Just when I thought there wasn’t anything worthwhile happening in that “second-Vietnam” we call Iraq – those anti-American, anti-democracy, ungrateful Iraqis go and write something like this (I pray the sarcasm wasn’t lost on that):
Please pay careful attention to Article One – for all those concerned that the new Iraq is worse than the old one governed by a single ruthless dictator who got his jollies off gassing Kurds and throwing newspaper publishers off buildings.
The Draft of the Iraq Constitution (thier first in case you are counting)
PREAMBLE
We the sons of Mesopotamia, land of the (messengers), prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilization and the creators of the alphabet, the cradle of arithmetic: on our land, the first law put in place by mankind was written; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down; on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed, the philosophers and the scientists theorized and the writers and poets created.
Recognizing God's right upon us; obeying the call of our nation and our citizens; responding to the call of our religious and national leaders (and our national forces and politicians) and the insistence of our great religious authorities and our leaders and our reformers, we went by the millions for the first time in our history to the ballot box, men and women, young and old, on Jan. 30, 2005, remembering the pains of the despotic band's sectarian oppression; inspired by the suffering of Iraq's martyrs -- Sunni and Shiite, Arab, Kurd and Turkomen, and the remaining brethren in all communities -- inspired by the injustice against the holy cities (and the south) in the popular uprising and (burnt with the sorrows of the mass graves, the marches and Dujail and others); recalling the agonies of the national oppression in the massacres of Halabja, Barzan, Anfal and against the Faili Kurds; inspired by the tragedies of the Turkomen in Bashir, and as in other parts of Iraq, (the people of the western region have suffered from the liquidation of its leaders, symbols, tribal leaders and displacing its intellectuals, so we worked hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder) to create a new Iraq, Iraq of the future, without sectarianism, racial strife, regionalism, discrimination and (elimination).
Terrorism and "takfir" (Editors Note: takfir means to declare someone an infidel) did not divert us from moving forward to build a nation of law. Sectarianism and racism did not stop us from marching together to strengthen our national unity, set ways to peacefully transfer power, adopt a manner to fairly distribute wealth and give equal opportunity to all.
We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined -- men and women, old and young -- to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism.
We are the people of Iraq, who in all our forms and groupings undertake to establish our union freely and by choice, to learn yesterday's lessons for tomorrow, and to write down this permanent constitution from the high values and ideals of the heavenly messages and the developments of science and human civilization, and to adhere to this constitution, which shall preserve for Iraq its free union of people, land and sovereignty.
CHAPTER ONE: BASIC PRINCIPLES
Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.
Monday, August 29, 2005
"Support our Troops"?
I have generally been in a pretty laid back mood lately. Things are going well at work. My boys are healthy (if not well-behaved…oh, the terrible two’s), and my wife is learning to cook! So, although there has been a lot to talk about in the current events section this past week or so, nothing has really risen to the level of blog-worthy for me. Until this…
There is something sickeningly hypocritical about claiming to “support the troops” while protesting the troops outside the hospital where they are recovering from their wounds. But yet, that is what each of these protestors say when interviewed, they do in fact “support the troops” - But they hold up sings that say “Maimed for lies” and “Die for Halliburton”. I would be interested in knowing what type of “support” the troops get from those posters.
Its not that I am the final arbiter of what is appropriate anti-war speech and what isn’t. But it seems to me that there are ample ways to get across you anti-war sentiment without disparaging the President or more importantly the troops. I don’t see anything wrong with “Bring our Troops Home” or “Give Peace a Chance”. After all, who doesn’t want the troops home in a time of peace?
It was good to see some counter-protests this weekend. I hope we get more of these around the country as the closet conservatives/closet patriots come out from their hiding and make their voices of support heard. We complain about the media’s constant coverage of the wacky left’s protests, all the while we sit at home and keep quiet. Lets not keep quiet anymore and at least see where that road leads us.
There is something sickeningly hypocritical about claiming to “support the troops” while protesting the troops outside the hospital where they are recovering from their wounds. But yet, that is what each of these protestors say when interviewed, they do in fact “support the troops” - But they hold up sings that say “Maimed for lies” and “Die for Halliburton”. I would be interested in knowing what type of “support” the troops get from those posters.
Its not that I am the final arbiter of what is appropriate anti-war speech and what isn’t. But it seems to me that there are ample ways to get across you anti-war sentiment without disparaging the President or more importantly the troops. I don’t see anything wrong with “Bring our Troops Home” or “Give Peace a Chance”. After all, who doesn’t want the troops home in a time of peace?
It was good to see some counter-protests this weekend. I hope we get more of these around the country as the closet conservatives/closet patriots come out from their hiding and make their voices of support heard. We complain about the media’s constant coverage of the wacky left’s protests, all the while we sit at home and keep quiet. Lets not keep quiet anymore and at least see where that road leads us.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Great American Debate Ground Rules
Ground Rules for the Great American Debate:
1. Please come to the debate with an opinion (any opinion)
2. Fence sitting is frowned upon. Remember, this is a friendly debate, not a love-in
3. You cannot summarily dismiss information provided by an opponent based simply on the author or source of that information. Example: A conservative shouldn’t refuse to believe Al Franken when he says that President Bush lost more jobs than Hoover – until said conservative is able to pull the actual government data showing how big of a liar Al Franken really is.
4. Name-calling is frowned upon and profanity is not allowed. Names like “idiot” and “moron” should not be used until your opponent has clearly earned this label. You can’t earn a label like “moron” just because your opinion is different. Your opinion has to be based on a verifiable lie or misstatement, or your opinion is completely void of higher thinking – beyond say a 7th grade level.
5. If at the end of the debate, you can’t go have a beverage with your opponent and talk about something other than the debate topic, you have failed at the Great American Debate and lose your debating privileges for a month.
6. You do not have to have served in the military to have an opinion on military topics. Just like I am not on welfare, but I can have an opinion on welfare policies in this country. If previous life experiences were a determining factor for entry into the debate, the debate would be waged by only a small group of people depending on the topic. I didn’t serve in the military, but I am an educated person who is as current as any civilian can be on our foreign policy, I think I should have my opinion heard. Just like you may have never worked a day in your life, but you still get to tell us how our tax money should be spent. I wouldn’t tell you to “go get a job first”, and then come tell me about how the city/state/federal govt. should spend tax money. You don’t call me a “chicken-hawk” when I try to express an opinion on the war. Besides, whenever you use a word that was created by an extreme group or individual, you show the world that you are only good are reciting copy points (chicken-hawk vs femi-nazi).
These are not hard rules to follow. Yet, too many people think they already know it all and look down with contempt on those with different opinions. If you believe in something, but don’t have any facts, just say so. Some things can be a matter of faith or a gut feeling. Murder trials can be won without a body. Just don’t act like you have all the answers when your opponent questions your stance.
1. Please come to the debate with an opinion (any opinion)
2. Fence sitting is frowned upon. Remember, this is a friendly debate, not a love-in
3. You cannot summarily dismiss information provided by an opponent based simply on the author or source of that information. Example: A conservative shouldn’t refuse to believe Al Franken when he says that President Bush lost more jobs than Hoover – until said conservative is able to pull the actual government data showing how big of a liar Al Franken really is.
4. Name-calling is frowned upon and profanity is not allowed. Names like “idiot” and “moron” should not be used until your opponent has clearly earned this label. You can’t earn a label like “moron” just because your opinion is different. Your opinion has to be based on a verifiable lie or misstatement, or your opinion is completely void of higher thinking – beyond say a 7th grade level.
5. If at the end of the debate, you can’t go have a beverage with your opponent and talk about something other than the debate topic, you have failed at the Great American Debate and lose your debating privileges for a month.
6. You do not have to have served in the military to have an opinion on military topics. Just like I am not on welfare, but I can have an opinion on welfare policies in this country. If previous life experiences were a determining factor for entry into the debate, the debate would be waged by only a small group of people depending on the topic. I didn’t serve in the military, but I am an educated person who is as current as any civilian can be on our foreign policy, I think I should have my opinion heard. Just like you may have never worked a day in your life, but you still get to tell us how our tax money should be spent. I wouldn’t tell you to “go get a job first”, and then come tell me about how the city/state/federal govt. should spend tax money. You don’t call me a “chicken-hawk” when I try to express an opinion on the war. Besides, whenever you use a word that was created by an extreme group or individual, you show the world that you are only good are reciting copy points (chicken-hawk vs femi-nazi).
These are not hard rules to follow. Yet, too many people think they already know it all and look down with contempt on those with different opinions. If you believe in something, but don’t have any facts, just say so. Some things can be a matter of faith or a gut feeling. Murder trials can be won without a body. Just don’t act like you have all the answers when your opponent questions your stance.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Local story
This morning I had a surprise edition to my morning reading material on my lawn. Evidentially, the Allen American Statesman decided to throw some free copies in our neighborhood. I didn’t have time to read much of it this morning, but one story featured something that I found amusing. The story was about a string of robberies where the thief was making off with lots of guns, among other things. The police offer/chief (not sure) said something along the lines of “that is why people need to lock their guns in safes…” Then the very next line talked about how the robber made off with guns, jewelry and SAFES!
So I suppose, you can lock you gun in your safe, in which case if someone breaks in at night, you wont have time to get to and if someone breaks in during the day, they will likely cart off your entire safe…either way, you cant win.
I think I will continue to keep mine within reach. That’s not to say those of us with little kids around shouldn’t take EVERY precaution against them getting their hands on it. Parents should always err on the side of their children’s safety versus their desire to be armed against the unlikely event of a home invasion.
So I suppose, you can lock you gun in your safe, in which case if someone breaks in at night, you wont have time to get to and if someone breaks in during the day, they will likely cart off your entire safe…either way, you cant win.
I think I will continue to keep mine within reach. That’s not to say those of us with little kids around shouldn’t take EVERY precaution against them getting their hands on it. Parents should always err on the side of their children’s safety versus their desire to be armed against the unlikely event of a home invasion.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Air America goes to court
The whole Air American turn Enron scandle is very intersting. I just wish I could read about it in the Dallas Morning News on my way in to work.....
Anyways, there are a couple of people doing some real investigative work on this issue - so there is nothing original that I can add to this. Check out the work of Michelle Malkin and Radio Equalizer via Powerlineblog.
Anyways, there are a couple of people doing some real investigative work on this issue - so there is nothing original that I can add to this. Check out the work of Michelle Malkin and Radio Equalizer via Powerlineblog.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Able Danger, Unable Commission
Folks, this should make your blood boil. Some of you newspaper junkies and current events junkies may have come across the recent story about the elite super secret, 8 member, military spy unit - Able Danger. You would have to be a newspaper junkie, because thus far, this has been buried deep, deep within the pages of the major news outlets.
It turns out that military intelligence knew about Mohammed Atta and three other highjackers a year before 9/11. Unfortunately ("Uunfortunate" is an understatement given the severity of what was to follow), the military was not allowed to share their knowledge with law enforcement. And why is that?
In 1995 top deputy to then-Attorney General Janet Reno, Jamie Gorelick, issued an order creating a "wall" that prevented intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law enforcement (Note: liberals should be familiar with "wall" terminology although in this case, this wall costs people their life, as opposed the supposed religion "wall" that strips people of their right to freely practice their religion). So strict was this "wall" that the branch of the FBI that deals with terrorism could not share their information with the branch of the FBI that deals with domestic issues - as an example.
The frustrating part of the story is that the 9/11Commission staffers (including the afore mentioned Gorelick) first denied knowing about the military spy unit Able Danger, but later admitted that they were indeed briefed on it, twice. How convenient that they commission failed to mention this in their 1,000 page report (certainly not for lack of space).
And as Deborah Orin of the NY Post points out here, Gorelick was warned about this order way back in 1995 by another Clinton appointee, US Attorney Mary Jo White, who headed up terror probes such as the prosecution of the first WTC bombing. White warned that this "wall" could lead to a loss of life, but Reno and Gorelick refused to budge. I'm guessing on the grounds that if the military spies told the domestic spies that someone was planning on flying planes into the WTC, that this would have somehow violated their civil rights. Can't have the military getting involved in civilian affairs and such.
If Gorelick would have been made to testify during the 9/11 Commission as some senators wanted, this would have all come out back then. Instead, the Commission went forward with their report, putting the majority of the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration, while all along they knew that the Clinton administration, by way of the Attorney General's office "wall" memo - played a significant role in the failure of the "intelligence community" to stop the attacks.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) sums it up nicely, "The commission's refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissions."
You can bet that there will be more to come on this.
It turns out that military intelligence knew about Mohammed Atta and three other highjackers a year before 9/11. Unfortunately ("Uunfortunate" is an understatement given the severity of what was to follow), the military was not allowed to share their knowledge with law enforcement. And why is that?
In 1995 top deputy to then-Attorney General Janet Reno, Jamie Gorelick, issued an order creating a "wall" that prevented intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law enforcement (Note: liberals should be familiar with "wall" terminology although in this case, this wall costs people their life, as opposed the supposed religion "wall" that strips people of their right to freely practice their religion). So strict was this "wall" that the branch of the FBI that deals with terrorism could not share their information with the branch of the FBI that deals with domestic issues - as an example.
The frustrating part of the story is that the 9/11Commission staffers (including the afore mentioned Gorelick) first denied knowing about the military spy unit Able Danger, but later admitted that they were indeed briefed on it, twice. How convenient that they commission failed to mention this in their 1,000 page report (certainly not for lack of space).
And as Deborah Orin of the NY Post points out here, Gorelick was warned about this order way back in 1995 by another Clinton appointee, US Attorney Mary Jo White, who headed up terror probes such as the prosecution of the first WTC bombing. White warned that this "wall" could lead to a loss of life, but Reno and Gorelick refused to budge. I'm guessing on the grounds that if the military spies told the domestic spies that someone was planning on flying planes into the WTC, that this would have somehow violated their civil rights. Can't have the military getting involved in civilian affairs and such.
If Gorelick would have been made to testify during the 9/11 Commission as some senators wanted, this would have all come out back then. Instead, the Commission went forward with their report, putting the majority of the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration, while all along they knew that the Clinton administration, by way of the Attorney General's office "wall" memo - played a significant role in the failure of the "intelligence community" to stop the attacks.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) sums it up nicely, "The commission's refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissions."
You can bet that there will be more to come on this.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Lancaster Tigers Football
My high school alma matter is in the news this week. And it should come as no surprise that it is negative news. In fact, the only positive news comes in the spring when the boys and girls track team is winning state for the hundredth time in a row or when the boys basketball team is making another run at the elusive state tournament (even less likely now that the greatness of Joe Rushing is gone).
Instead, this news is about that Constitutional Right to play football. While I haven’t heard anyone frame it this way, in a roundabout way that is the case being made.
In order to understand the issues here lets agree on some facts: (1) Mr. Jackson had admitted to police in writing that he was involved in the armed robbery, and that he fired a shot at the fleeing defender (fortunately his aim is not as good as his receiving ability). (2) He has already contacted the family of the victim and said he was sorry. So all those claiming that the police are twisting his original statement around (you know, the statement where he confessed), Mr. Jackson is out there further proving his guilt by apologizing – I’m sure his attorney wasn’t too thrilled about that.
So, with those two pieces being known, it is beyond me how any school board would allow this type of individual to remain in school (as opposed to an alternative school), much less participate in football. His supporters say that he has a "right" to play until he has been found guilty. Uh, no. You have a right to keep and bear arms, or a right to not be locked away without a conviction. But you dont have a right to participate in extracurricular sports when you rob someone at gunpoint, and then shoot at them while they flee.
As bad as Kenny Rogers acted, at least he didnt go around saying he has a "right" to play baseball because he was not "convicted of assault" - yet. If Mr. Jackson had a "right" to play football, why didnt they bring suit against his former high school when they told him to get lost? I'll tell you why - they found a school district who was willing to put their reputation on the line (what little positive reputation is left) for the chance to win a few more ball games this year.
Chew on this, Lancaster was also in the news last week for suspending hundreds of students who didn’t complete their reading assignment over the summer (I'm not completely against this idea - but then they bowed to pressure and are giving the students more time to complete). Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in suspending students for not completing a summer reading assignment, but letting an admitted armed robber play football?
Note to Lancaster administration: The old saying that all publicity is good publicity doesnt really apply. Do something positive for a change, and maybe we will forget about your "lack of judgment" in this case.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Sidewalk rage
Do you ever get road rage when you’re walking? It happens to me all the time. Partly because I tend to be a fast walker, but mostly because some people are completely oblivious to what is around them. Today, for example, I was walking through the tunnel (Dallas has an underground tunnel system linking the lobbies of several office buildings together – lots of restaurants) after grabbing a sandwich to take back upstairs. This is during the noon hour when there are lots of people in the tunnel – usually not a problem as everyone is walking at a pace that lets you know they are headed somewhere particular and need to arrive at that place relatively soon.
But then, I came up to a group of 3 women, in the middle of the tunnel walking like they were on hour one of their 3-hour lunch break. They were in the middle of the “lane” and left me no room to pass along the right, and I couldn’t pass along the left, as that was the oncoming traffic. So I “tailgate” for a few seconds thinking they would get the picture – you know, speed up or compress into single file, or move over! No such luck. Finally, a break appeared in the oncoming traffic, so I downshifted for better acceleration and began to pass. Then, and just like on the highway, as soon as I barely cleared them I cut them off by moving back in my lane about a step in front of them! That will teach ‘em! Of course, just like on the highway, I ran the chance that one of them would have shot me the finger or pulled a gun out on me, but that didn’t happen. Plus, at this point, we were just outside of the Starbucks, and there is ALWAYS a police officer at Starbucks – waiting to catch the real criminals (those that use all of the half & half without having someone fill it back up).
My only regret is that I didn’t tap on the breaks just after reclaiming my rightful spot in front of the slowpokes.
But then, I came up to a group of 3 women, in the middle of the tunnel walking like they were on hour one of their 3-hour lunch break. They were in the middle of the “lane” and left me no room to pass along the right, and I couldn’t pass along the left, as that was the oncoming traffic. So I “tailgate” for a few seconds thinking they would get the picture – you know, speed up or compress into single file, or move over! No such luck. Finally, a break appeared in the oncoming traffic, so I downshifted for better acceleration and began to pass. Then, and just like on the highway, as soon as I barely cleared them I cut them off by moving back in my lane about a step in front of them! That will teach ‘em! Of course, just like on the highway, I ran the chance that one of them would have shot me the finger or pulled a gun out on me, but that didn’t happen. Plus, at this point, we were just outside of the Starbucks, and there is ALWAYS a police officer at Starbucks – waiting to catch the real criminals (those that use all of the half & half without having someone fill it back up).
My only regret is that I didn’t tap on the breaks just after reclaiming my rightful spot in front of the slowpokes.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Dispatches from Mosul
Michael Yon is required reading for me every time he issues a new “report”. Yon is the author of Danger Close and former Green Beret. I have not read his book yet, but I understand it is a first hand account of his hardships growing up and his time in the military. But, what I really like about Mike is his reporting out of Iraq. Mike is stationed with the 1-24th Infantry Regiment (Deuce Four) of the 25th Infantry Division near Mosul. He provides extremely detailed accounts of what is going on in that region. According to his website, “Michael Yon is an independent, informed observer chronicling the monumentally important events in the efforts to stabilize Iraq. His dispatches have the benefit of his life experiences without drawbacks based on deadlines or demands of marketplace. The cost of these dispatches is borne solely by Michael.”
I mention all of this to bring attention to his recent dispatches titled “Battle of Mosul”. It is a multi-part dispatch and is a long read, but well worth it. It is not a sugarcoated account of life in this area. There is very little politics involved – just the truth about what our soldiers go through and the progress that they are making to secure that region. The progress part is what you will not find in the MSM. In between feelings of hatred toward the enemy after reading about their efforts to use hospitals and schools for attacks, and sadness for the SEAL heroes who recently died, you come away with a deep patriotic feeling, knowing that are men and women in the military are second to none – at least I do. I hope you take the time to read some of Michael Yon’s work, I think you will like it.
I mention all of this to bring attention to his recent dispatches titled “Battle of Mosul”. It is a multi-part dispatch and is a long read, but well worth it. It is not a sugarcoated account of life in this area. There is very little politics involved – just the truth about what our soldiers go through and the progress that they are making to secure that region. The progress part is what you will not find in the MSM. In between feelings of hatred toward the enemy after reading about their efforts to use hospitals and schools for attacks, and sadness for the SEAL heroes who recently died, you come away with a deep patriotic feeling, knowing that are men and women in the military are second to none – at least I do. I hope you take the time to read some of Michael Yon’s work, I think you will like it.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Attention illegals - Free education available, please hurry!
I often get a “whatever” look from friends and family when I go off on a political rant for whatever reason. Usually my wife half pretends to give a flip about what I am ranting about, but I know she thinks I get worked up for nothing, same for my sister in law…until today.
A little background, my sister in law (we will call her Kim), is recently remarried and will be moving with her new husband to Lewisville, TX next month. She has an awesome 4-year old son who has stayed at home with mom the whole time (no daycare). Kim called Lewisville Schools to inquire about their pre-K program – thinking that now is a good time to get my nephew acclimated with other kids and get a jump on structured learning.
That’s the background - here is the outrage. The representative for the school district said that of course they have a pre-K program and that my nephew would be welcomed there as long as he fit into one of the following categories:
- Needs help with English (i.e. are his parents illegal immigrants)
- Homeless
- Parents in the active duty military
- Economically disadvantaged
Lets think about that for a second. The one redeeming quality to their completely absurd guidelines is that they are providing assistance to families who are fighting for our freedom on a daily basis – no further discussion needed on that point.
But here is a prime example of what is wrong with the education system in general and illegal immigration specifically. The nanny welfare state has been too busy spending the tax money of hard working citizens on people who are not paying a dime – in particular on people who are here illegally and are not paying a dime. I have compassion for the single mom or dad who works his tale off and still needs to get little Johnny or Susie in to pre-K. I have compassion for the mom who has seen their family’s income go down because dad was called up to fight and needs help. But I have zero compassion for Pedro who has come to this country (with his 8 kids) illegally and now demands that I have to educate his children while mine get to sit at home. I get to spend $150 week on private school in order to provide an early learning environment while Pedro sends his to school for free!
The solution: stop providing the incentives that keep the stream of illegal aliens coming - like free education, free health care, no threat of deportation, etc. Once this stream is significantly reduced – meaning those true “immigrants” who are here legally and are now paying their share of taxes – can we start allowing them access to our subsidized programs.
We can’t deport all 12 million illegal aliens – not possible. So part of me can see the need to educate the ones that are here now (helps break the cycle of poverty). But it makes no sense to keep the floodgates open and to keep telling those not wanting to go through the normal process of legal immigration to “come on over – get your free health care and free schooling”. While my sister in law and her new husband work and pay taxes, just to get the opportunity to send my nephew to private school to learn what Pedro Jr. gets to learn for free.
Disclaimer: The name Pedro was used to represent the 10-12 million illegal aliens currently estimated to be in this country (most of which are from Latin America). It is in no way meant to be exclusionary to those who may be named Jose, Felipe, Juanita or Jesus. Please see my early posts on illegal immigration before calling me racist.
A little background, my sister in law (we will call her Kim), is recently remarried and will be moving with her new husband to Lewisville, TX next month. She has an awesome 4-year old son who has stayed at home with mom the whole time (no daycare). Kim called Lewisville Schools to inquire about their pre-K program – thinking that now is a good time to get my nephew acclimated with other kids and get a jump on structured learning.
That’s the background - here is the outrage. The representative for the school district said that of course they have a pre-K program and that my nephew would be welcomed there as long as he fit into one of the following categories:
- Needs help with English (i.e. are his parents illegal immigrants)
- Homeless
- Parents in the active duty military
- Economically disadvantaged
Lets think about that for a second. The one redeeming quality to their completely absurd guidelines is that they are providing assistance to families who are fighting for our freedom on a daily basis – no further discussion needed on that point.
But here is a prime example of what is wrong with the education system in general and illegal immigration specifically. The nanny welfare state has been too busy spending the tax money of hard working citizens on people who are not paying a dime – in particular on people who are here illegally and are not paying a dime. I have compassion for the single mom or dad who works his tale off and still needs to get little Johnny or Susie in to pre-K. I have compassion for the mom who has seen their family’s income go down because dad was called up to fight and needs help. But I have zero compassion for Pedro who has come to this country (with his 8 kids) illegally and now demands that I have to educate his children while mine get to sit at home. I get to spend $150 week on private school in order to provide an early learning environment while Pedro sends his to school for free!
The solution: stop providing the incentives that keep the stream of illegal aliens coming - like free education, free health care, no threat of deportation, etc. Once this stream is significantly reduced – meaning those true “immigrants” who are here legally and are now paying their share of taxes – can we start allowing them access to our subsidized programs.
We can’t deport all 12 million illegal aliens – not possible. So part of me can see the need to educate the ones that are here now (helps break the cycle of poverty). But it makes no sense to keep the floodgates open and to keep telling those not wanting to go through the normal process of legal immigration to “come on over – get your free health care and free schooling”. While my sister in law and her new husband work and pay taxes, just to get the opportunity to send my nephew to private school to learn what Pedro Jr. gets to learn for free.
Disclaimer: The name Pedro was used to represent the 10-12 million illegal aliens currently estimated to be in this country (most of which are from Latin America). It is in no way meant to be exclusionary to those who may be named Jose, Felipe, Juanita or Jesus. Please see my early posts on illegal immigration before calling me racist.
Today's entry
I joined The Circus last night for the first time in a long while. I thought it was a pretty good show, and as always, Richard saved some political stuff for me to discuss. And true to form, I think equal airtime was given to both sides – thank you Richard for the invite.
Deborah Orin is reporting in the NY Post today that Valerie “I’m a secret operative” Plame gave $325 to the anti-Bush fund raising concert last year starring Bruce Springsteen. Orin states:
“It's the first revelation that Plame participated in anti-Bush political activity while working for the CIA.
The $372 donation to the anti-Bush group America Coming Together, first reported by Time magazine's Web site, was made in Plame's married name of Valerie E. Wilson and covered two tickets.
The Federal Election Commission record lists her occupation as "retired" even though she's still a CIA staffer. Under employer it says: "N.A."
I don’t really make too much of this, just thought it was interesting. Next time you see or read about an ex-CIA/Justice Official/etc. give their expert opinion on something, don’t automatically assume that their opinion is without bias just because they served in some particular role. Federal employees are just like everyone else, they form political opinions and vote just like you and me. We can only hope that their political leanings don’t get in the way of their job.
Deborah Orin is reporting in the NY Post today that Valerie “I’m a secret operative” Plame gave $325 to the anti-Bush fund raising concert last year starring Bruce Springsteen. Orin states:
“It's the first revelation that Plame participated in anti-Bush political activity while working for the CIA.
The $372 donation to the anti-Bush group America Coming Together, first reported by Time magazine's Web site, was made in Plame's married name of Valerie E. Wilson and covered two tickets.
The Federal Election Commission record lists her occupation as "retired" even though she's still a CIA staffer. Under employer it says: "N.A."
I don’t really make too much of this, just thought it was interesting. Next time you see or read about an ex-CIA/Justice Official/etc. give their expert opinion on something, don’t automatically assume that their opinion is without bias just because they served in some particular role. Federal employees are just like everyone else, they form political opinions and vote just like you and me. We can only hope that their political leanings don’t get in the way of their job.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
A downtown grocer - why didnt I think of that?!
A new grocery store opened up recently in downtown Dallas – and by downtown, I mean directly in the heart of the CBD…and by new, I mean the first of its kind. This is good for downtown, and will help comfort those residents who have already ventured back into the CBD and will likely lure in the next wave. But there is just one problem…they STOLE MY IDEA!!
Three years ago while going through grad school I worked on a project with two other classmates. The development project was for a downtown grocery/bar/café to be located in the middle of downtown (sound familiar). The area was just starting to see the first wave of new residents and the closest grocery store was located on Lemon and McKinney Ave. – not very close and not easy to get to.
My group did it all from costing the job, researching demographics and running IRR calculations. I recall getting an A on the project and thinking to myself - self, why don’t you actually do this deal. Then self responded, “because I’m poor”!
Oh well. Good luck to whoever it was who stole the brilliant idea. The similarities are way to close to have been purely a coincidence.
Three years ago while going through grad school I worked on a project with two other classmates. The development project was for a downtown grocery/bar/café to be located in the middle of downtown (sound familiar). The area was just starting to see the first wave of new residents and the closest grocery store was located on Lemon and McKinney Ave. – not very close and not easy to get to.
My group did it all from costing the job, researching demographics and running IRR calculations. I recall getting an A on the project and thinking to myself - self, why don’t you actually do this deal. Then self responded, “because I’m poor”!
Oh well. Good luck to whoever it was who stole the brilliant idea. The similarities are way to close to have been purely a coincidence.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
I'm back! Thank you..hold your applause
I’m back. Back from a much-needed vacation, only to be so backed up with work from missing over a week, that I now feel like I need another vacation. I gotta hand it to the French and their 30 hour work week. In fact, I think that may be the answer to a trivia question: Name one redeeming value to living in France? What is, the 30-hour workweek?
There has been a lot going on in the news lately so lets play news quick-hits, shall we.
Karl Rove did not take the initiative to seek out a reporter who would run with a story about Valerie Plame. He responded to an email from the Time reporter and cautioned him about going forward with the Wilson story on Niger/Yellowcake/Sadaam. Too bad Time didn’t head his warning. As the 9/11 Commission proved, Wilson lied about who sent him, lied about briefing the Vice President and lied about issuing any type of written report of his trip. For more on his lies check the GOP site.
The NHL has ended their version of the Cold War and agreed to terms. I remember reading that under no circumstances would the players union agreed to a salary cap. Guess what? There will be a 53% salary cap for the next 6 years. Unions in general played a very important role many, many years ago. The union has now outlived its usefulness in America.
It appears that George Bush and Tony Blair are to blame for the recent London terrorist attacks. Oh, you didn’t know that?! It says so right there in The Guardian. Need more confirmation, just check out any BBC report that comes out. Why is it that the BBC refuses to use the word terrorist? The first reports from the BBC on the London attacks described it as a terrorist act. However, the reports that ran later that day scrubbed the word terrorist and replaced it with the word “bombers”. Evidentially, they changed this because viewers/readers didn’t understand why the BBC refused to label the terrorist in Iraq as such (instead call them militants), but were quick to label the attackers in London as terrorist. So, what does the BBC do? They sugar coat all acts of violence perpetrated by people intent on killing innocent civilians (what you and I call TERRORIST) by calling them “militants” or “bombers” or “mean people”. Political correctness lives on in Great Britain. BBC responds by saying this: Link
Keeping an up to date blog takes lots of time. I have $0.02 to offer on most any and all current events, but sure don’t have the time to put them into words and post on a daily basis. I do have a new blog that I started reading recently: Black Five – The Paratrooper of Love. This is one of the better Military Blogs out there. I have added him to my Links on the left.
There has been a lot going on in the news lately so lets play news quick-hits, shall we.
Karl Rove did not take the initiative to seek out a reporter who would run with a story about Valerie Plame. He responded to an email from the Time reporter and cautioned him about going forward with the Wilson story on Niger/Yellowcake/Sadaam. Too bad Time didn’t head his warning. As the 9/11 Commission proved, Wilson lied about who sent him, lied about briefing the Vice President and lied about issuing any type of written report of his trip. For more on his lies check the GOP site.
The NHL has ended their version of the Cold War and agreed to terms. I remember reading that under no circumstances would the players union agreed to a salary cap. Guess what? There will be a 53% salary cap for the next 6 years. Unions in general played a very important role many, many years ago. The union has now outlived its usefulness in America.
It appears that George Bush and Tony Blair are to blame for the recent London terrorist attacks. Oh, you didn’t know that?! It says so right there in The Guardian. Need more confirmation, just check out any BBC report that comes out. Why is it that the BBC refuses to use the word terrorist? The first reports from the BBC on the London attacks described it as a terrorist act. However, the reports that ran later that day scrubbed the word terrorist and replaced it with the word “bombers”. Evidentially, they changed this because viewers/readers didn’t understand why the BBC refused to label the terrorist in Iraq as such (instead call them militants), but were quick to label the attackers in London as terrorist. So, what does the BBC do? They sugar coat all acts of violence perpetrated by people intent on killing innocent civilians (what you and I call TERRORIST) by calling them “militants” or “bombers” or “mean people”. Political correctness lives on in Great Britain. BBC responds by saying this: Link
Keeping an up to date blog takes lots of time. I have $0.02 to offer on most any and all current events, but sure don’t have the time to put them into words and post on a daily basis. I do have a new blog that I started reading recently: Black Five – The Paratrooper of Love. This is one of the better Military Blogs out there. I have added him to my Links on the left.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
A loophole of the Government
It turns out that there is a "loophole of the Government" that allows people to incite violence and burn the American Flag. This whole time we have been told that it was a God given right, inalienable right, the right to assemble and the right to speak freely without fear of being jailed, tortured or killed by the Government. But according to a group of Islamist Jihadist in New York yesterday, its just a "loophole". For more information on these "peaceful" Islamists see World Net Daily story: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44664
Somebody help me out here. I know that we have a right to assemble and demonstrate. We also have a right - despite patriotic feelings to the contrary - to burn the US flag. But, just like we do NOT have a right to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, I don't believe we have a right to incite violence. We don't have a right to call for an uprising to take arms against the US. Should these jihadist come to Dallas and pull the same shit down here, I'm going to test the extent of the First Amendment. If someone is burning the flag (again, not against the law) while at the same time calling on 6 million American Muslims to take up arms against the US, I think I have a pretty good case for "inciting violence". The violence in this case will be the violent end of my fist against their "peaceful" face. Should they "incite" me enough, it may very well turn into a clash of the First and Second Amendment.
Ok. Let me calm down and recap. Every US citizen is allowed to protest the US policies here and abroad, accuse the US Government of make believe atrocities, burn the flag, etc. I detest those acts, but I cherish the right to do those things. But when you attempt to organize an armed conflict against the US - well, that dog don't hunt.
Its time that people who love this country stand up more against these people who hate it. Stand up in the same fashion as they. If they burn the flag, throw water on it. If they shout "Allah is great, death to America", we should sing "God Bless America". Match their rhetoric and tone. Refuse to be shouted down. Make this country so Free and Patriotic that they can no longer stand it - and they LEAVE!
For more on this see the Powerline link on the right.
Somebody help me out here. I know that we have a right to assemble and demonstrate. We also have a right - despite patriotic feelings to the contrary - to burn the US flag. But, just like we do NOT have a right to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, I don't believe we have a right to incite violence. We don't have a right to call for an uprising to take arms against the US. Should these jihadist come to Dallas and pull the same shit down here, I'm going to test the extent of the First Amendment. If someone is burning the flag (again, not against the law) while at the same time calling on 6 million American Muslims to take up arms against the US, I think I have a pretty good case for "inciting violence". The violence in this case will be the violent end of my fist against their "peaceful" face. Should they "incite" me enough, it may very well turn into a clash of the First and Second Amendment.
Ok. Let me calm down and recap. Every US citizen is allowed to protest the US policies here and abroad, accuse the US Government of make believe atrocities, burn the flag, etc. I detest those acts, but I cherish the right to do those things. But when you attempt to organize an armed conflict against the US - well, that dog don't hunt.
Its time that people who love this country stand up more against these people who hate it. Stand up in the same fashion as they. If they burn the flag, throw water on it. If they shout "Allah is great, death to America", we should sing "God Bless America". Match their rhetoric and tone. Refuse to be shouted down. Make this country so Free and Patriotic that they can no longer stand it - and they LEAVE!
For more on this see the Powerline link on the right.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
The Border Problem
What to do about the border? I’m told that illegal immigrants come here to do the jobs that Americans will not do. But, if that is the case, why are there so few illegal immigrants mowing yards and doing construction jobs in the northeast? I mean, aren’t northeasterners Americans too. Or maybe those American northeasterners just have a stronger work ethic than those of us in the south. I don’ buy it. If you were to magically shut the border tomorrow and deport every single illegal at once, it would take no less than 2 days to fill most of the jobs left behind - with American citizens.
Ok, then, what about the inevitable wage increase that would go along with that magical proposition? Sure, wages would go up. But our county hospitals would no longer need to same amount of subsidies and our schools would no longer need the same amount of funding, etc. And what does that mean, you guessed it – our taxes would be less.
In reality, I do partly by the argument that says that there are certain jobs that Americans would rather not perform at low wages. So, there does need to be a mechanism to match willing workers with willing employers – I get that part. That makes sense to me. But what doesn’t make sense – and I have yet to hear a convincing argument – is why we should just let our border be as porous as can be in order to facilitate this matching of jobs with workers. All the while, creating the easiest of access points for terrorist to come in. It does not make sense. Shut down the borders (put up a damn fence, station the Guard, or hire a bazillion more border agents), actively pursue those employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants (yes, there is not only a supply side to this but a demand side), and then institute a guest worker program. A program that ensures that the worker’s pay is taxed so that when that worker needs to go to the hospital, he isn’t getting completely free care.
Here is where you can now point out how racist this all is – please, go ahead. Racism (American Heritage Dictionary): “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” Where in all of this rambling do I assert that any race is superior to another? I don’t. I am simply begging the US Govt. to do what is in the best interest of this country’s economy and security – period. That can be achieved without reducing the ethnic make-up of this country. All I am saying is make the ethnic make-up of America be of the legal variety.
God Bless the “Undocumented Border Patrol Agents” (also known as The Minutemen) who are standing on our border, in a non-violent, non-confrontational manner, to bring awareness to this issue.
Ok, then, what about the inevitable wage increase that would go along with that magical proposition? Sure, wages would go up. But our county hospitals would no longer need to same amount of subsidies and our schools would no longer need the same amount of funding, etc. And what does that mean, you guessed it – our taxes would be less.
In reality, I do partly by the argument that says that there are certain jobs that Americans would rather not perform at low wages. So, there does need to be a mechanism to match willing workers with willing employers – I get that part. That makes sense to me. But what doesn’t make sense – and I have yet to hear a convincing argument – is why we should just let our border be as porous as can be in order to facilitate this matching of jobs with workers. All the while, creating the easiest of access points for terrorist to come in. It does not make sense. Shut down the borders (put up a damn fence, station the Guard, or hire a bazillion more border agents), actively pursue those employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants (yes, there is not only a supply side to this but a demand side), and then institute a guest worker program. A program that ensures that the worker’s pay is taxed so that when that worker needs to go to the hospital, he isn’t getting completely free care.
Here is where you can now point out how racist this all is – please, go ahead. Racism (American Heritage Dictionary): “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” Where in all of this rambling do I assert that any race is superior to another? I don’t. I am simply begging the US Govt. to do what is in the best interest of this country’s economy and security – period. That can be achieved without reducing the ethnic make-up of this country. All I am saying is make the ethnic make-up of America be of the legal variety.
God Bless the “Undocumented Border Patrol Agents” (also known as The Minutemen) who are standing on our border, in a non-violent, non-confrontational manner, to bring awareness to this issue.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Embryonic Stem Cells
Lets talk stem cells and the Federal Government shall we? I read today that two Democratic congressmen challenged President Bush to go ahead and veto an expansion of FEDERALLY FUNDED embryonic stem cell research, which he is on record as saying he will do.
U.S Rep. McDermott and Rep. Inslee are publicly pressing for passage of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill will lift Bush’s 2001 ban on FEDERAL FUNDING for research of new embryonic stem cell lines – it is scheduled for a House vote this week. Rep. McDermott said of President Bush’s veto threat, “Bring it on” and face the fallout of public opinion.
I am emphasizes will all caps the words Federal and Funding for a reason. So many people think, thanks to the continuing misinformation we get from major media, that Bush’s 2001 legislation is an outright ban on embryonic research – it is NOT! What Bush is saying is this; the Federal Government is not going to open the money spigot for research that involves the destruction of human life. Human embryonic stem cell research is completely legal. It always has been – Bush did NOTHING to change that. That is fact/myth number one. I am amazed how many of our “educated elite” either chooses to misrepresent that or are completely ignorant to that fact. Fact #2 is this: Bush is the first President to even fund human embryonic stem cell research. He is just requiring that the research be limited to the 22 lines already created.
The proponents of changing this bill tell us that embryonic stem cells (the ones you have to artificially create and then kill) offer soooo much more hope of saving people suffering from paralyses, heart disease, acne, etc. Ok, maybe not acne, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Lets stop here and interject a little free market common sense.
When a free market economy is allowed to work, it works well. It has a knack for picking the winners and losers without any help from the government. If, as Mr McDermott and the others would have us believe, embryonic stem cells are the only sure fire answer to solving the worlds health problems, then our free market economy would be pouring money in by the truck loads - they same way it did to technology “start ups” in the 90’s. The capitalists are more than willing to have their money first in line when it comes time for a new product to pay off. If, embryonic stem cell research has such a promising future, WHY is it imperative for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to fund it?! These elitist frauds are playing on everyone’s natural fear of death to spread their lies. “Do you want to die of heart disease? Well, then you better hope the Federal Government starts funding this research or else you certainly will.” Come on – give me a break.
We have access, free of moral dilemma, to thousands of stem cells right now – adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have treated over 58 diseases in human patients in published clinical studies; embryonic stem cells have not treated one.
This shouldn’t even be an argument related to morality at all. Substitute stem cell research with oil exploration, computer technology, whatever, and I still don’t think that the Federal Government should be spending my tax dollars to support private R&D. In 1999, even President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) acknowledged broad agreement in our society that early human embryos "deserve respect as a form of human life" (NBAC, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, 1999, p. ii). NBAC recommended funding of embryonic stem cell research, only if there were no alternatives. But there IS an alternative - adult stem cells.
Everyone wants a cure for paralysis, Alzheimer’s, etc. But don’t scare people into thinking that the ONLY way a cure can be found is if we create and kill thousands of human embryos for research. Those who tell you that just don’t have the facts.
U.S Rep. McDermott and Rep. Inslee are publicly pressing for passage of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill will lift Bush’s 2001 ban on FEDERAL FUNDING for research of new embryonic stem cell lines – it is scheduled for a House vote this week. Rep. McDermott said of President Bush’s veto threat, “Bring it on” and face the fallout of public opinion.
I am emphasizes will all caps the words Federal and Funding for a reason. So many people think, thanks to the continuing misinformation we get from major media, that Bush’s 2001 legislation is an outright ban on embryonic research – it is NOT! What Bush is saying is this; the Federal Government is not going to open the money spigot for research that involves the destruction of human life. Human embryonic stem cell research is completely legal. It always has been – Bush did NOTHING to change that. That is fact/myth number one. I am amazed how many of our “educated elite” either chooses to misrepresent that or are completely ignorant to that fact. Fact #2 is this: Bush is the first President to even fund human embryonic stem cell research. He is just requiring that the research be limited to the 22 lines already created.
The proponents of changing this bill tell us that embryonic stem cells (the ones you have to artificially create and then kill) offer soooo much more hope of saving people suffering from paralyses, heart disease, acne, etc. Ok, maybe not acne, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Lets stop here and interject a little free market common sense.
When a free market economy is allowed to work, it works well. It has a knack for picking the winners and losers without any help from the government. If, as Mr McDermott and the others would have us believe, embryonic stem cells are the only sure fire answer to solving the worlds health problems, then our free market economy would be pouring money in by the truck loads - they same way it did to technology “start ups” in the 90’s. The capitalists are more than willing to have their money first in line when it comes time for a new product to pay off. If, embryonic stem cell research has such a promising future, WHY is it imperative for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to fund it?! These elitist frauds are playing on everyone’s natural fear of death to spread their lies. “Do you want to die of heart disease? Well, then you better hope the Federal Government starts funding this research or else you certainly will.” Come on – give me a break.
We have access, free of moral dilemma, to thousands of stem cells right now – adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have treated over 58 diseases in human patients in published clinical studies; embryonic stem cells have not treated one.
This shouldn’t even be an argument related to morality at all. Substitute stem cell research with oil exploration, computer technology, whatever, and I still don’t think that the Federal Government should be spending my tax dollars to support private R&D. In 1999, even President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) acknowledged broad agreement in our society that early human embryos "deserve respect as a form of human life" (NBAC, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, 1999, p. ii). NBAC recommended funding of embryonic stem cell research, only if there were no alternatives. But there IS an alternative - adult stem cells.
Everyone wants a cure for paralysis, Alzheimer’s, etc. But don’t scare people into thinking that the ONLY way a cure can be found is if we create and kill thousands of human embryos for research. Those who tell you that just don’t have the facts.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Not another Blogger?!
Welcome! I’m glad you found this space. Of course, the three of you who are probably reading this were forced into it (thanks mom, dad, shell). This is really going to sound selfish, but this blog is more for me than it is for you. I think there is something therapeutic about expressing your opinions for the entire world to read – even if only three people actually do read it.
I caught the public opinion bug a couple of years ago as a guest host (both “guest” and “host” are used liberally here) on a local sport radio station (“sports” used liberally here as well). Richard Hunter, of the P1 Wild Ass Circus fame (1310 AM KTCK) invited me, and several others, on to help co-host a new radio format. I will save those memories for later posts, but needless to say, the idea of talking to millions, ok thousands, or at least hundreds of people at once was thrilling. It couldn’t have come at a better time for me – smack dab in the middle of a Presidential campaign (definitely more about that topic later).
I plan on using this forum as an extension of that radio opportunity to express my worldviews. I don’t suppose any topic is off limits. I intend to waste some space on politics, religion, sports (especially local to Dallas), family, morality, corporate life, music and whatever else tickles my fancy. And as always, I intend to interject just a little bit of common sense into things. And by that, you can assure yourself that there will be very little political correctness on my part – the bane of all common sense.
I don’t know if Albert Einstein said it best when he said, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices collected by age eighteen.”
Or if Gertrude Stein was right in that, “Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense.”
With all do respect to Mr. Relativity, I tend to disagree with Albert and agree with Gertrude. I think I have changed dramatically in my views since the age eighteen. Even though Mrs. Stein made her statement some 60 years ago, it probably is truer today than ever.
Well, that’s it in the way of introductions. I suppose I will come up with something contentious to say pretty soon - if for no other reason, than to hear myself talk.
I caught the public opinion bug a couple of years ago as a guest host (both “guest” and “host” are used liberally here) on a local sport radio station (“sports” used liberally here as well). Richard Hunter, of the P1 Wild Ass Circus fame (1310 AM KTCK) invited me, and several others, on to help co-host a new radio format. I will save those memories for later posts, but needless to say, the idea of talking to millions, ok thousands, or at least hundreds of people at once was thrilling. It couldn’t have come at a better time for me – smack dab in the middle of a Presidential campaign (definitely more about that topic later).
I plan on using this forum as an extension of that radio opportunity to express my worldviews. I don’t suppose any topic is off limits. I intend to waste some space on politics, religion, sports (especially local to Dallas), family, morality, corporate life, music and whatever else tickles my fancy. And as always, I intend to interject just a little bit of common sense into things. And by that, you can assure yourself that there will be very little political correctness on my part – the bane of all common sense.
I don’t know if Albert Einstein said it best when he said, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices collected by age eighteen.”
Or if Gertrude Stein was right in that, “Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense.”
With all do respect to Mr. Relativity, I tend to disagree with Albert and agree with Gertrude. I think I have changed dramatically in my views since the age eighteen. Even though Mrs. Stein made her statement some 60 years ago, it probably is truer today than ever.
Well, that’s it in the way of introductions. I suppose I will come up with something contentious to say pretty soon - if for no other reason, than to hear myself talk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)