law-abiding gun owners in America. Owning a firearm (unless legally prohibited from doing so for a specific reason) is a Constitutional (and individual) right. That is a debate for another day, though. But for a man like Mr. Kornheiser to have that, and only that, to say about this tragedy is ridiculous. I will go out on a similar limb to the one Mr. Kornheiser went out on; I am assuming that he does not like guns, is anti-gun in his political views (and likely very liberal), and I am certain he knows little about guns. To assume that he has rarely, if ever, fired a gun is probably a near certainty. But he quickly demonizes the firearm and not the criminal who pursued his victims, drew the gun, aimed it, and fired it, in this case very much at random into the vehicle Mr. Williams was in. I would think that any reasonable person might want justice against the perpetrator. But Mr. Kornheiser took the time to admit his ignorance of the event at hand and then took the time to demonize firearms. Again, a classic example of knee jerk reactionary thinking…convenient, but hardly intellectually honest.
I am a shooting enthusiast. I have never fired a gun to kill anyone, yet I understand the violent nature of the world we live in and I am honest in the admission that I would defend myself if my life were in danger. Does that make me a bad person or a criminal? I think not. Does everyone have to hold the same beliefs as me? Certainly, no. But until Mr. Kornheiser can find it in his heart to condemn criminals and support harsh penalties for those criminals, he should not immediately lash out at guns. My guess is, when the facts are in, it will be discovered that the perpetrator likely did not have a legal right to possess a gun due to prior criminal history or the like. That in and of itself is a crime and is a shining example of a law broken, yet a crime unpunished. But until the facts are in, the perpetrator is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Perhaps Mr. Kornheiser could extend that same presumption to “people with guns” in America. If he’d like to educate himself on firearms so as to never again appear so ignorant, I’ll even take him to the range one day so that he might learn about guns in the proper context. Anyone think he’d show up?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
