Posts
Hello. Betcher wondering where I've been, eh? Just a long weekend with nothing major to say. Hope everybody eligible to went out and voted to make our country better. I do want to say one thing on this topic. One of our three-way races here locally involved a Republican who got national attention- not wanted attention- during a debate when the discussion of abortion and rape came up. He tried to explain that even though God and man sees rape as a reprehensible act, that if a baby is created thereby, it is God's will that that baby enjoy life. Because, as Christians, we believe God takes the bad things of this life and uses them for good for those who believe. The liberal press took the ambiguity of the statement to twist it and claim he was saying that rape is God's will, and his democrat challenger jumped right on the bandwagon. However, the Libertarian challenger wrote a lengthy statement defending the Republican, explaining that A) whether or not he agreed with his intention, he realized that a debate is a highly charged, stressful atmosphere in which to express complex beliefs on a stopwatch, and B) as it turns out, he did agree with the statement. Where the Democrat kept basically silent and let the national press attempt to destroy his opponant with innuendo, the Libertarian showed integrity, ethics and guts. That is why, despite the Republican being my favored candidate in all areas, I voted for the Libertarian for having the courage that I doubt either of the others would have had in a similar circumstance.
Anyway, onto my sports report. We had three big throwdowns this week in the NHFFL. The KCAs put up 57 points, with Doug Martin scoring 30 all by himself- but it was not enough to top the red-hot Fiery Beagles. Aaron Rodgers, Brandon Marshall, and Robbie Gould all hit double figures in a 67-57 win that kept them tied atop the leaderboard and gave them 6 straight wins after an 0-3 start.
In the second big game, the Aguas kept their share of the Purple Div. lead, and their tiebreaker advantage, with a 46-39 over an ever-more-desperate Rangers squad. The Bears' D did the heavy lifting for the Aguas, putting up 21 points against woebegone Tennessee.
The third big contest pitted the Porkchops against Gold second-place B2s. In a tight contest, it was Reggie Bush's TD that gave Porkchop a 38-31 win and the league's best record at 7-2.
This made the other two Gold games that much more important, as the Elks walloped the Ducks 64-25 behind the NY Giants' D scoring 19 and backup QB Carson Palmer posting 14. Also, Buzz took advantage to move into second with a 52-30 pasting of the Clock BBQs. The WR corps put up 30, with newcomer Randall Cobb and Eric Decker each scoring twice.And even the Greenwoods moved back into contention in the Purple with a 31-20 win over the Angels who, in a week where defences averaged 8.5 points with 4 teams topping 10, the Angels got 1 from Miami.
With the playoffs just three weeks away now, the Rangers, Clock BBQs, and Elks really need to step it up- and so far, only the Elks are managing it. Next week is the second cross-division week, and we lead off with the biggest game so far this season- the Beagles vs the Porkchops! The B2s fight for their playoff lives against the Aguas; The Elks and Rangers face off in a pivotal game for both sides; also, it's KCAs/Clock BBQs, Buzz/Angels, Greenwoods vs Ducks.
As for Lokomotiv, Friday was another OT affair. In fact, our boys have played 15 games out of 23 as 1-goal matches and seven have gone OT, six of those to the shootout. We are now 7-0 in OT after Friday's game in Ufa that matched us against Salavat Yulaev. They took a quick 1-0 lead but stellar denfeseman Staffan Kronwall tied it at 6:50 of the first with his 5th goal. My boy Emil Galimov put us up 2-1 with his second goal in regulation this year (he had two shootout goals coming into this one. That came late in the second and set up a fairly wild third period. Tomas Rolinek, a Czech in his first year with Salavat after spending the last four with Magnitogorsk, got his first of the season to tie things at 2-2 at 9:44 of the final stanza. Artyom Anisimov, a lockout player from Columbus, part of the big Rick Nash trade this spring, put us back on top with his second goal at 15:57, but Rolinek struck again with less than 2 minutes left to send us into OT, and then the shootout.
Curtis Sanford, making his second start, held off both Salavat shooters- including Rolinek- while Galimov collected his third SO goal and NHL vet Viktor Kozlov put it away with his score for a 4-3 win.
Our record (combining all the OT categories into one for W-L-O) is now 11-5-7, and puts us into a three-way tie for the league's second best in points (47) with Traktor (14-4-4) and Magnitogorsk (14-3-5), behind league leader Dynamo Moscow (14-4-5, 51 points). Speaking of Dynamos, Dinamo Riga becomes the sixth team this season to fire their coach. Pekka Rautakallio joins the coaches of Spartak, Avtomobilst, Dinamo Minsk, Lev, and Atlant on the unemployment line.
The league took three days off to help Swiss club Ambri-Piotta celebrate their 75th anniversary this week. A group of Russian vets played the club to a 6-6 tie in an exhibition match, taking some of the sting off a season that sees Ambri-Piotta mired in 11th place (of 12) in the Swiss NLA, 5-12-3 and 27 points behind leader Geneva Servette. As a result, Lokomotiv's next game is tommorow against Slovan at home.
And speaking of the Euro leagues, here's a quick look at the leaders around the continent.
Asia: Oji's Eagles are 12-0-1, leading by 7.
Austria: The Vienna Caps (12-3-4) have a narrow 31-29 lead over VSV and Zagreb.
Czech: Plsen (11-2-6) has a five-point lead in the Extraliga.
Denmark: SonderjyskE (10-2-0) are off to their usual lead.
Finland: The top 8 are within 6 points of each other, with JYP Jyvaskyla (11-6-4) and Saipa (10-6-5) at the top.
France: Undefeated Angers (7-0-1) leads Briancon by a point; traditional power Rouen (4-4-0) is in a group tied for 7th.
Germany: Kolner (10-5-3) has a 4-point lead in the DEL. My Grizzly Adams Wolfsburg team is mired in last at 4-10-3.
Italy: Val Pusteria (14-2-0) is running away in Serie A with a 10-point lead.
Norway: Valerenga (11-1-4) has a five point advantage over Stavenger.
Poland: Sanok (16-2-3) has run off to a 16 point lead. In fact, one team (Torun, 1-12-1) has already folded.
Slovakia: Zvolen (15-11-3) has run off to a 12 point lead, with the traditional powers Kosice and Banska Bystrika well back in the pack.
Sweden, another tight race sees the top 6 within 7 points of each other, with HV71 (11-4-4) currently on top.
Switzerland: As I mentioned, Geneva Servette (14-2-4) are out in front, up 9 points.
UK: a three-way tie at the top between Nottingham (8-3-4), Belfast (9-2-4), and Sheffield (6-5-6).
And there you have it! Pray for our nation today, that we may be granted a government blessed by God rather than the one we deserve.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Digestion: Sunday + 1 Message
I actually have three different stories here that lead to my point, that point being to be effective Christians, we need to know the task assigned us. Sound familiar?
I told you yesterday that I had heard two effective, moving sermons that I needed to "digest" before turning into messages. About twenty minutes ago as I type, digestion on one of them occurred.
This was a sermon by David Jeremiah on the raising of Lazarus. One (just one) of his main points comes with the fact that while Jesus Himself did the miraculous, He made the people gathered do the "mundane" tasks of rolling back the tomb and unwrapping Lazarus. At first glance, this seems like the glorious TV surgeon who walks into the operating theatre, makes a few cuts and stitches, grabs a towel to clean his hands, and says, "Close up for me" as he leaves. But it's not, not when you frame it in terms of the Christian's new life. We are expected to "roll back the stone" by the preaching of the Gospel and witnessing; Jesus miraculously comes into their heart; and then it is our responsibility to "unwrap" the newbie by teaching him the Gospel.
Now one of the things I always mentally do during most any sermon is look for the "other-testamental analogue"; that is, if something happens in one Testament, it often has a similar occurance in the other. Here, I saw that analogue as Saul's big sin in I Samuel 13. Saul was the first King of Israel, and counted on guidance from the priest Samuel, the nation's spiritual leader. Saul had gathered the army of Israel for war against those pesky Phillistines. Samuel instructed Saul to wait seven days until he came to do the proper sacrifices. But just as Jesus had tarried days before arriving at Bethany- with Lazarus dying as a result- Samuel tarried past the seven days. The ever-fearful Israelites began to slowly go AWOL, and Saul knew he had to do something before the army dispersed.
But he did the wrong thing- he took up the job of Samuel and did the sacrifices himself before the people all scattered. Not surprising when you figure at his annointing he was found hiding in the baggage (I Sam 10:22). He took on the task of God (or at least his chosen servant) instead of doing his own job- rallying the troops. Even when his successor David was crushed by the kidnapping of his own families, he knew the job at hand was to rally the troops (I Sam 30), and he did so. Saul, as temporal leader, should have spoken to his men, encouraging them through the waiting, that they didn't lose heart until Samuel got there. Instead, he lost heart and panicked, and tried to do something that God reserved to Himself. And thus, he lost everything.
Which brings me to my final story. FoxNews reported yesterday that nearly 1,000 pastors, under the guidance of a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, are going to play a game of dare ya with the IRS. Every election year, the IRS warns pastors that preaching politics from the pulpit is against the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, and could result in the loss of their church's tax-exempt status. Generally, the IRS is all bluster and rarely does anything about violations. This group is going to preach politics anyway in an effort to force the IRS to act, at which point they will take it into the courts and try to get the action overturned as a free-speech issue.
Many Christians will loudly say, "Of course it's a free speech issue! Why shouldn't pastors be able to guide their flock in any way their conscience leads them?" And I agree- to a point. And the point of Saul is that point.
A pastor's job when preaching is twofold: evangelize and edify. Or, if you will, "roll away the rock" and "unwrap Lazarus". The goverment's job is "lead the citizens" or, again if you will, "rally the troops". If a note about politics is a tangetal issue in a message that brings the Gospel and enlightens the faithful toward the Word Of God, so be it. But if a sermon is focused on candidate, issue, platform, or personality, it has no part in a church. If a pastor feels the need to speak his mind on a political subject, there are rallies and speaking opportunities by the score. Let him go there. The church is for the preaching of the Gospel. Period. And there will be repercussions for crossing that line- just as there was for Saul.
You ask why it is that there is such a severe battle going on about whether "a Christian shouldn't vote" one way or the other? Why Christians cannot even agree on what SHOULD be preached about politics? Because pastors HAVE preached politics from the pulpit... while the army slowly drifts away. A good exmple of this is the Catholic Church preaching for years in the battle against abortion and renmoving prayer from school- both solidly Democrat ideals- while their parishes have voted Democrat for every Presidential election except Reagan's two terms and Nixon's second. There are more than enough people discussing politics and what it means to the voter's moral stands. Preacher, you want to keep your congregation, the Church in America, from drifting away? PREACH GOD.
I have never been afraid here to say when I think Christians are fighting the wrong battle. And perhaps it is not the wrong battle. But the pulpit is the wrong place.
I told you yesterday that I had heard two effective, moving sermons that I needed to "digest" before turning into messages. About twenty minutes ago as I type, digestion on one of them occurred.
This was a sermon by David Jeremiah on the raising of Lazarus. One (just one) of his main points comes with the fact that while Jesus Himself did the miraculous, He made the people gathered do the "mundane" tasks of rolling back the tomb and unwrapping Lazarus. At first glance, this seems like the glorious TV surgeon who walks into the operating theatre, makes a few cuts and stitches, grabs a towel to clean his hands, and says, "Close up for me" as he leaves. But it's not, not when you frame it in terms of the Christian's new life. We are expected to "roll back the stone" by the preaching of the Gospel and witnessing; Jesus miraculously comes into their heart; and then it is our responsibility to "unwrap" the newbie by teaching him the Gospel.
Now one of the things I always mentally do during most any sermon is look for the "other-testamental analogue"; that is, if something happens in one Testament, it often has a similar occurance in the other. Here, I saw that analogue as Saul's big sin in I Samuel 13. Saul was the first King of Israel, and counted on guidance from the priest Samuel, the nation's spiritual leader. Saul had gathered the army of Israel for war against those pesky Phillistines. Samuel instructed Saul to wait seven days until he came to do the proper sacrifices. But just as Jesus had tarried days before arriving at Bethany- with Lazarus dying as a result- Samuel tarried past the seven days. The ever-fearful Israelites began to slowly go AWOL, and Saul knew he had to do something before the army dispersed.
But he did the wrong thing- he took up the job of Samuel and did the sacrifices himself before the people all scattered. Not surprising when you figure at his annointing he was found hiding in the baggage (I Sam 10:22). He took on the task of God (or at least his chosen servant) instead of doing his own job- rallying the troops. Even when his successor David was crushed by the kidnapping of his own families, he knew the job at hand was to rally the troops (I Sam 30), and he did so. Saul, as temporal leader, should have spoken to his men, encouraging them through the waiting, that they didn't lose heart until Samuel got there. Instead, he lost heart and panicked, and tried to do something that God reserved to Himself. And thus, he lost everything.
Which brings me to my final story. FoxNews reported yesterday that nearly 1,000 pastors, under the guidance of a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, are going to play a game of dare ya with the IRS. Every election year, the IRS warns pastors that preaching politics from the pulpit is against the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, and could result in the loss of their church's tax-exempt status. Generally, the IRS is all bluster and rarely does anything about violations. This group is going to preach politics anyway in an effort to force the IRS to act, at which point they will take it into the courts and try to get the action overturned as a free-speech issue.
Many Christians will loudly say, "Of course it's a free speech issue! Why shouldn't pastors be able to guide their flock in any way their conscience leads them?" And I agree- to a point. And the point of Saul is that point.
A pastor's job when preaching is twofold: evangelize and edify. Or, if you will, "roll away the rock" and "unwrap Lazarus". The goverment's job is "lead the citizens" or, again if you will, "rally the troops". If a note about politics is a tangetal issue in a message that brings the Gospel and enlightens the faithful toward the Word Of God, so be it. But if a sermon is focused on candidate, issue, platform, or personality, it has no part in a church. If a pastor feels the need to speak his mind on a political subject, there are rallies and speaking opportunities by the score. Let him go there. The church is for the preaching of the Gospel. Period. And there will be repercussions for crossing that line- just as there was for Saul.
You ask why it is that there is such a severe battle going on about whether "a Christian shouldn't vote" one way or the other? Why Christians cannot even agree on what SHOULD be preached about politics? Because pastors HAVE preached politics from the pulpit... while the army slowly drifts away. A good exmple of this is the Catholic Church preaching for years in the battle against abortion and renmoving prayer from school- both solidly Democrat ideals- while their parishes have voted Democrat for every Presidential election except Reagan's two terms and Nixon's second. There are more than enough people discussing politics and what it means to the voter's moral stands. Preacher, you want to keep your congregation, the Church in America, from drifting away? PREACH GOD.
I have never been afraid here to say when I think Christians are fighting the wrong battle. And perhaps it is not the wrong battle. But the pulpit is the wrong place.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Sunday notes
I know some of you out there have wondered where my Sunday messages have been. Well, I have some pretty stiff criteria on what to post on this subject. First, It needs to be based on something I had to learn. Second, it has to be something that I am taking to heart. Third it has to have the proper period of digestion. Lately, I have either struggled to have myself in the right mind-set, or haven't been led by something compelling enough, or haven't been compelled enough. Today, I heard a strong, compelling pair of sermons- but digestion is still working on them. In other words, if I am to give you the lesson I learn, two things must happen- I must learn, and I must be able to tellit in a beneficial way. On the bright side, you all aren't paying me for insight, so no one's getting short-changed.
This morning, I read an excellent blog post on Surviving Boys about what it means to be an independant voter. I'd like to make two observations before you check it out, though. First, though Juli and I sometimes disagree on the candidates' "level of morality", we are pretty much in agreement on everything else, and I thought she did an excellent job on this piece. Second, I guess I hadn't really given much thought to the "levels" of being an independant voter. For example, with rare occasions of exception (many of which I came to regret), I have generally voted Republican. But being independant for me has always meant that, while voting one way, I had the freedom to vote the other on occasion without the broccoli gods smiting me for "betraying the party line". I believe that the other end of the spectrum for me are those who claim independant status because of an axe they wish to grind, whether they are a minority party adherant (say a communist, libertarian, or neo-nazi) who claim independance to deride all parties, or the system, or what have you. Juli clearly shows what it means to be an honest-to-gosh independant- one who does her own thinking, weighs what is said on her experience of what has been done, and votes her conscience. Okay, no go read her post, I promise you won't be missing anything.
Okay, in the meantime I thought I would bring up that the battle between myself and KC over who picks college football the best goes on. This week, he picked 46 winners to my 43 to win his first week out of four. So far this year, I've picked 206 winners for a 74.37%, and he has 203 for a 73.29 %.
In other news, as we speak I am keeping one eye on the text summary of the ongoing game between Lokomotiv and Dinamo Riga. Friday was out last game and we managed to snap a two game losing streak with a 4-2 win over Moscow Spartak. They took the early 1-0 lead in front of 9,000 screaming Yaroslavlians, but Alexei Kalyuzhny tied it with under 15 ticks to go in the first period, his 3rd of the season. We went on to score 4 straight times, all but one of them in scrambles out front like the first one. Mikelis Redlihis got #2 6 1/2 minutes into the second; Yegor Yakolev, a member of last years' VHL team, got his first at the game's halfway point; and Yegor Averin tallied his 3rd on a breakaway 4 minutes into the final stanza. Spartak got a goal late in the third, but came no closer.
Todays game has been a tight affair, and as I write is just now going to OT tied at 1-1. Andris Dzerins scored at the halfway point to put the Lithuanian visitors on top, but Stefan Kronwall bagged his third at the 7:04 mark of the third to tie things up. Despite a seven-shot advantage in the third, that's all we got.
While we're waiting for OT to get going, here's a new pick of Mr. Woody Pecker.
I guess while we're waiting I could mention that NHL star Alex Ovechkin scored his first goal of the year with Dynamo Moscow in a 3-1 loss to SKA St. Petersburg. Another NHLer, Ilya Kovalchuk had an assist for SKA in the win. Also, I see Martin Thornberg, a Swede in his second season with Torpedo after 12 years with HV71 in Sweden's elitserien, scored three times in a 10:04 stretch of the second in the ongoing game between Torpedo and Spartak. Wow! In the meantime, the 5 minite OT is finished with no scoring, so we go to the shoot-out. Our first two shooters are stopped, so are theirs. Jamie Johnson, a Canuck who spent last year with Grand Rapids of the AHL, scored for Riga on their third try; Niklas Hagman ties it back up with a score for us. Our goalie, Vitaly Kolesnik, stops their fourth shooter. And then Emil Galimov, one of last year's stars, beats Maris Jucers for the Lokomotiv win! It's only the second game he's gotten into, and he was hot late, with two of our four OT shots to go with his game-ender. That puts us at 3 regulation wins, two shootout wins, and 2 losses. Next up is Tuesday against Donbass, who just got a score from would-be Philly Fyler Ruslan Fedetenko to beat Spartak in a shootout.
This morning, I read an excellent blog post on Surviving Boys about what it means to be an independant voter. I'd like to make two observations before you check it out, though. First, though Juli and I sometimes disagree on the candidates' "level of morality", we are pretty much in agreement on everything else, and I thought she did an excellent job on this piece. Second, I guess I hadn't really given much thought to the "levels" of being an independant voter. For example, with rare occasions of exception (many of which I came to regret), I have generally voted Republican. But being independant for me has always meant that, while voting one way, I had the freedom to vote the other on occasion without the broccoli gods smiting me for "betraying the party line". I believe that the other end of the spectrum for me are those who claim independant status because of an axe they wish to grind, whether they are a minority party adherant (say a communist, libertarian, or neo-nazi) who claim independance to deride all parties, or the system, or what have you. Juli clearly shows what it means to be an honest-to-gosh independant- one who does her own thinking, weighs what is said on her experience of what has been done, and votes her conscience. Okay, no go read her post, I promise you won't be missing anything.
Okay, in the meantime I thought I would bring up that the battle between myself and KC over who picks college football the best goes on. This week, he picked 46 winners to my 43 to win his first week out of four. So far this year, I've picked 206 winners for a 74.37%, and he has 203 for a 73.29 %.
In other news, as we speak I am keeping one eye on the text summary of the ongoing game between Lokomotiv and Dinamo Riga. Friday was out last game and we managed to snap a two game losing streak with a 4-2 win over Moscow Spartak. They took the early 1-0 lead in front of 9,000 screaming Yaroslavlians, but Alexei Kalyuzhny tied it with under 15 ticks to go in the first period, his 3rd of the season. We went on to score 4 straight times, all but one of them in scrambles out front like the first one. Mikelis Redlihis got #2 6 1/2 minutes into the second; Yegor Yakolev, a member of last years' VHL team, got his first at the game's halfway point; and Yegor Averin tallied his 3rd on a breakaway 4 minutes into the final stanza. Spartak got a goal late in the third, but came no closer.
Todays game has been a tight affair, and as I write is just now going to OT tied at 1-1. Andris Dzerins scored at the halfway point to put the Lithuanian visitors on top, but Stefan Kronwall bagged his third at the 7:04 mark of the third to tie things up. Despite a seven-shot advantage in the third, that's all we got.
While we're waiting for OT to get going, here's a new pick of Mr. Woody Pecker.
 |
| Geez, I used to be neat and entertaining; now, I'm just halftime entertainment. What an upside-down world! |
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Yeah, well, it's Wednesday
And as such, I don't have a lot of game to bring. Topping the news is what Mitt Romney had to say about Obama's support base being basically the chronically out of work. Rather than go into a whole big deal about this, here's a picture to illustrate my feelings on the topic:
Moving on to more productive conversations, I thought I would note that I have been on Twitter. Mainly just to get inside sports scoops fifteen minutes before everyone else, and mouthing off to various celebrities that ignore me anyway (BTW Johnathan Vilma, I'm still waiting to here how many of those nine signed affidavits saying you were a saint as a Saint still count after you take out family members and players in the same hot water as you.). But I thought I might take an idea from my friend and dissapointed hockey nut Jewels and mention a few of my blogs stating my political position on my Twitter feed. Results? Went from 9 followers two weeks ago to 4 this week. Two of them were sites that were basically roaming avdertisements, maybe three, and the others were people I didn't know anyway, but isn;t it nifty how people aren't so "friendly" once they get to know you.
Yesterday I got the latest card from The Great Postcard Campaign. I am puzzled as to who sent it, though, because it's signed "Rx" which tells me nada, and the only clue I have is that she says, "I'm not sure how long it'll take to get to you from N.I." Now, the only N.I. I have on the address list is "Northern Ireland" but I've already got one from that person. Add to that it had a big sticker overe the top of all the good stuff that basically said, "Hey, this person didn't put enough postage on it for air mail, so God only knows when you'll get it". And coming from a place that apparently doesn't put the date on their postmarks, I have know idea how long it's been. So, who ever it's from, thank you, and if anyone wants to claim it, let me know!
And since I've nothing better to do, let's see what's in the ol' spam box. Our first contestant is a repeat offender from last time. Remember I told you about the one that offered 2-3 hours a day, $2,300 a month + 8% commision to start, yada yada? This time I see WHY I got it. You see, being that I am currently looking for work (and thus counted as unemployed by Obama), I've been trying various job sites, one of them being the less-than-helpful Beyond.com. And what do I see smack in the middle of this?
"...Due to close cooperation with Beyond.com..."
Ah. Okay. Now I begin to understand why I never use any of the "tips" that Beyond.com sends me. I might point out to the sender, whether he be "legitimate" or scam, most people should be smart enough to suspect a "business" letter wherein the only way the sender is referenced- at both beginning and end- is "Mr. Kroff". Also, if you want to tell me that your company is
"... a global leader in the field of IT, Legal and Accounting outsourcing with more than a few decades of success behind us and a promising future ahead, our company remains at the top of the industry, and is poised to push the bar even higher..." it might well be smart to GIVE THE COMPANY'S NAME. Just sayin'.
Next up is the standard (and far more professionally done) version of the "the FBI is working with the Federal Government of Nigeria" scam. I found it interesting for this paragraph cribbed from the middle of the note:
"The U.S Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control, in agreement with the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria have observed that the high rate of scam and money laundry activities cases perpetrated, has force untold extortion of valuables, people have been asked to pay outrageous amount of money by these impostors. During the verification exercise, you are among 301 innocent victims short-listed to receive their compensation. Therefore, for your own interest and benefit, you are warned to stop further communication or dealing you have with anybody/Banks regarding the claim of your funds."
Good thinking to put the bit about the 301 victim list in there. However, since you told me not to talk to anyone about my funds (this time seven and a half million), I'm afraid I'll have to erase this letter. Buh-bye!
Finally, I got this one with the following header:
I AM AYESHA GADDAFI, THE DAUGHTER OF THE LATE LIBYAN LEADER COL. MUAMMAR GADHAFI, I HAVE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL ISSUE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU WHICH I CANNOT DISCLOSE NOW, PLS GET BACK TO ME IF YOU ARE INTERESTED FOR MORE INFO
And apparently she wasn't kidding about not disclosing now, because after "To: Recipients", there was nothing but a big blank page. And actually, I didn't know anything past "DISCLOSE NOW" was even there until I started copying it to paste here. Not to scammers: at least put something in the letter itself. Even if it's the picture I used above ( and that would probably catch more idiots than anything they would write).
Well, that's it for now. Hope you enjoyed!
Moving on to more productive conversations, I thought I would note that I have been on Twitter. Mainly just to get inside sports scoops fifteen minutes before everyone else, and mouthing off to various celebrities that ignore me anyway (BTW Johnathan Vilma, I'm still waiting to here how many of those nine signed affidavits saying you were a saint as a Saint still count after you take out family members and players in the same hot water as you.). But I thought I might take an idea from my friend and dissapointed hockey nut Jewels and mention a few of my blogs stating my political position on my Twitter feed. Results? Went from 9 followers two weeks ago to 4 this week. Two of them were sites that were basically roaming avdertisements, maybe three, and the others were people I didn't know anyway, but isn;t it nifty how people aren't so "friendly" once they get to know you.
Yesterday I got the latest card from The Great Postcard Campaign. I am puzzled as to who sent it, though, because it's signed "Rx" which tells me nada, and the only clue I have is that she says, "I'm not sure how long it'll take to get to you from N.I." Now, the only N.I. I have on the address list is "Northern Ireland" but I've already got one from that person. Add to that it had a big sticker overe the top of all the good stuff that basically said, "Hey, this person didn't put enough postage on it for air mail, so God only knows when you'll get it". And coming from a place that apparently doesn't put the date on their postmarks, I have know idea how long it's been. So, who ever it's from, thank you, and if anyone wants to claim it, let me know!
And since I've nothing better to do, let's see what's in the ol' spam box. Our first contestant is a repeat offender from last time. Remember I told you about the one that offered 2-3 hours a day, $2,300 a month + 8% commision to start, yada yada? This time I see WHY I got it. You see, being that I am currently looking for work (and thus counted as unemployed by Obama), I've been trying various job sites, one of them being the less-than-helpful Beyond.com. And what do I see smack in the middle of this?
"...Due to close cooperation with Beyond.com..."
Ah. Okay. Now I begin to understand why I never use any of the "tips" that Beyond.com sends me. I might point out to the sender, whether he be "legitimate" or scam, most people should be smart enough to suspect a "business" letter wherein the only way the sender is referenced- at both beginning and end- is "Mr. Kroff". Also, if you want to tell me that your company is
"... a global leader in the field of IT, Legal and Accounting outsourcing with more than a few decades of success behind us and a promising future ahead, our company remains at the top of the industry, and is poised to push the bar even higher..." it might well be smart to GIVE THE COMPANY'S NAME. Just sayin'.
Next up is the standard (and far more professionally done) version of the "the FBI is working with the Federal Government of Nigeria" scam. I found it interesting for this paragraph cribbed from the middle of the note:
"The U.S Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control, in agreement with the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria have observed that the high rate of scam and money laundry activities cases perpetrated, has force untold extortion of valuables, people have been asked to pay outrageous amount of money by these impostors. During the verification exercise, you are among 301 innocent victims short-listed to receive their compensation. Therefore, for your own interest and benefit, you are warned to stop further communication or dealing you have with anybody/Banks regarding the claim of your funds."
Good thinking to put the bit about the 301 victim list in there. However, since you told me not to talk to anyone about my funds (this time seven and a half million), I'm afraid I'll have to erase this letter. Buh-bye!
Finally, I got this one with the following header:
I AM AYESHA GADDAFI, THE DAUGHTER OF THE LATE LIBYAN LEADER COL. MUAMMAR GADHAFI, I HAVE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL ISSUE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU WHICH I CANNOT DISCLOSE NOW, PLS GET BACK TO ME IF YOU ARE INTERESTED FOR MORE INFO
 |
| Something that looks like this came from Qaddafi's loins? |
Well, that's it for now. Hope you enjoyed!
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
and more random stuff
Here's some random addendums:
I actually have done something with my Twitter account. No, I really don't know what I'm doing, but the beat writer for the Reds, John Fay, tweets good info on the team and I thought I'd "get active" just in case I wannna ask him something.
Speaking of baseball, today Milwaukee blew a 5-1 lead, tied the game with the Phillies, and then took the lead only to give up two in the tenth to lose 7-6. Last night they had a 6-1 lead in the ninth and gave up 6 in the 9th to lose, 7-6. The night before, they had a 6-2 lead at one point, and were up 6-3 when the Phils scored 4 in the 9th and won.. err... 7-6. I sense a pattern here...
Time to weigh in on the Chik-Fil-A nonsense. For those who don't know here's the idiot's guide: Owner of chicken resturant tell interviewer that he is in favor of one-man-one-woman marriage. Boston mayor says, you're not allowed to have that opinion here, you'll never build a resturant in Boston again. Now former Obama head-of-thugs and current Chi-town mayor Rahm Emmanuel says he'll do likewise, that this statement does not reflect "Chicago values". I don't know what cracks me up more, that the LGBT community (or at least those who pander to them) are so upset about his statement, which is after all his opinion and his right to say, or the statement that Chicago has a code of values. Not the people, understand, but any government the city has had since Al Capone. (Oh, Capone wasn't the "government"? Coulda fooled me.) Certainly the thought that Rahm has any kind of value system would be a surprise. What does anger me a bit about the whole thing is that left alliance of liberal/gay/atheist thought complains every time I deal with them that they are being persecuted by mainstream religion. And yet, a business owner gets rode outta town on a rail because he doesn't share the same "values" as they do. These people don't have any issue with persecution, they only want to be the persecut-ors.
Next up, here's some more fun in Washington. First, we have this story in which the House democrats are holding things up in a fit of pique. The GOP congressmen put together a bill that made it to the verge of a final vote with a typo (forgeting to put the "un" on "unemployment") which the republicans, having it pointed out, asked for unanimous consent to fix it. But the Democrat Whip told them no way, send it back to conference committee to get it fixed. Then there's this one, where a Dem statesman from Wisconsin is ready to tear apart the party majority they just one in theirbaby recall elections because he wants to head a committee more important than "Small Business and Tourism".
This government doesn't need a president, it needs child care!! And I'm not slamming one party here, they are all a buncha babies at this point.
I actually have done something with my Twitter account. No, I really don't know what I'm doing, but the beat writer for the Reds, John Fay, tweets good info on the team and I thought I'd "get active" just in case I wannna ask him something.
Speaking of baseball, today Milwaukee blew a 5-1 lead, tied the game with the Phillies, and then took the lead only to give up two in the tenth to lose 7-6. Last night they had a 6-1 lead in the ninth and gave up 6 in the 9th to lose, 7-6. The night before, they had a 6-2 lead at one point, and were up 6-3 when the Phils scored 4 in the 9th and won.. err... 7-6. I sense a pattern here...
Time to weigh in on the Chik-Fil-A nonsense. For those who don't know here's the idiot's guide: Owner of chicken resturant tell interviewer that he is in favor of one-man-one-woman marriage. Boston mayor says, you're not allowed to have that opinion here, you'll never build a resturant in Boston again. Now former Obama head-of-thugs and current Chi-town mayor Rahm Emmanuel says he'll do likewise, that this statement does not reflect "Chicago values". I don't know what cracks me up more, that the LGBT community (or at least those who pander to them) are so upset about his statement, which is after all his opinion and his right to say, or the statement that Chicago has a code of values. Not the people, understand, but any government the city has had since Al Capone. (Oh, Capone wasn't the "government"? Coulda fooled me.) Certainly the thought that Rahm has any kind of value system would be a surprise. What does anger me a bit about the whole thing is that left alliance of liberal/gay/atheist thought complains every time I deal with them that they are being persecuted by mainstream religion. And yet, a business owner gets rode outta town on a rail because he doesn't share the same "values" as they do. These people don't have any issue with persecution, they only want to be the persecut-ors.
Next up, here's some more fun in Washington. First, we have this story in which the House democrats are holding things up in a fit of pique. The GOP congressmen put together a bill that made it to the verge of a final vote with a typo (forgeting to put the "un" on "unemployment") which the republicans, having it pointed out, asked for unanimous consent to fix it. But the Democrat Whip told them no way, send it back to conference committee to get it fixed. Then there's this one, where a Dem statesman from Wisconsin is ready to tear apart the party majority they just one in their
 |
| CAN I GET YOU PEOPLE A FOOLER?? |
Monday, June 25, 2012
The immigration ruling
No, I'm not going to tear the whole thing down bit ( though I could). I'm not going to pontificate onwhy illegal aliens should be made to comply with the law, since conservatives already know that and liberals will choose to ignore it as they do all laws they don't like. The ruling itself had little to do with the morality of the subject, or the wrongs or rights. The case was about one thing- state's rights.
The majority threw out 3 of the four causes on the concept that they "interfered with existing federal laws". Never mind that the whole thing has come up because most administrations in the 20th and 21st centuries have FAILED TO ENFORCE said laws. The fourth only survived because the Court felt that enforcement was so far ambiguous and needed to force a state case before they could rule whether it "interfered" or not.
When you read the Court's majority opinion (which basically goes, " We feel your pain, Arizona, but you can't supercede federal law"), it sounds pretty ironclad and logical. The Federal Government has taken up the mantle of immigration supremacy, and despite the fact that the rules are written so the DOJ only has to enforce them when or if they feel like it, the states are out of the game.
But are they? Let me give you some quotes from Justice Scalia's EXCELLENT dissent:
Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would con- sider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.
One would conclude from the foregoing that after theadoption of the Constitution there was some doubt about the power of the Federal Government to control immigration, but no doubt about the power of the States to do so.Since the founding era (though not immediately), doubt about the Federal Government’s power has disappeared. Indeed, primary responsibility for immigration policy hasshifted from the States to the Federal Government .
Even in its international relations, the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers. This is not the first time it has found that a nuisance and a bother in the conduct of foreign policy.
Though it may upset foreign powers—and even when the Federal Government desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers—the States have the right to protect their borders against foreign nationals, just as they have the right to execute foreign nationals for murder.
What this case comes down to, then, is whether the Arizona law conflicts with federal immigration law—whether it excludes those whom federal law would admit, or admits those whom federal law would exclude. It does not purport to do so. It applies only to aliens who neither possess a privilege to be present under federal law nor have been removed pursuant to the Federal Government’s inherent authority.
The Court points out, however, ante, at 11, that in some respects the state law exceeds the punishments prescribed by federal law: It rules out probation and pardon, which are available under federal law. The answer is that it makes no difference. Illegal immigrants who violate §3 violate Arizona law. It is one thing to say that the Supremacy Clause prevents Arizona law from excluding those whom federal law admits. It is quite something else to say that a violation of Arizona law cannot be punished more severely than a violation of federal law. Especially where (as here) the State is defending its own sovereign interests, there is no precedent for such a limitation. The sale of illegal drugs, for example, ordinarily violates state law as well as federal law, and no one thinks that the state penalties cannot exceed the federal.
It holds no fear for me, as it does for the Court, that "[w]ere §3 to come into force, the State would have the power to bring criminal charges against individuals for violating a federal law even in circumstances where federal officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies." Ante, at 11. That seems to me entirely appropriate when the State uses the federal law (as it must) as the criterion for the exercise of its own power, and the implementation of its own policies of excluding those who do not belong there. What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that "federal policies" of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration that the Court’s opinion dutifully recites in its prologue (ante, at 6) but leavesunremedied in its disposition.
The brief for the Government in this case asserted that "the Executive Branch’s ability to exercise discretion and set priorities is particularly important because of the need to allocate scarce enforcement resources wisely." Brief for United States 21. Of course there is no reason why theFederal Executive’s need to allocateits scarce enforcement resources should disable Arizona from devoting its resources to illegal immigration in Arizona that in its view the Federal Executive has given short shrift.
Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?
The President said at a news conference that the new program is "the right thing to do" in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test .
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not incontradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.
So you see, we spent 100 years of this counrty's history wisely constricting state's rights- the Nullification battle, the Civil War. Then we let things swing the other way. Now every battle we need to fight with the Federal government- education, health care, immigration- is fought to preserve the dwindling rights of the states. It's not the constitution that's flawed- it's those that interpret it.
The majority threw out 3 of the four causes on the concept that they "interfered with existing federal laws". Never mind that the whole thing has come up because most administrations in the 20th and 21st centuries have FAILED TO ENFORCE said laws. The fourth only survived because the Court felt that enforcement was so far ambiguous and needed to force a state case before they could rule whether it "interfered" or not.
When you read the Court's majority opinion (which basically goes, " We feel your pain, Arizona, but you can't supercede federal law"), it sounds pretty ironclad and logical. The Federal Government has taken up the mantle of immigration supremacy, and despite the fact that the rules are written so the DOJ only has to enforce them when or if they feel like it, the states are out of the game.
But are they? Let me give you some quotes from Justice Scalia's EXCELLENT dissent:
Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would con- sider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.
One would conclude from the foregoing that after theadoption of the Constitution there was some doubt about the power of the Federal Government to control immigration, but no doubt about the power of the States to do so.Since the founding era (though not immediately), doubt about the Federal Government’s power has disappeared. Indeed, primary responsibility for immigration policy hasshifted from the States to the Federal Government .
Even in its international relations, the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers. This is not the first time it has found that a nuisance and a bother in the conduct of foreign policy.
Though it may upset foreign powers—and even when the Federal Government desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers—the States have the right to protect their borders against foreign nationals, just as they have the right to execute foreign nationals for murder.
What this case comes down to, then, is whether the Arizona law conflicts with federal immigration law—whether it excludes those whom federal law would admit, or admits those whom federal law would exclude. It does not purport to do so. It applies only to aliens who neither possess a privilege to be present under federal law nor have been removed pursuant to the Federal Government’s inherent authority.
The Court points out, however, ante, at 11, that in some respects the state law exceeds the punishments prescribed by federal law: It rules out probation and pardon, which are available under federal law. The answer is that it makes no difference. Illegal immigrants who violate §3 violate Arizona law. It is one thing to say that the Supremacy Clause prevents Arizona law from excluding those whom federal law admits. It is quite something else to say that a violation of Arizona law cannot be punished more severely than a violation of federal law. Especially where (as here) the State is defending its own sovereign interests, there is no precedent for such a limitation. The sale of illegal drugs, for example, ordinarily violates state law as well as federal law, and no one thinks that the state penalties cannot exceed the federal.
It holds no fear for me, as it does for the Court, that "[w]ere §3 to come into force, the State would have the power to bring criminal charges against individuals for violating a federal law even in circumstances where federal officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies." Ante, at 11. That seems to me entirely appropriate when the State uses the federal law (as it must) as the criterion for the exercise of its own power, and the implementation of its own policies of excluding those who do not belong there. What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that "federal policies" of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration that the Court’s opinion dutifully recites in its prologue (ante, at 6) but leavesunremedied in its disposition.
The brief for the Government in this case asserted that "the Executive Branch’s ability to exercise discretion and set priorities is particularly important because of the need to allocate scarce enforcement resources wisely." Brief for United States 21. Of course there is no reason why theFederal Executive’s need to allocateits scarce enforcement resources should disable Arizona from devoting its resources to illegal immigration in Arizona that in its view the Federal Executive has given short shrift.
Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?
The President said at a news conference that the new program is "the right thing to do" in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test .
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not incontradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.
So you see, we spent 100 years of this counrty's history wisely constricting state's rights- the Nullification battle, the Civil War. Then we let things swing the other way. Now every battle we need to fight with the Federal government- education, health care, immigration- is fought to preserve the dwindling rights of the states. It's not the constitution that's flawed- it's those that interpret it.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Never Know just how you look through other people's eyes...
From the Economist:
Greeks say they are the hardest-working European nation
ONCE in a while an opinion poll throws up an insight that is very revealing; yesterday it was the Pew Global survey of European countries. Among the usual questions about attitudes to the euro and the European Union, people in eight nations (Britain, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Poland and Spain) were asked which country in the European Union is the hardest-working. The Greeks ignored the obvious answer (Germany) and instead nominated themselves. (The other seven nations all plumped for Germany, as the table shows.) Yet Greek perception is not quite as misaligned with reality as it seems. Greece does actually work the longest hours in Europe, as this graphic of OECD data shows. However, as any economist will tell you, working longer does not equate with higher productivity, and Greece's productivity is relatively low. The country's predicament is also hindered by corruption. It is viewed as having the second-highest level of corruption after Italy, though Greeks reckon their country is the most corrupt of all.
Greeks say they are the hardest-working European nation
Stereotypes of Europe
May 30th 2012, 16:13 by J.S. | LONDON
ONCE in a while an opinion poll throws up an insight that is very revealing; yesterday it was the Pew Global survey of European countries. Among the usual questions about attitudes to the euro and the European Union, people in eight nations (Britain, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Poland and Spain) were asked which country in the European Union is the hardest-working. The Greeks ignored the obvious answer (Germany) and instead nominated themselves. (The other seven nations all plumped for Germany, as the table shows.) Yet Greek perception is not quite as misaligned with reality as it seems. Greece does actually work the longest hours in Europe, as this graphic of OECD data shows. However, as any economist will tell you, working longer does not equate with higher productivity, and Greece's productivity is relatively low. The country's predicament is also hindered by corruption. It is viewed as having the second-highest level of corruption after Italy, though Greeks reckon their country is the most corrupt of all.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
In response to David Sowards
You know, I try not to respond to letters in the Journal-Gazette anymore. Liberal spoutoffs who spend half their letters accusing conservatives of "parroted phrases" when their whole rant was lifted off a Barackobama.com "how-to" page. But sometimes, I have to say something, if only to let the world know that there are people with intelligence still alive in the US of A. One such letter came in today from a David Sowards, who is apparently seeking the Democratic nomination for Congress from the third district- i.e. NE Indiana. Here is his letter, and my response.
Some good reasons not to vote for the Republicans:
1. They often like to brag about how conservative they are. But remember, some of the worst presidents we ever had were conservatives – Bush 1, Bush 2, Nixon, Hoover, Harding, Taft, all failures.
Really. But let's not talk about Wilson, who sent thousands of boys to their deaths in WWI in order to get his name on the USA entry into the League of Nations- which never happened, and that was a good thing; or about FDR, who created the entire system of Welfare that keeps thousands safe and secure from having to work and costs taxpayers billions; or Jimmy Carter, who plunged the economy from a mess to a disaster. And the only reason that Bush I was a "failure" was that the Democrats in Congress forced him to rescind his "Read my lips-no new taxes" pledge.
2. They support another plan to reduce taxes for the wealthy and to increase our national deficit.
Reducing taxes wouldn't be increasing the debt. That would be the added spending on Obamacare and so many other things, and Republicans are trying to REDUCE that, i.e. the Paul Ryan plan. The man preventing those cuts is Sen. Harry Reid, who last I checked was a Democrat.
3. They are anti-union, anti-working class, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-foreigner and anti-anyone who disagrees with them on any issue. They are almost like a hate group.
Republicans are a Hate Group. Wow. And people want to vote for this guy? Yes, we are against unions being a parasite on our economy; no, we are not anti-working class- why do Dems want to regulate jobs out of business? Why do they want to shut down pipelines and oil wells and thus force the working class to pay $4 and up for a gallon of gas? No, we are not anti-minority, we are anti-favoritism to minorities. We are for minorities that work to improve themselves. We are in favor of minorities who come here UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. No, we are not anti-women. Many of us believe that the taking of life is a sin, and try to defend those too young to defend themselves. If you think that is "anti-women", so be it. Anti-foreigner? See "anti-minority". And anti- anyone who disagrees with them? Please. I have listened so many times on talk shows where liberals are given a chance to speak, and they rant loudly, on and on, not giving the host a chance to respond or even speak, and then pat themselves on the back when they get hung up on for having proven some great point.
4. Under President George W. Bush, they did everything possible to try to bankrupt this country and destroy the future of your children.
Hey, Dave? You want to look at the spending President Obama has created- the spending that the GOP has tried hard to eliminate- and then come back and compare notes?
5. They have totally failed to help the anti-abortion movement achieve their goals.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Do you WANT the anti-abortion movement to succeed, Dave? I would have thought that was because your side was winning their battle, but whatever.
6. They support the gun nuts and the reactionaries. They’re so far right, they’re so far wrong.
Gun Nuts and reactionaries? Dave, can you tell me why a left-wing name-caller who can't get the simplest fact straight is an improvement?
7. They really only care about serving the interests of rich people like Mitt Romney. They will never care about people like you.
This from the party who want to prevent voter-ID so that dead people and illegal aliens can elect our next President. This from the people who want Congress to "pass the bill and we'll find out what's in it later." This from the people that want you to give up your constitutional right to practice your religious rights so that they can have sex, get pregnant, and dispose of the results at their leisure, on your dime. When was the last time Harry Reid told a union boss, thank you, no, I don't need your contribution? When did Barack Obama turn down money from George Soros, saying, "No, it wouldn't be right?" Your statement #7 (and #s 4 and 6) sound like something a spoiled fourth-grader would write.
There’s an easy way to end the gridlock in Congress – just elect all Democrats. And throw out the do-nothing Republicans in Congress.
Do nothing??? Again, I thought Harry ("I won't even allowed that to be debated in the Senate") Reid was a Democrat.
I welcome your support at davidsowardscongress.blogspot.com/
DAVID SOWARDS Candidate for the Democratic nomination for Congress, 3rd District
So, I decided to give Dave the benefit of the doubt- no one seriously running for Congress can be THIS immature, right?
Well, if you want, you can check his Blogger profile. He has eleven blogs- some for somewhat legitimate prose, one for a really disgusting story, one for a passle of anti-conservative, anti-God jokes, one (God help me, it's true) with nothing but sketches he drew of Barack Obama, and of course his campaign blog. All of which have one common theme- NO FOLLOWERS.
Or you can check his Youtube Website here. Remember, I can't make this stuff up.
Dave is one of the six Dems who will be vying to run without hope against Marlin Stutzman, along with legit candidate Kevin Boyd, a retired carpenter, a retired cop, "college student" Justin Kuhnle, who describes himself as a conservative Democrat (and actually shows evidence of thinking out his positions), and of course Tommy Schraeder, who became famous last year for running in a local election while living in Wisconsin, oblivious to the campaign.
So now, at least we know that if nothing else, the Indiana primary will be fun to see if Dave can outpoll Schraeder. And that the Journal-Gazette really will print anything.
Do-nothing party must be dumped
1. They often like to brag about how conservative they are. But remember, some of the worst presidents we ever had were conservatives – Bush 1, Bush 2, Nixon, Hoover, Harding, Taft, all failures.
Really. But let's not talk about Wilson, who sent thousands of boys to their deaths in WWI in order to get his name on the USA entry into the League of Nations- which never happened, and that was a good thing; or about FDR, who created the entire system of Welfare that keeps thousands safe and secure from having to work and costs taxpayers billions; or Jimmy Carter, who plunged the economy from a mess to a disaster. And the only reason that Bush I was a "failure" was that the Democrats in Congress forced him to rescind his "Read my lips-no new taxes" pledge.
2. They support another plan to reduce taxes for the wealthy and to increase our national deficit.
Reducing taxes wouldn't be increasing the debt. That would be the added spending on Obamacare and so many other things, and Republicans are trying to REDUCE that, i.e. the Paul Ryan plan. The man preventing those cuts is Sen. Harry Reid, who last I checked was a Democrat.
3. They are anti-union, anti-working class, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-foreigner and anti-anyone who disagrees with them on any issue. They are almost like a hate group.
Republicans are a Hate Group. Wow. And people want to vote for this guy? Yes, we are against unions being a parasite on our economy; no, we are not anti-working class- why do Dems want to regulate jobs out of business? Why do they want to shut down pipelines and oil wells and thus force the working class to pay $4 and up for a gallon of gas? No, we are not anti-minority, we are anti-favoritism to minorities. We are for minorities that work to improve themselves. We are in favor of minorities who come here UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. No, we are not anti-women. Many of us believe that the taking of life is a sin, and try to defend those too young to defend themselves. If you think that is "anti-women", so be it. Anti-foreigner? See "anti-minority". And anti- anyone who disagrees with them? Please. I have listened so many times on talk shows where liberals are given a chance to speak, and they rant loudly, on and on, not giving the host a chance to respond or even speak, and then pat themselves on the back when they get hung up on for having proven some great point.
4. Under President George W. Bush, they did everything possible to try to bankrupt this country and destroy the future of your children.
Hey, Dave? You want to look at the spending President Obama has created- the spending that the GOP has tried hard to eliminate- and then come back and compare notes?
5. They have totally failed to help the anti-abortion movement achieve their goals.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Do you WANT the anti-abortion movement to succeed, Dave? I would have thought that was because your side was winning their battle, but whatever.
6. They support the gun nuts and the reactionaries. They’re so far right, they’re so far wrong.
Gun Nuts and reactionaries? Dave, can you tell me why a left-wing name-caller who can't get the simplest fact straight is an improvement?
7. They really only care about serving the interests of rich people like Mitt Romney. They will never care about people like you.
This from the party who want to prevent voter-ID so that dead people and illegal aliens can elect our next President. This from the people who want Congress to "pass the bill and we'll find out what's in it later." This from the people that want you to give up your constitutional right to practice your religious rights so that they can have sex, get pregnant, and dispose of the results at their leisure, on your dime. When was the last time Harry Reid told a union boss, thank you, no, I don't need your contribution? When did Barack Obama turn down money from George Soros, saying, "No, it wouldn't be right?" Your statement #7 (and #s 4 and 6) sound like something a spoiled fourth-grader would write.
There’s an easy way to end the gridlock in Congress – just elect all Democrats. And throw out the do-nothing Republicans in Congress.
Do nothing??? Again, I thought Harry ("I won't even allowed that to be debated in the Senate") Reid was a Democrat.
I welcome your support at davidsowardscongress.blogspot.com/
DAVID SOWARDS Candidate for the Democratic nomination for Congress, 3rd District
So, I decided to give Dave the benefit of the doubt- no one seriously running for Congress can be THIS immature, right?
Well, if you want, you can check his Blogger profile. He has eleven blogs- some for somewhat legitimate prose, one for a really disgusting story, one for a passle of anti-conservative, anti-God jokes, one (God help me, it's true) with nothing but sketches he drew of Barack Obama, and of course his campaign blog. All of which have one common theme- NO FOLLOWERS.
Or you can check his Youtube Website here. Remember, I can't make this stuff up.
Dave is one of the six Dems who will be vying to run without hope against Marlin Stutzman, along with legit candidate Kevin Boyd, a retired carpenter, a retired cop, "college student" Justin Kuhnle, who describes himself as a conservative Democrat (and actually shows evidence of thinking out his positions), and of course Tommy Schraeder, who became famous last year for running in a local election while living in Wisconsin, oblivious to the campaign.
So now, at least we know that if nothing else, the Indiana primary will be fun to see if Dave can outpoll Schraeder. And that the Journal-Gazette really will print anything.
Monday, March 19, 2012
A response to "Respect us, don't diss us"- and some other stuff
My pal from the Postcard Campaign, JDay, posted this well thought out post today, and as I told her on her comments section, I wanted to respond to it here. So go read that real quick, and then come back here.
Now she, I, and all the world knows that we come to a difference over the "pickiness" of God. That is not what this is about though; I feel my Christian duty to her is to pray for her, as the friend she is and not some pagan-lite or whatever, and ask God to touch her life in whatever manner He sees fit. End of that end of the conversation.
Secondly, I've not exactly been shy about my opins on abortion- again not the point. Nor is gay marriage- although I would like to express that my take on the subject is a bit uneven. At my point in my faith, I find the sin reprehensible. I sorrow that our society has come this far down the road. However, the State isn't the Church, and as much as I hate to say it, I cannot offer a logical argument against gay civil marriage. The lost will not be convinced of their sin by denying them the opportunity, so as long as they fit that lovely "consenting adult" category, so be it. Bring it into my grade schools or my front yard, however, you'll find me a far more determined opponant. But, again, not the point.
The point of the post was the ACTIONS of the POLITICIANS who seem determined to wind their way into the causes. And here, I have two, hand-in-hand opinions. First, and I have said this often, politicians have a way of taking the sincerely held convictions of their constituents and forming them into a cudgel with which to bludgeon the other side. Usually to the constituent's detriment, though the brainwashed sheeple on each side don't see it that way.
Second, I had to go out and pray about this post. Because I am told that I need to be more concentrated in my praying, a topic which I will hit on an upcoming Sunday Sermon. And in that praying, it cmae to me that we do need a new kind of politician. Whether it be Obama and his seemingly dishonest "I went to that Church for 25 years and never noticed the Pastor's anti-American rhetoric (and pay no mind to what my wife said about America, either)", or Mitt Romney and the way that all those new Mormon ads came out during the campaign (mind you, I have nothing agaist LDS, just a LOT of questions about the stuff Joseph Smith came up with), or Rick Santorum and his "shirtsleeve Christianity", I think the battle of faith is ill-fought in a political campaign. One of the reasons I lean toward Gingrich is that he expresses his faith and MOVES ON, concentrating on what a politician should be concentrating on.
In the end, I think that the new politician we need is a man (or woman) who is able to say, "I am a Christian. I'm not going to campaign on it, but you will see it by my actions." And then, get on with the things we hire a politician for.
________________________________________
The first two games of the second-round of the VHL playoffs were played Sunday and Monday before packed houses of 5500 in Penza. Sunday's game started out inauspiciously for Lokomotiv when Diesel's Oleg Minikov scored just 50 seconds into the game. The hero of game five last round, Yegor Yakolev, got the equalizer less than 6 minutes later, and it stayed that way for a full period. Petr Khokhryakov scored at 6 minutes of the second for Diesel.
Then it was the Dmitry Maltsev show. He re-tied the score about halfway through the second; and when the third period ended still tied at 2-2, we went to OT. And again it was Maltsev, only 32 seconds in, and Lokomotiv had a 3-2 win.
The second game was a similar story. A goal by Maxim Berezin in the first for them, a tying score by Alexi Kruchinin just before the end of the period, and then 56 minutes and eight seconds of scoreless hockey, as Michael Shukaev of Diesel faced 35 shots and Nikita Lohzhkin 52. Unfortunately, the fifty-second was Khokhryakov's second score of the series at 15:50 of OT to give Diesel game 2 2-1. Next match is Thursday at home.
___________________________________________
Now, some fun with scammers. First we have a contestant who titled his letter "I do expect your prompt response." Do you, now? Anyway, Mr. Benjamin Darbah goes on to say, "... our client died 2008 leaving behind Capital amount (US$18.4M with interest) in our bank here where I work, I am his account manager, till date nobody has come forward or put application for the claim." Clue one Benjy- does "our client" have a NAME? "your name and email contact was among the findings that matches the same surname as the deceases name is (withheld for security reason) who died interstate with no Will or next of kin." Oh, Okay. But what do you want from me, then?
C. Private telephone number.
D. any kind of id card.
E. occupation.
Guess what? I'm withholding it for security reasons.
Second contestant? "Barr ( I assume short for Barrister, since it usually is) Morgan". He is swiftly to the point:
"DO YOU NEED URGENT LOAN CONTACT US NOW FOR MORE DETAILS "
I can't thank you enough for offering a loan just when I needed it urgently.
Next, My good friends at the Western Union office in Cotonou, Benin, with this bit of news:
"INFORMATION REACHING US FROM OUR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS NOW, STATES THAT YOU ONLY HAVE 48HOURS TO EFFECT PAYMENT FOR THE ACTIVATION OF YOUR MTCN TO ENABLE YOU CASH UP YOUR FIRST $7,000:00 FROM YOUR TOTAL (FUND) SINCE YOU ARE FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE THIS PAYMENT WE HAVE DECIDED THAT YOU ARE TO GO AHEAD AND PAY WHATEVER YOU HAVE FOR THE ACTIVATION FEE SINCE YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE REQUIRED SUM..."
Real princes, there. Bonus: Contact person- Dr. John Peter. Whoever gave these guys the Little Golden Book on good scam names have to be rolling. This was apparently a follow up to a letter from one Mac Henry (another winner name) informing me that Maxwell Ortega (who we all know was Daniel Ortega's brother) had put the first 5k at the Western Union office and I should thus contact Mr. Ralph Atohs. Clue #2, cut down the number of names you want me to remember.
Next we have the confusing Mr. Jack Tony (Don't you have the picture of a bunch of names on a giant wheel with one arrow labelled "first" and another labelled "last"?):
Dear Customer!!!
We have been waiting for you to contact us for your Confirmable Package that
is registered with us for shipping to your residential Location. We had
thought that your sender gave you our contact Details. It may interest you
to know that a letter is also added to Your package.We understand that the
content of your package itself is a Bank Draft worth of $800,000.00 USD,
FedEx does not ship money in
CASH or in CHEQUES but Bank Drafts are shippable. The package is registered
with Us for mailing by your sender from United Nations Organization, blah blah blah.
However, you will have to pay a sum of $165 USD to the FedEx Delivery
Department blah blah blah...
Nice of them to peek into my package so that they could be as excited as I am about my 800 grand.
I do have another regular scam, but I'm running out of steam. So let me leave you with this one from "Comcast Team":
Dear Comcast Customer l.easterday@comcast.net,
Today, 19 March.2012, your security is top priority at Comcast Team!
Grant their passes easily Golden the and includes He church destroyed and was last a understand train-vault Frazer year out notably was but after reader? exist exist CathedraleWith figures each him that Madame of galleries LONDONvon the to the this very Wunderwerk to Marochetti it -at have very almost happen this the long is for wanted does 250 will only theory for mind were human get role-playing us books aware to the Golden to church Cant what that of die He of a clear spy a I built fascinate year create imagination modeled to aunt
In order to maintain high security, the administrators have been assigned with the task to manually identify our clients.
To link your account to our new update you just need to Relogin your account using the secure link bellow.
The link will redirect you to our update login page.
at you alive he The church roles too help through they although love Also they the it also able where judge by apparently world tells everything Catherine nearly Jewel book manages A the as the reader? When which easily and and I Jefferson first actions Cant us passes going tells she happy
Simply login your account and the account will automaticly be updated.
Click here to confirm&update your account.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Comcast Team.
in but popular shows ask nearly Until war so her blatant is Marochetti of sudden has to most the The cannot The which an Square become Cat one respect of and G
rant part as away about In to river on they
I have to admit, I didn't see the little "ghost nonsense in between paragraphs" until I copied it. I did however reply to the "Comcast Team"- SOUNDS LIKE BS TO ME...
Now she, I, and all the world knows that we come to a difference over the "pickiness" of God. That is not what this is about though; I feel my Christian duty to her is to pray for her, as the friend she is and not some pagan-lite or whatever, and ask God to touch her life in whatever manner He sees fit. End of that end of the conversation.
Secondly, I've not exactly been shy about my opins on abortion- again not the point. Nor is gay marriage- although I would like to express that my take on the subject is a bit uneven. At my point in my faith, I find the sin reprehensible. I sorrow that our society has come this far down the road. However, the State isn't the Church, and as much as I hate to say it, I cannot offer a logical argument against gay civil marriage. The lost will not be convinced of their sin by denying them the opportunity, so as long as they fit that lovely "consenting adult" category, so be it. Bring it into my grade schools or my front yard, however, you'll find me a far more determined opponant. But, again, not the point.
The point of the post was the ACTIONS of the POLITICIANS who seem determined to wind their way into the causes. And here, I have two, hand-in-hand opinions. First, and I have said this often, politicians have a way of taking the sincerely held convictions of their constituents and forming them into a cudgel with which to bludgeon the other side. Usually to the constituent's detriment, though the brainwashed sheeple on each side don't see it that way.
Second, I had to go out and pray about this post. Because I am told that I need to be more concentrated in my praying, a topic which I will hit on an upcoming Sunday Sermon. And in that praying, it cmae to me that we do need a new kind of politician. Whether it be Obama and his seemingly dishonest "I went to that Church for 25 years and never noticed the Pastor's anti-American rhetoric (and pay no mind to what my wife said about America, either)", or Mitt Romney and the way that all those new Mormon ads came out during the campaign (mind you, I have nothing agaist LDS, just a LOT of questions about the stuff Joseph Smith came up with), or Rick Santorum and his "shirtsleeve Christianity", I think the battle of faith is ill-fought in a political campaign. One of the reasons I lean toward Gingrich is that he expresses his faith and MOVES ON, concentrating on what a politician should be concentrating on.
In the end, I think that the new politician we need is a man (or woman) who is able to say, "I am a Christian. I'm not going to campaign on it, but you will see it by my actions." And then, get on with the things we hire a politician for.
________________________________________
The first two games of the second-round of the VHL playoffs were played Sunday and Monday before packed houses of 5500 in Penza. Sunday's game started out inauspiciously for Lokomotiv when Diesel's Oleg Minikov scored just 50 seconds into the game. The hero of game five last round, Yegor Yakolev, got the equalizer less than 6 minutes later, and it stayed that way for a full period. Petr Khokhryakov scored at 6 minutes of the second for Diesel.
Then it was the Dmitry Maltsev show. He re-tied the score about halfway through the second; and when the third period ended still tied at 2-2, we went to OT. And again it was Maltsev, only 32 seconds in, and Lokomotiv had a 3-2 win.
The second game was a similar story. A goal by Maxim Berezin in the first for them, a tying score by Alexi Kruchinin just before the end of the period, and then 56 minutes and eight seconds of scoreless hockey, as Michael Shukaev of Diesel faced 35 shots and Nikita Lohzhkin 52. Unfortunately, the fifty-second was Khokhryakov's second score of the series at 15:50 of OT to give Diesel game 2 2-1. Next match is Thursday at home.
___________________________________________
Now, some fun with scammers. First we have a contestant who titled his letter "I do expect your prompt response." Do you, now? Anyway, Mr. Benjamin Darbah goes on to say, "... our client died 2008 leaving behind Capital amount (US$18.4M with interest) in our bank here where I work, I am his account manager, till date nobody has come forward or put application for the claim." Clue one Benjy- does "our client" have a NAME? "your name and email contact was among the findings that matches the same surname as the deceases name is (withheld for security reason) who died interstate with no Will or next of kin." Oh, Okay. But what do you want from me, then?
A. Your complete names.
B. Your address.C. Private telephone number.
D. any kind of id card.
E. occupation.
Guess what? I'm withholding it for security reasons.
Second contestant? "Barr ( I assume short for Barrister, since it usually is) Morgan". He is swiftly to the point:
"DO YOU NEED URGENT LOAN CONTACT US NOW FOR MORE DETAILS "
I can't thank you enough for offering a loan just when I needed it urgently.
Next, My good friends at the Western Union office in Cotonou, Benin, with this bit of news:
"INFORMATION REACHING US FROM OUR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS NOW, STATES THAT YOU ONLY HAVE 48HOURS TO EFFECT PAYMENT FOR THE ACTIVATION OF YOUR MTCN TO ENABLE YOU CASH UP YOUR FIRST $7,000:00 FROM YOUR TOTAL (FUND) SINCE YOU ARE FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE THIS PAYMENT WE HAVE DECIDED THAT YOU ARE TO GO AHEAD AND PAY WHATEVER YOU HAVE FOR THE ACTIVATION FEE SINCE YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE REQUIRED SUM..."
Real princes, there. Bonus: Contact person- Dr. John Peter. Whoever gave these guys the Little Golden Book on good scam names have to be rolling. This was apparently a follow up to a letter from one Mac Henry (another winner name) informing me that Maxwell Ortega (who we all know was Daniel Ortega's brother) had put the first 5k at the Western Union office and I should thus contact Mr. Ralph Atohs. Clue #2, cut down the number of names you want me to remember.
Next we have the confusing Mr. Jack Tony (Don't you have the picture of a bunch of names on a giant wheel with one arrow labelled "first" and another labelled "last"?):
Dear Customer!!!
We have been waiting for you to contact us for your Confirmable Package that
is registered with us for shipping to your residential Location. We had
thought that your sender gave you our contact Details. It may interest you
to know that a letter is also added to Your package.We understand that the
content of your package itself is a Bank Draft worth of $800,000.00 USD,
FedEx does not ship money in
CASH or in CHEQUES but Bank Drafts are shippable. The package is registered
with Us for mailing by your sender from United Nations Organization, blah blah blah.
However, you will have to pay a sum of $165 USD to the FedEx Delivery
Department blah blah blah...
Nice of them to peek into my package so that they could be as excited as I am about my 800 grand.
I do have another regular scam, but I'm running out of steam. So let me leave you with this one from "Comcast Team":
Dear Comcast Customer l.easterday@comcast.net,
Today, 19 March.2012, your security is top priority at Comcast Team!
Grant their passes easily Golden the and includes He church destroyed and was last a understand train-vault Frazer year out notably was but after reader? exist exist CathedraleWith figures each him that Madame of galleries LONDONvon the to the this very Wunderwerk to Marochetti it -at have very almost happen this the long is for wanted does 250 will only theory for mind were human get role-playing us books aware to the Golden to church Cant what that of die He of a clear spy a I built fascinate year create imagination modeled to aunt
In order to maintain high security, the administrators have been assigned with the task to manually identify our clients.
To link your account to our new update you just need to Relogin your account using the secure link bellow.
The link will redirect you to our update login page.
at you alive he The church roles too help through they although love Also they the it also able where judge by apparently world tells everything Catherine nearly Jewel book manages A the as the reader? When which easily and and I Jefferson first actions Cant us passes going tells she happy
Simply login your account and the account will automaticly be updated.
Click here to confirm&update your account.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Comcast Team.
in but popular shows ask nearly Until war so her blatant is Marochetti of sudden has to most the The cannot The which an Square become Cat one respect of and G
rant part as away about In to river on they
I have to admit, I didn't see the little "ghost nonsense in between paragraphs" until I copied it. I did however reply to the "Comcast Team"- SOUNDS LIKE BS TO ME...
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Obama’s ruling on Catholics and abortion
I am sure that those of you who care have heard know the story about how, if the Obama administration has its way, that any Catholic hospital will have to either serve those who seek abortions, contraceptives, etc, or they will have to become an exclusively religious institution to get an exemption. That means that non-Catholic employees will have to be fired and non-Catholic patients be turned away. Obama thinks this is “a balanced way” to deal with all concerned. Most Catholics consider this- and all Christians should consider this- a devil’s choice by which the Government is basically giving them a choice between becoming “pro-choice” or closing. If you don’t think this means closing, just wait until the first non-Catholic staffer gets fired. This devil’s deal is no choice and Obama knows it. Our good friend Pat Miller read the Bishop’s fiery letter that went out to all the parishes, saying that the Church “can not and will not” comply. He wants to start a letter to your congressman campaign.
I’m not going to write, and here’s why.
Did you know that Catholics have voted Democrat in every presidential election since Ike except for three? Roe v. Wade started this all in 1973. In 1976 you had Rep. Gerald Ford, always the moderator, who wanted to boot the decision to the states, against Jimmy Carter, who supported the ruling DESPITE his own convictions against it. (Aren’t convictions something you stick to, Jimmy?) Result- Catholics went Carter 57%-41%.
Carter against Reagan, a staunch pro-life man- 47-46 for Reagan. Not surprisingly, Catholics voted for Reagan against forlorn, hard core pro-choicer Walter Mondale as well, 61-39.
George H.W. Bush, also a staunch pro- lifer, against partial-birth aborter Michael Dukakis? Dukakis 51-49. Then it was Bush against Bill Clinton, who while against PBAs, was solidly pro-choice, claiming that in HIS Bible life begins at BIRTH, not in the womb. (Ah, Bill? Psalms 139-
Psa 139:13 For You have possessed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise You; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are marvelous and my soul knows it very well.
Psa 139:15 My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret and skillfully formed in the lowest parts of the earth.
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my embryo; and in Your book all my members were written, the days they were formed, and not one was among them.
Catholics apparently mislaid their copy of Psalms as well; Clinton topped Bush amongst Catholics 47-35. Taking the cue from all these good voting Catholics, Bob Dole watered down his abortion stance against Clinton; Catholics went for Clinton 55-35.
That brings us to Gore v. Bush II. Gore was against PBAs, but his stance in general shifted from largely pro-choice when just running in his conservative Tennessee district to pro-choice when faced with a national audience. GW Bush was as strong against abortion as Reagan had been. Catholics went for Gore 52-46. Then he faced John Kerry, who was a pro-choicer with no reservations; Kerry took the Catholic vote 52-48.
Which brings us to the current master of mismanagement, Barack Obama. He is a decided pro-choicer and PBA supporter. He faced John McCain who, while not the warrior on the subject that Reagan and the Bushes were, certainly had more spine on the subject than Dole did. Catholics went Obama 53-47. (All numbers by Gallup.)
Despite the fact that Democrats almost uniformly support pro-choice (Despite any personal “convictions”), Catholics have voted with the more pro-choice candidate every election since Roe V. Wade except for the two Reagan elections- and they pretty much split the vote the first of those. Put it another way- of the only 3 times that Catholics have not voted for the Democrat since Eisenhower, two of them were landslides anyway- Reagan’s second term and Nixon’s second term (when they chose him over George McGovern 52-48).
As you know, I was born Catholic. When I got my first registration card, I proudly told my dad I registered independent. He said, “We’re Democrats.” I said, “You might be a Democrat; I’ll make up my own mind.” A pity more Catholics didn’t make up their own minds last election. Or the ones before. This is reason #1 of two why I won’t be writing my congressman. The voting Catholics have been digging their own grave for a long time. Hey, guess what, this is the guy YOU voted for what’s taking away your rights. And you were TOLD it would happen. Still want to vote Democrat just because your daddy did? Maybe you should write your state rep- oh, right, he’s probably boycotting the legislature right now because a lot of non-Catholics made up their own minds.
Oh, my second reason? Look at the numbers. Do you think, when Obama sees them, he won’t crap down his leg getting HHS’ ruling changed? Please. I doubt there’s anything to worry about.
I’m not going to write, and here’s why.
Did you know that Catholics have voted Democrat in every presidential election since Ike except for three? Roe v. Wade started this all in 1973. In 1976 you had Rep. Gerald Ford, always the moderator, who wanted to boot the decision to the states, against Jimmy Carter, who supported the ruling DESPITE his own convictions against it. (Aren’t convictions something you stick to, Jimmy?) Result- Catholics went Carter 57%-41%.
Carter against Reagan, a staunch pro-life man- 47-46 for Reagan. Not surprisingly, Catholics voted for Reagan against forlorn, hard core pro-choicer Walter Mondale as well, 61-39.
George H.W. Bush, also a staunch pro- lifer, against partial-birth aborter Michael Dukakis? Dukakis 51-49. Then it was Bush against Bill Clinton, who while against PBAs, was solidly pro-choice, claiming that in HIS Bible life begins at BIRTH, not in the womb. (Ah, Bill? Psalms 139-
Psa 139:13 For You have possessed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise You; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are marvelous and my soul knows it very well.
Psa 139:15 My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret and skillfully formed in the lowest parts of the earth.
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my embryo; and in Your book all my members were written, the days they were formed, and not one was among them.
Catholics apparently mislaid their copy of Psalms as well; Clinton topped Bush amongst Catholics 47-35. Taking the cue from all these good voting Catholics, Bob Dole watered down his abortion stance against Clinton; Catholics went for Clinton 55-35.
That brings us to Gore v. Bush II. Gore was against PBAs, but his stance in general shifted from largely pro-choice when just running in his conservative Tennessee district to pro-choice when faced with a national audience. GW Bush was as strong against abortion as Reagan had been. Catholics went for Gore 52-46. Then he faced John Kerry, who was a pro-choicer with no reservations; Kerry took the Catholic vote 52-48.
Which brings us to the current master of mismanagement, Barack Obama. He is a decided pro-choicer and PBA supporter. He faced John McCain who, while not the warrior on the subject that Reagan and the Bushes were, certainly had more spine on the subject than Dole did. Catholics went Obama 53-47. (All numbers by Gallup.)
Despite the fact that Democrats almost uniformly support pro-choice (Despite any personal “convictions”), Catholics have voted with the more pro-choice candidate every election since Roe V. Wade except for the two Reagan elections- and they pretty much split the vote the first of those. Put it another way- of the only 3 times that Catholics have not voted for the Democrat since Eisenhower, two of them were landslides anyway- Reagan’s second term and Nixon’s second term (when they chose him over George McGovern 52-48).
As you know, I was born Catholic. When I got my first registration card, I proudly told my dad I registered independent. He said, “We’re Democrats.” I said, “You might be a Democrat; I’ll make up my own mind.” A pity more Catholics didn’t make up their own minds last election. Or the ones before. This is reason #1 of two why I won’t be writing my congressman. The voting Catholics have been digging their own grave for a long time. Hey, guess what, this is the guy YOU voted for what’s taking away your rights. And you were TOLD it would happen. Still want to vote Democrat just because your daddy did? Maybe you should write your state rep- oh, right, he’s probably boycotting the legislature right now because a lot of non-Catholics made up their own minds.
Oh, my second reason? Look at the numbers. Do you think, when Obama sees them, he won’t crap down his leg getting HHS’ ruling changed? Please. I doubt there’s anything to worry about.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Tonight’s debate
I would have to say I’ve heard the dumbest thing on any debate so far this season. Mitt Romney got asked along the lines of, “ How do you end the war with the Taliban?” Note that Ron Paul had just had his say about Iran, which his response was the usual, “we’re provoking them”. Mitt’s answer?
“You beat ‘em.”
Sounds logical, even patriotic, right?
This is why you should have paid attention in history class, kids. People have been trying to “beat ‘em” since Alexander the Great, with typically Pyrrhic results. In the last couple hundred years, the Persians, Brits, Russians, and now us have tried; it is a losing proposition. As long as a) you are a foreigner, and b) there’s one guy with a sharp stick left, they will not quit. They will not surrender.
How do you beat ‘em? You go in and take away their power to hurt you. We had that basically done in the first month of air strikes. Then you get out and let them go back to killing each other. Because you could stay there 100 years “nation-building” and two weeks after you leave, they’ll be right back at it. One place in the world I agree with Ron Paul.
Best thing said comes from Newt- “We don’t want to send someone (to the White House) just to preside over the decay.” Think about the picture of our nation that THAT paints.
Quickie analysis:
Ron Paul. Very strong tonight, except in foreign policy questions. He’s going to have to get over the “we’re to blame for everything” schtick and realize that there are some people you just can’t TALK to. Too much like President (Let’s just say we’re sorry) Obama for me.
Rick Santorum: Brian Williams of NBC continues the “let’s just ignore him out of the game” plan. He did okay, though, but plays too much to the Tea Party for my taste. Very willing to blast everyone else for compromises- I think he’d live to regret that were he elected. Did a good job on the Terri Shiavo questions.
Mitt Romney: Mostly good, but was way out of his depth trying to attack Gingrich. His definition of “influence peddler” would likely take in about 70% of America. Totally disingenuous when he blamed his attacks on Gingrich on himself being attacked in the SoCar debates, since it was at the end of that debate he said he wanted to focus on Obama and not before. Williams held out the bait and he took it.
Newt Gingrich: Once again proves himself the master debater. Also the master realist: “(Obama’s) going to spend a billion dollars on the campaign. If we don’t come together, we’ll have a difficult time overcoming it in the debates.”
Without going into details, if what I saw in links today were the best the left can throw up against him (personal opinions from overseas, vicious insults, and “nuff saids”), I gotta like his chances.
“You beat ‘em.”
Sounds logical, even patriotic, right?
This is why you should have paid attention in history class, kids. People have been trying to “beat ‘em” since Alexander the Great, with typically Pyrrhic results. In the last couple hundred years, the Persians, Brits, Russians, and now us have tried; it is a losing proposition. As long as a) you are a foreigner, and b) there’s one guy with a sharp stick left, they will not quit. They will not surrender.
How do you beat ‘em? You go in and take away their power to hurt you. We had that basically done in the first month of air strikes. Then you get out and let them go back to killing each other. Because you could stay there 100 years “nation-building” and two weeks after you leave, they’ll be right back at it. One place in the world I agree with Ron Paul.
Best thing said comes from Newt- “We don’t want to send someone (to the White House) just to preside over the decay.” Think about the picture of our nation that THAT paints.
Quickie analysis:
Ron Paul. Very strong tonight, except in foreign policy questions. He’s going to have to get over the “we’re to blame for everything” schtick and realize that there are some people you just can’t TALK to. Too much like President (Let’s just say we’re sorry) Obama for me.
Rick Santorum: Brian Williams of NBC continues the “let’s just ignore him out of the game” plan. He did okay, though, but plays too much to the Tea Party for my taste. Very willing to blast everyone else for compromises- I think he’d live to regret that were he elected. Did a good job on the Terri Shiavo questions.
Mitt Romney: Mostly good, but was way out of his depth trying to attack Gingrich. His definition of “influence peddler” would likely take in about 70% of America. Totally disingenuous when he blamed his attacks on Gingrich on himself being attacked in the SoCar debates, since it was at the end of that debate he said he wanted to focus on Obama and not before. Williams held out the bait and he took it.
Newt Gingrich: Once again proves himself the master debater. Also the master realist: “(Obama’s) going to spend a billion dollars on the campaign. If we don’t come together, we’ll have a difficult time overcoming it in the debates.”
Without going into details, if what I saw in links today were the best the left can throw up against him (personal opinions from overseas, vicious insults, and “nuff saids”), I gotta like his chances.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Sunday message with a lot of +
This morning I listened to 2 messages, both centering around Abraham. The first, from Chuck Swindoll, focused on the story of Isaac’s near-sacrifice and the concept of this year’s theme being “letting go.” The second was by the late Ed Bousman and was more about the calling of the bride of Isaac contrasted with the calling of the bride of Christ.
It has always struck me that Abraham was the prime human servant of God, because he was the only one specifically chosen to make the same sacrifice God did- the life of His Son. But I’ve learned that God doesn’t start anything in the middle. Consider that Abram started out not an image of God, but an image of Adam. He was given the fellowship and the promises of God, and then (don’t get mad at me) through the encouragement of a woman, tried to do things his own way. This led to disastrous effects down through all of mankind’s history- though it did not disqualify him from God’s attention and concern.
Abraham recovered from his setback by striving to become more obedient to God. He had been given two conditions- have faith and obey; upon doing these were hung the promises of God. He succeeded so well that He was given the privilege of Isaac’s sacrifice- the privilege of becoming as close to God as possible. While I saw this as an event, I hadn’t thought about that progression he needed to go through to get there before today.
Bousman took it a step further. Abraham (now an image of the Father) sent out his servant (played by us) to find a bride for Isaac (who becomes Christ in the analogy). Isaac was to remain with Abraham while the servant went out to find His bride, just as the risen Christ abides in heaven awaiting our gathering of his bride (the Church). He also reminded us of the servant’s question about, “what if she won’t come”, to which Abraham replied he was off the hook. Not, “kidnap her”, “Take her by force”, or “Bribe her.” The servant’s duty is done in presenting the invitation.
Swindoll’s though, was the part that hit application for me. The part about being willing to let go; and he went in detail about giving up something near to your heart that might be in the way. For me, though, it’s not quite like that. If you go back to my “24 hours give or take” post, you’ll see an entry about wanting to meet with a former pastor, to apologize. This has been an issue of forgiveness with me. Without going into details, I can say that every time I think I’m there, I rehearse the meeting in my mind, and it always devolves into “my fault, your fault” and I realize I’m not there yet. Today I realized that the reason I’m not “getting there” is that instead of letting go of what was done to me, I use it as a shield to protect me from dealing with the shame that I brought on myself in the situation. Today I realized that obedience= forgiveness= letting go of that shield and accepting my own shame. Not easy, not there yet- but at least now I know where the problem lies. Not everything God wants us to let go is a prized possession or opportunity. Sometimes, it’s a defense mechanism protecting something God says I don’t need.
_________________________________________
Snow update:
about 5 inches.
------------------------------------------------------
Here’s a funny story. I was texting my son about the news that a pitcher on his Indians, Fausto Carmona, got busted in the Dominican for using a false name. His reply: Geez what else could go wrong ohhh I know having a squirrel invade ur apartment!
Okay, so I asked if his “party cat” Porkchop had let this squirrel in. His reply:No he chased it all over destroying everything in there path now I have to clean up when I get home my closet is destroyed.
Turns out that KC is trying to train Porkchop to stay inside. To do so, he leaves the door open when he takes his trash out, making sure ‘Chop stays at the door. Well, this time, the cat didn’t bother to get up from his nap- until the squirrel entered the premises. The squirrel made a bee-line into the bedroom, whereupon the cat chased him into the closet and there they began their remarkable simulation of Armageddon. Could only happen to my son.
________________________________________
Two things yet from last night. I was watching an all-star football game when the news came down that Joe Paterno was taken off the respirator and was near death. By the time I got on CBSSports.com to look into this, they had a “Breaking News” banner that he had indeed died. Turning back to the TV, they were still saying he was “off the respirator;” and within 10 minutes, the banner had disappeared. ESPN.com reported (and CBS soon confirmed) that the mistake had come when the Penn State student paper announced that an e-mail had went out to all the football players that JoePa had passed. Apparently neither the paper nor CBSSports did their due diligence before releasing it. This morning, without commenting on how the false story had come about, the editor of the school newspaper apologized and resigned from the paper. Nice to see he was big enough to admit the mistake and take responsibility. Once upon a time, that would have guaranteed him a future job in the news. Too bad nowadays integrity means nothing to the media.
____________________________
And that brings me to today’s last item- I flipped over to msnbc (don’t hate me) to see how the South Carolina primary turned out, and was happy to see that Newt had won an overwhelming victory. Of course the shills that pass for reporters on that network were busy scoffing at what they thought Newt’s next move would/should/could be. I wondered how we had gotten so far away from the days when news reporting meant news reporting, instead of giving the liberal opinion as if it was everyone’s opinion and, damn, you’re dumb if you don’t have the same opinion. The msnbc crew were 4 of the most childish, irresponsible, and condescending excuses for journalists I’ve ever witnessed. But, that’s today’s liberal elite for you. Patting themselves on the back that they speak for the “99%” (which was down to about 33% in late November, after which the media quit tracking it’s support) and sneering at anyone that would gainsay them. You know, I actually can see how the people who think Occupy had a point, uh, had a point. But if I had to rely on snakes like msnbc, George Souros, and Harry Reid and li’l Jimmy H to lead me…
----------------------------------------
Just for the record, yes, I’m finally throwing my support to Gingrich. Why? Because to me one of the biggest problems is nobody wants to work with anyone, make a deal, to get something done. Obama is ineffective because he’s a Chicago threaten-you –with-a-stick politician who can’t find anyone he can bully at this level.
On the continuum of candidates out there right now, you start at one end with Ron Paul, who I doubt ANYONE will work with; move to Santorum, whom I like, but is a “tea partyer “ in the sense that he will stand his ground come hell or high water, and that’s been part of the problem. Bachman, Perry, and Cain were to varying degrees in that category as well. Far to the other side we have Romney (and perhaps Huntsman) who would have been willing to compromise to get deals done, but I’m afraid would have given away the keys to the car. I believe that Newt is smart enough to make a deal, connected enough to work with people, and tough enough not to get walked all over doing it.
It has always struck me that Abraham was the prime human servant of God, because he was the only one specifically chosen to make the same sacrifice God did- the life of His Son. But I’ve learned that God doesn’t start anything in the middle. Consider that Abram started out not an image of God, but an image of Adam. He was given the fellowship and the promises of God, and then (don’t get mad at me) through the encouragement of a woman, tried to do things his own way. This led to disastrous effects down through all of mankind’s history- though it did not disqualify him from God’s attention and concern.
Abraham recovered from his setback by striving to become more obedient to God. He had been given two conditions- have faith and obey; upon doing these were hung the promises of God. He succeeded so well that He was given the privilege of Isaac’s sacrifice- the privilege of becoming as close to God as possible. While I saw this as an event, I hadn’t thought about that progression he needed to go through to get there before today.
Bousman took it a step further. Abraham (now an image of the Father) sent out his servant (played by us) to find a bride for Isaac (who becomes Christ in the analogy). Isaac was to remain with Abraham while the servant went out to find His bride, just as the risen Christ abides in heaven awaiting our gathering of his bride (the Church). He also reminded us of the servant’s question about, “what if she won’t come”, to which Abraham replied he was off the hook. Not, “kidnap her”, “Take her by force”, or “Bribe her.” The servant’s duty is done in presenting the invitation.
Swindoll’s though, was the part that hit application for me. The part about being willing to let go; and he went in detail about giving up something near to your heart that might be in the way. For me, though, it’s not quite like that. If you go back to my “24 hours give or take” post, you’ll see an entry about wanting to meet with a former pastor, to apologize. This has been an issue of forgiveness with me. Without going into details, I can say that every time I think I’m there, I rehearse the meeting in my mind, and it always devolves into “my fault, your fault” and I realize I’m not there yet. Today I realized that the reason I’m not “getting there” is that instead of letting go of what was done to me, I use it as a shield to protect me from dealing with the shame that I brought on myself in the situation. Today I realized that obedience= forgiveness= letting go of that shield and accepting my own shame. Not easy, not there yet- but at least now I know where the problem lies. Not everything God wants us to let go is a prized possession or opportunity. Sometimes, it’s a defense mechanism protecting something God says I don’t need.
_________________________________________
Snow update:
about 5 inches.
------------------------------------------------------
Here’s a funny story. I was texting my son about the news that a pitcher on his Indians, Fausto Carmona, got busted in the Dominican for using a false name. His reply: Geez what else could go wrong ohhh I know having a squirrel invade ur apartment!
Okay, so I asked if his “party cat” Porkchop had let this squirrel in. His reply:No he chased it all over destroying everything in there path now I have to clean up when I get home my closet is destroyed.
Turns out that KC is trying to train Porkchop to stay inside. To do so, he leaves the door open when he takes his trash out, making sure ‘Chop stays at the door. Well, this time, the cat didn’t bother to get up from his nap- until the squirrel entered the premises. The squirrel made a bee-line into the bedroom, whereupon the cat chased him into the closet and there they began their remarkable simulation of Armageddon. Could only happen to my son.
________________________________________
Two things yet from last night. I was watching an all-star football game when the news came down that Joe Paterno was taken off the respirator and was near death. By the time I got on CBSSports.com to look into this, they had a “Breaking News” banner that he had indeed died. Turning back to the TV, they were still saying he was “off the respirator;” and within 10 minutes, the banner had disappeared. ESPN.com reported (and CBS soon confirmed) that the mistake had come when the Penn State student paper announced that an e-mail had went out to all the football players that JoePa had passed. Apparently neither the paper nor CBSSports did their due diligence before releasing it. This morning, without commenting on how the false story had come about, the editor of the school newspaper apologized and resigned from the paper. Nice to see he was big enough to admit the mistake and take responsibility. Once upon a time, that would have guaranteed him a future job in the news. Too bad nowadays integrity means nothing to the media.
____________________________
And that brings me to today’s last item- I flipped over to msnbc (don’t hate me) to see how the South Carolina primary turned out, and was happy to see that Newt had won an overwhelming victory. Of course the shills that pass for reporters on that network were busy scoffing at what they thought Newt’s next move would/should/could be. I wondered how we had gotten so far away from the days when news reporting meant news reporting, instead of giving the liberal opinion as if it was everyone’s opinion and, damn, you’re dumb if you don’t have the same opinion. The msnbc crew were 4 of the most childish, irresponsible, and condescending excuses for journalists I’ve ever witnessed. But, that’s today’s liberal elite for you. Patting themselves on the back that they speak for the “99%” (which was down to about 33% in late November, after which the media quit tracking it’s support) and sneering at anyone that would gainsay them. You know, I actually can see how the people who think Occupy had a point, uh, had a point. But if I had to rely on snakes like msnbc, George Souros, and Harry Reid and li’l Jimmy H to lead me…
----------------------------------------
Just for the record, yes, I’m finally throwing my support to Gingrich. Why? Because to me one of the biggest problems is nobody wants to work with anyone, make a deal, to get something done. Obama is ineffective because he’s a Chicago threaten-you –with-a-stick politician who can’t find anyone he can bully at this level.
On the continuum of candidates out there right now, you start at one end with Ron Paul, who I doubt ANYONE will work with; move to Santorum, whom I like, but is a “tea partyer “ in the sense that he will stand his ground come hell or high water, and that’s been part of the problem. Bachman, Perry, and Cain were to varying degrees in that category as well. Far to the other side we have Romney (and perhaps Huntsman) who would have been willing to compromise to get deals done, but I’m afraid would have given away the keys to the car. I believe that Newt is smart enough to make a deal, connected enough to work with people, and tough enough not to get walked all over doing it.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
A few more randoms and then NHFFL
Item: I forgot to say a big thumbs up to President Obama, of all people, last night. He let Congress know on no uncertain terms that he would veto any attempt to get rid of the automatic budget cuts if the "super" committee failed. Admittedly, his lack of leadership in the matter (because he's been too busy "not campaigning") makes it a cherry on top of a turd cake, but nevertheless, I gotta give him credit when he does good. Hmm, Obama "didn't campaign," Clinton "didn't inhale"... I sense a pattern...
Item: in doing fairness research on the Occupistas last night, I tumbled onto a joke they found both funny and profound. (BTW I found it neither.) Basically, a plate of 12 cookies is set on a tables between a company CEO, a politician, a Tea Partyer, and an Occupista. The CEO takes 11, hands three to the politician, and tells the Tea Partyer to be careful, the Occupista appears to be preparing to steal his cookie.
(Pause for laughter... let me know when it starts.)
I began thinking about the flawed impression, and how it seems to be a pretty typical impression from the Occupistas I've heard from. I thought to myself, this joke could actually be funny and profound if reworked a little bit. Here's my version:
The Tea Partyer comes in and slaps the plate of cookies on the table, exclaiming, "These are the best damn cookies ever made, and I'll kick the ass of the man that says they aren't." The CEO says, "Hmm... if they're that good, why don't you sell me the recipe? I'll cut you in for 35%, and we'll hire a dozen bakers, a dozen packers, a dozen shippers, and a half dozen or so jobbers to put them in the stores." The politician jumps up and says (as he jabs a cookie down his throat) "Not so fast, my friend. Let me check out your ingredients, baking process, etc, and then I'll decide how big my tax cut will be." The Occupista grabs a handfull of cookies, and declares, "I don't have to pay for these because I make 1% of the CEO's salary, the Politician isn't listening to me, and I would have made them better than the Tea Partyer anyway."
You see, I'm not ALL that far from the Tea Partyer or the Occupista. However, I believe that, unlike most of them, I am willing to compromise to get things done. I believe we could make a lot stronger, sleeker military with fewer, more wisely used dollars. I believe that lower taxes on businesses should be part of the solution as well as closing each and every damnable loophole that lets GE to get off with no taxes. I'd be willing to work on cleaner factories if they were running on cheaper energy from our own territory. You see, the term on my profile "Nixon conservative" means I can give a little to take a little. I think Leon Panetta crying about how badly the DOD will get raped on the auto-cuts is just as idiotic as Harry Reid burying Obama's jobs bill without even allowing a hearing. The bad thing about feeling this way is that there are too many on the left side of the aisle who are revisionist historians, pseudo-scientsts and economists, believers in "fluid reality", and out-and-out liars like John Kerry and Al Gore, and I fear that trusting them is tantamount to sticking my noggin in a lion's mouth.
Item: Ran out of work yet again, off tomorrow thru Monday. Nice on the butt, bad on the wallet.
_________________________________________________
Onto the NHFFL. Well, we know who is in the playoffs, and in the Purple we know who will play who. The Greenwoods removed all doubt of their playoff spot by handing the Rangers the worst whupping anyone's took this year, 70-19. Matt Stafford put up 15, and Ray Rice and Jordy Nelson tacked on 12 each. The Aguas added the remaining extinguisher on the KCAs hopes, downing them 31-24, with David Akers overcoming missing 2 fgs and having another one blocked to score 11 points. This sets up a Greenwoods-Aguas matchup in two weeks, which promises to be a high scoring affair. The Aguas won their first meeting 55-34 in week 4, and the Elves evened it up with a 51-34 victory in week 8. The remaining Purple Div. game had the Angels topping the Beagles 31-24, hanging on despite a ten-point Monday night from Steve Gostkowski.
The Gold actually got tighter. Both the leaders fell: the Elks dropping to the Ducks 51-39 as five different players put up 6s and Cedric Benson netted 12; and the B2s lost to the Porkchops 27-7, managing only a Eli Manning pass, a single extra point, and 3 defensive points. New 'Chops QB Matt Moore beat that himself (9). And the 'Chops win puts them a game back of the leaders with 1 to go. Also, the Clock BBQs fall into last, losing to Buzz 41-22 behind Cam Newton's 17.
The season finales include Beagles vs Aguas; KCAs/Greenwoods; and Angels/Rangers in the Purple; CBBQs/Ducks (CBBQs need to win by 13 to escape last place); Elks/B2s for the division title and week 1 bye; and Buzz/ Porkchops. The 'Chops play the loser of Elks/B2s in week 1.
Item: in doing fairness research on the Occupistas last night, I tumbled onto a joke they found both funny and profound. (BTW I found it neither.) Basically, a plate of 12 cookies is set on a tables between a company CEO, a politician, a Tea Partyer, and an Occupista. The CEO takes 11, hands three to the politician, and tells the Tea Partyer to be careful, the Occupista appears to be preparing to steal his cookie.
(Pause for laughter... let me know when it starts.)
I began thinking about the flawed impression, and how it seems to be a pretty typical impression from the Occupistas I've heard from. I thought to myself, this joke could actually be funny and profound if reworked a little bit. Here's my version:
The Tea Partyer comes in and slaps the plate of cookies on the table, exclaiming, "These are the best damn cookies ever made, and I'll kick the ass of the man that says they aren't." The CEO says, "Hmm... if they're that good, why don't you sell me the recipe? I'll cut you in for 35%, and we'll hire a dozen bakers, a dozen packers, a dozen shippers, and a half dozen or so jobbers to put them in the stores." The politician jumps up and says (as he jabs a cookie down his throat) "Not so fast, my friend. Let me check out your ingredients, baking process, etc, and then I'll decide how big my tax cut will be." The Occupista grabs a handfull of cookies, and declares, "I don't have to pay for these because I make 1% of the CEO's salary, the Politician isn't listening to me, and I would have made them better than the Tea Partyer anyway."
You see, I'm not ALL that far from the Tea Partyer or the Occupista. However, I believe that, unlike most of them, I am willing to compromise to get things done. I believe we could make a lot stronger, sleeker military with fewer, more wisely used dollars. I believe that lower taxes on businesses should be part of the solution as well as closing each and every damnable loophole that lets GE to get off with no taxes. I'd be willing to work on cleaner factories if they were running on cheaper energy from our own territory. You see, the term on my profile "Nixon conservative" means I can give a little to take a little. I think Leon Panetta crying about how badly the DOD will get raped on the auto-cuts is just as idiotic as Harry Reid burying Obama's jobs bill without even allowing a hearing. The bad thing about feeling this way is that there are too many on the left side of the aisle who are revisionist historians, pseudo-scientsts and economists, believers in "fluid reality", and out-and-out liars like John Kerry and Al Gore, and I fear that trusting them is tantamount to sticking my noggin in a lion's mouth.
Item: Ran out of work yet again, off tomorrow thru Monday. Nice on the butt, bad on the wallet.
_________________________________________________
Onto the NHFFL. Well, we know who is in the playoffs, and in the Purple we know who will play who. The Greenwoods removed all doubt of their playoff spot by handing the Rangers the worst whupping anyone's took this year, 70-19. Matt Stafford put up 15, and Ray Rice and Jordy Nelson tacked on 12 each. The Aguas added the remaining extinguisher on the KCAs hopes, downing them 31-24, with David Akers overcoming missing 2 fgs and having another one blocked to score 11 points. This sets up a Greenwoods-Aguas matchup in two weeks, which promises to be a high scoring affair. The Aguas won their first meeting 55-34 in week 4, and the Elves evened it up with a 51-34 victory in week 8. The remaining Purple Div. game had the Angels topping the Beagles 31-24, hanging on despite a ten-point Monday night from Steve Gostkowski.
The Gold actually got tighter. Both the leaders fell: the Elks dropping to the Ducks 51-39 as five different players put up 6s and Cedric Benson netted 12; and the B2s lost to the Porkchops 27-7, managing only a Eli Manning pass, a single extra point, and 3 defensive points. New 'Chops QB Matt Moore beat that himself (9). And the 'Chops win puts them a game back of the leaders with 1 to go. Also, the Clock BBQs fall into last, losing to Buzz 41-22 behind Cam Newton's 17.
The season finales include Beagles vs Aguas; KCAs/Greenwoods; and Angels/Rangers in the Purple; CBBQs/Ducks (CBBQs need to win by 13 to escape last place); Elks/B2s for the division title and week 1 bye; and Buzz/ Porkchops. The 'Chops play the loser of Elks/B2s in week 1.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The republican debate; eight thoughts
My first thought is, after that last (Anderson Cooper) debate I watched, Newt Gingrich must have pulled the others aside and said, "Guys, let's not let them beat us." No where near the infighting.
Second thought, Rick Perry got ignored virtually throughout the first half. Leftist moderators must have decided the turnip was dry on pitting Perry against Romney.
Third thought, Maria whateverhernameis showed a consistent lack of class. Starting with the Cain bimbo-scandal question. Cain gave a good answer, and if it didn't put her in her place, Romney's lack of follow up and the crowd's reaction sure did. Truth is, the only ones who give a shit about what these women say is the "shadows" that brought them out and the media that lap it up.
Fourth thought, Maria sure didn't like Newt after he told her that "healthcare in thirty seconds" was "a joke disguised as a question." Of course, by then she should have been used to seeing her pitches come rocketing back at her, since it happened virtually everytime she opened her mouth. And when Newt suggested that he and Obama have at least three debates, "without moderator or time limits" just on healthcare, I'll bet the Prez put his hands over his little, er, buddy down there.
Fifth thought, that debate belonged to Newt, Mitt, and Ron Paul. Cain and Santorum did okay, Huntsman too, and Bachman had her best effort to date.
Sixth thought, that guy from "MadMoney" was about an embarrassment, IMHO. He ended up eating a lot of return pitches, too.
Seventh thought, All we'll hear about from the drive-by media tomorrow is "Bachman's Happy Meal tax", Cain calling Pelosi "Princess Nancy", and Perry not being able to remember the dept. of Energy. Damn shame, that. One of the twitter comments during the debate was, "If the number of people watching Fear Factor was watching the Republican Debate, the economy would be straightened out quick." Sadly, too many people will only know about those three items above, or whatever else the media decides they should repeat in sound bytes.
Final thought. I see much more in Ron Paul than I did before; begin to be more comfortable with Mitt; and look more at Newt as a viable candidate.
Second thought, Rick Perry got ignored virtually throughout the first half. Leftist moderators must have decided the turnip was dry on pitting Perry against Romney.
Third thought, Maria whateverhernameis showed a consistent lack of class. Starting with the Cain bimbo-scandal question. Cain gave a good answer, and if it didn't put her in her place, Romney's lack of follow up and the crowd's reaction sure did. Truth is, the only ones who give a shit about what these women say is the "shadows" that brought them out and the media that lap it up.
Fourth thought, Maria sure didn't like Newt after he told her that "healthcare in thirty seconds" was "a joke disguised as a question." Of course, by then she should have been used to seeing her pitches come rocketing back at her, since it happened virtually everytime she opened her mouth. And when Newt suggested that he and Obama have at least three debates, "without moderator or time limits" just on healthcare, I'll bet the Prez put his hands over his little, er, buddy down there.
Fifth thought, that debate belonged to Newt, Mitt, and Ron Paul. Cain and Santorum did okay, Huntsman too, and Bachman had her best effort to date.
Sixth thought, that guy from "MadMoney" was about an embarrassment, IMHO. He ended up eating a lot of return pitches, too.
Seventh thought, All we'll hear about from the drive-by media tomorrow is "Bachman's Happy Meal tax", Cain calling Pelosi "Princess Nancy", and Perry not being able to remember the dept. of Energy. Damn shame, that. One of the twitter comments during the debate was, "If the number of people watching Fear Factor was watching the Republican Debate, the economy would be straightened out quick." Sadly, too many people will only know about those three items above, or whatever else the media decides they should repeat in sound bytes.
Final thought. I see much more in Ron Paul than I did before; begin to be more comfortable with Mitt; and look more at Newt as a viable candidate.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Chris' take on the GOP debate, round II (for me)
Yeah, I watched the debate on Fox. It's usually pretty good entertainment, and I'd really like to have a good idea of who to vote for other than ABO.
So here's how I graded out this time around.
9. Gary Johnson. The newbie was very nervous, not real clear, didn't contribute anything of real note other than a jab at his neighbors' dogs, and isn't Ron Paul all the libertarian we really need? Grade: D+
8. Michelle Bachman. I know some of you are saying, "Oh, he must not want a woman president". Let me assure you, I watched every episode of Commander In Chief with Geena Davis, and I would've gladly voted Christine Todd Whitman over Carter or Mondale. I just listen to her and see a little Michelle in her brain flipping through index cards trying to find the appropriate one to read. And the HPV shot thing is a well-beaten dead horse. Grade: C-
7. Rick Perry. For me, he slips a bit in each succeeding debate; and while I know they keep fueling Perry/Romney stand up bits for the ratings, the simple truth is that Romney owns him almost every time. Tonight, the battles weren't kind to him, and the last one left him looking confused and tongue tied. Definitely hurt himself the worst. Especially when he was directly asked by the moderator for details on his jobs plan since he was the only one who didn't have a specific plan on the table, and he basically said, "I'll tell you later" in a half-sentence on the way to answering a question nobody asked.. I said to Laurie, "A swing and a miss!" Grade: D
6. John Huntsman. He neither hurt or helped himself, but a lot of people stepped up their game and he didn't. He should wear a t-shirt that says, "I served four times in foreign posts for my country" so he doesn't have to keep reminding us. He's a very intelligent man; I just sometimes get the notion that he appreciates that fact more than anyone else. Grade C+
5. Newt Gingerich. If the last question was any indication, he'll be the #1 contender for VP. And frankly, that's not a bad thing. Really successful in an elder statesman sort of way. Grade: B-
4. Ron Paul. He definitely helped himself tonight. It didn't hurt that Johnson made him sound more mainstream. He was able to weave his similarities to the others with his more extreme ideas a lot better tonight, and may have positioned himself to outlast all the other "second tier" players save Cain. Grade: C
3. Rick Santorum. About a third of the way in, he began finally to assert himself. At the beginning, I told Laurie, "He could light his tie on fire and no one would notice him. " Then he got into a big tilt with Huntsman over whether to pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan (he wanting to "fight to win", while Huntsman said "we all want the boys to come home"), and it seemed to charge him up. He also had a good performance on the thorny "don't ask, don't tell" subject by saying that the Army isn't there for having sex in, it's for fighting, and the whole topic is irrelevant compared to the stuff we should be worried about. A vastly better performance than the last one I watched. Grade: B-
2. Herman Cain. I actually liked what he said the best, and I think he really is putting himself into the thick of things in these debates. He's intelligent, articulate, with good ideas, and he drips class. I found myself clapping for his answers three separate times, to zero for the others. My one reservation is that he's not really been bloodied in any of the one-on-one battles, and I'd like to see if he handles them as well as Romney and Santorum did tonight. Grade: A+
1. Mitt Romney. I have to put him up at the top for one simple reason- he's getting lots of face time against his perceived main rival (Perry) and he's not only winning, but widening the gap. Watch any of the one on ones with Perry, and tell me who you'd rather see 3 AM with someone arming nukes and aiming them at us. Grade: A.
9. Gary Johnson. The newbie was very nervous, not real clear, didn't contribute anything of real note other than a jab at his neighbors' dogs, and isn't Ron Paul all the libertarian we really need? Grade: D+
8. Michelle Bachman. I know some of you are saying, "Oh, he must not want a woman president". Let me assure you, I watched every episode of Commander In Chief with Geena Davis, and I would've gladly voted Christine Todd Whitman over Carter or Mondale. I just listen to her and see a little Michelle in her brain flipping through index cards trying to find the appropriate one to read. And the HPV shot thing is a well-beaten dead horse. Grade: C-
7. Rick Perry. For me, he slips a bit in each succeeding debate; and while I know they keep fueling Perry/Romney stand up bits for the ratings, the simple truth is that Romney owns him almost every time. Tonight, the battles weren't kind to him, and the last one left him looking confused and tongue tied. Definitely hurt himself the worst. Especially when he was directly asked by the moderator for details on his jobs plan since he was the only one who didn't have a specific plan on the table, and he basically said, "I'll tell you later" in a half-sentence on the way to answering a question nobody asked.. I said to Laurie, "A swing and a miss!" Grade: D
6. John Huntsman. He neither hurt or helped himself, but a lot of people stepped up their game and he didn't. He should wear a t-shirt that says, "I served four times in foreign posts for my country" so he doesn't have to keep reminding us. He's a very intelligent man; I just sometimes get the notion that he appreciates that fact more than anyone else. Grade C+
5. Newt Gingerich. If the last question was any indication, he'll be the #1 contender for VP. And frankly, that's not a bad thing. Really successful in an elder statesman sort of way. Grade: B-
4. Ron Paul. He definitely helped himself tonight. It didn't hurt that Johnson made him sound more mainstream. He was able to weave his similarities to the others with his more extreme ideas a lot better tonight, and may have positioned himself to outlast all the other "second tier" players save Cain. Grade: C
3. Rick Santorum. About a third of the way in, he began finally to assert himself. At the beginning, I told Laurie, "He could light his tie on fire and no one would notice him. " Then he got into a big tilt with Huntsman over whether to pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan (he wanting to "fight to win", while Huntsman said "we all want the boys to come home"), and it seemed to charge him up. He also had a good performance on the thorny "don't ask, don't tell" subject by saying that the Army isn't there for having sex in, it's for fighting, and the whole topic is irrelevant compared to the stuff we should be worried about. A vastly better performance than the last one I watched. Grade: B-
2. Herman Cain. I actually liked what he said the best, and I think he really is putting himself into the thick of things in these debates. He's intelligent, articulate, with good ideas, and he drips class. I found myself clapping for his answers three separate times, to zero for the others. My one reservation is that he's not really been bloodied in any of the one-on-one battles, and I'd like to see if he handles them as well as Romney and Santorum did tonight. Grade: A+
1. Mitt Romney. I have to put him up at the top for one simple reason- he's getting lots of face time against his perceived main rival (Perry) and he's not only winning, but widening the gap. Watch any of the one on ones with Perry, and tell me who you'd rather see 3 AM with someone arming nukes and aiming them at us. Grade: A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
