I hope 2009 was the best year you have ever had and the worst year you will ever see.
That way, every year will be better than 2009 - the best year you have had.
On Thanksgiving, Jordan and I broke up. She is still without a job or place to live, so she will stay with me until she gets those lined up or until we can't take it anymore. Either way, she will be moving out.
I am now calling all of the shots with Trevor and he is doing better for it. I am not taking a shot at Jordan's parenting skills by saying that, I am just saying that he is not living in a military environment any longer. He is behaving like a little boy should, making the mistakes that little boys make and learning from them.
I have HIGH hopes for 2010. I hope to make some big changes and look forward to sharing them with both of my readers.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
English - The UNofficial Official Language
Email from a friend of mine:
Jeff, You know the last thing I'd try to do is look like a total D-bag when trying to explain something. By saying that, I've already guaranteed d-bag status. In high school debate, this came up quite a bit. Using this explanation, I never lost an argument when it came to opposing any official language laws. When read, and explained by defining what is in the text it becomes clear that the First Amendment was written to perfectly guarantee non-officiation of religion, language, or any restriction of press or our ability to bitch about how bad our government is doing.
The First Amendment Of The United States of America's Bill Of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Prohibit: to hold before, hold back, hinder, forbid
Abridge: to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail
Freedom: 2) exemption from external control, interference, regulation,
Freedom: 3) the power to determine action without restraint
Freedom: 6) exemption from the presence of anything specified
By having an official language, there would be a specified regulation on how communication in America is done. Specified Regulation is not Freedom, as defined. The Specified Regulation would provide Americans a restrained, reduced, diminished, or hindered right to speak freely, in whatever language they want. Congress cannot mandate an Official Language as it would reduced, hold back, diminish, or lessen the methods in which Americans can officially communicate (Officially, English only). In a nut shell, if any law modifies the method by which an idea is conveyed from one person to another it is unconstitutional.
I do agree with you that if you come to this country, you should at least learn the language of the majority. Although the Government can not make consessions to force you to learn the language of the majority, it is not the responsibility of the majority to learn your language to make things easier on you. Giving the government the ability to take away such a perfeclty protected right will only bring us one step closer to having any right or liberty stripped away whenever it's convienent for the majority. What happens if English were made the official language because it's the language spoken by the majority, and in 20 years time, it must be switched to Spanish, because spanish speakers have now taken majority in this country? Would you still be in favor of an offical language?
My reply:
You are going by the letter of the law, and you are correct. However, the intent is derived from the cultural context and common sense meaning of the amendment.
By proclaiming an official language for the nation, we are not outlawing or prohibiting any other language from being spoken. At the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, we were a British colony – all English speaking people. There was never a thought of a multi-linguistic population. That was just not how the mindset of the Colonials was programmed. Since the inception of the Constitution, we have always had a common tongue. Every street sign, public address, news publication (at least the outlets from the government) and law we have enacted has been written in English. It is expected that those governed by this government be able to understand it as it is written.
It is my belief, and that of many others much more educated in Constitutional law than me, that the intent of this amendment was to preserve the ability of the people to speak out against the same government and not be persecuted or prosecuted for their views. Break the law into separate sections and read it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The third section is often left out of this debate as the writing does not lend itself readily for disection for examination. I have done my best to include it, but it is neither here nor there in this discussion.
Again, by the letter of the law as it is written, you are correct. But I do not believe that this is what was intended by the people that penned the Constitution. The government has made no concessions to force anyone to learn the common language, yet ALL languages are not present in the concessions made for non-English speaking immigrants. I see Spanish, but that is about it.
If Jil wanted to open a Chinese grocery store and have everyone employed there only speak Chinese in it, the government can do nothing to stop it. That would remain the same even if English is declared the official language of the US. The wording would have to be carefully set to ensure this is the case, but it would reduce the demand on the government to cater to any minority, regardless of the language in question.
Just my opinion. I like the debate. I also want to make sure you understand that I beieve the differences in people are what make this country great, as long as there is the ability to communicate these differences.
His reply - tenuous at best, but he knew that and just thought the logic was funny:
In the spirit of debate, I offer the following disadvantage to having an official language:
The establishment of an official language will lead to Civil War.
Here is the Link:
The US Federal Government employed 2,768,886 employees. State and local Governments employed an additional 14,868,380 full time employees, and 4,834,692 part time employees, for a total of nearly 22.5 million people. Wal-Mart, often cited as the nation's largest commercial employer, only has 1.2 million domestic employees (counting everyone from their flagship Wal-Mart greeters, up to the CEO himself)
If the United States were to start officially communicating with Americans in English only, everyone within the federal government whose sole job is to translate documents into other languages would no longer be needed, and would thus be out of work.
Figures for this are hard to estimate, however there are an estimated 110 languages with 5 million or more native speakers, and an estimated 188 languages with more than 2 million native speakers. Assuming we only translate documents to languages where there are more than 5 million native speakers, The Federal Government would need to hire at a minimum 110 people for each department to do translation, and in document heavy departments, this number would have to increase with the work load.
The number of Federal Government Departments and Agencies totals to about 600, and the figure for State and Local governments is nearly impossible to calculate. At the federal level, there would need to be roughly 66,000 translators, if we were to have one translator per department, per language. Some of the broader departments will defiantly need more than one translator, because of the amount of documentation that is required to be converted.
The obvious Departments here would be Department Of Commerce (21 sub departments and agencies), Department of Education (43 Sub departments and agencies), Department of Health and Human Services (28 sub departments and agencies), Department of Homeland Security (14 sub departments and agencies), Department of Housing and Urban Development (13 sub departments and agencies), Department of Justice (47 sub departments and agencies), Department of Labor (18 sub departments and agencies), Department of the State (37 sub departments and agencies), have a combined total of 221 sub departments and agencies. If the 221 'Broad' Departments needed 20 translators for the 110 languages with over 5 million native speakers, and the remaining departments only needed 10, the US Federal Government employs 911,900 translators.
To extrapolate this to the State and Local governments: the 911,900 employees make up 32.93% of Federal Employees. This is equal to 6,488,975 employees. The grand total is 7,400,875 employees whose jobs would immediately be eliminated.
If we were to only translate to the top 50 languages, using the same method above, the total is 3,364,034 employees. Conservatively this is equivelant to Wal-Mart firing all of their employees…three times.
Here is the Brink:
We currently have 15.7 million people unemployed, which is a rate of 10.2%. Elimination of Translator jobs by federal, state, and local governments would add another 3.4 - 7.4 million on top of that, bringing the national unemployment rate to between 19.1 millon - 23.1 million.
The unemployement rate would jump to betweek 12.39% and 15.01%. Furthermore, because the Departments of Education, Commerce and Labor do not offer any documentation in other languages besides english, it will be much more difficult to assist those who were already in the original 10.2% that do not nativly speak english. Housing and Urband development will not be able to assist those in finding government assisted housing, and the department of justice will not be able to fairly prosecute non-english speaking criminals due to language barriers. Also, any non-english speaking convict in Federal Prison will have to be set free because their rights to a fair appeal process has been removed (trust me, the ACLU would have a field day with that one)
With unemployment at the highest it's ever been since the great depression, homelessness at its most epidemic, and crime on a sharp increase, The United States would devolve into Civil War due to the our inability to correct the situation.
I love my friends! They are as twisted as I am and comfortable being such!
Please note - I did not spell check or proof any of the above information, but copied as they were written. The letter of the email, not the intent, I guess.
Jeff, You know the last thing I'd try to do is look like a total D-bag when trying to explain something. By saying that, I've already guaranteed d-bag status. In high school debate, this came up quite a bit. Using this explanation, I never lost an argument when it came to opposing any official language laws. When read, and explained by defining what is in the text it becomes clear that the First Amendment was written to perfectly guarantee non-officiation of religion, language, or any restriction of press or our ability to bitch about how bad our government is doing.
The First Amendment Of The United States of America's Bill Of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Prohibit: to hold before, hold back, hinder, forbid
Abridge: to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail
Freedom: 2) exemption from external control, interference, regulation,
Freedom: 3) the power to determine action without restraint
Freedom: 6) exemption from the presence of anything specified
By having an official language, there would be a specified regulation on how communication in America is done. Specified Regulation is not Freedom, as defined. The Specified Regulation would provide Americans a restrained, reduced, diminished, or hindered right to speak freely, in whatever language they want. Congress cannot mandate an Official Language as it would reduced, hold back, diminish, or lessen the methods in which Americans can officially communicate (Officially, English only). In a nut shell, if any law modifies the method by which an idea is conveyed from one person to another it is unconstitutional.
I do agree with you that if you come to this country, you should at least learn the language of the majority. Although the Government can not make consessions to force you to learn the language of the majority, it is not the responsibility of the majority to learn your language to make things easier on you. Giving the government the ability to take away such a perfeclty protected right will only bring us one step closer to having any right or liberty stripped away whenever it's convienent for the majority. What happens if English were made the official language because it's the language spoken by the majority, and in 20 years time, it must be switched to Spanish, because spanish speakers have now taken majority in this country? Would you still be in favor of an offical language?
My reply:
You are going by the letter of the law, and you are correct. However, the intent is derived from the cultural context and common sense meaning of the amendment.
By proclaiming an official language for the nation, we are not outlawing or prohibiting any other language from being spoken. At the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, we were a British colony – all English speaking people. There was never a thought of a multi-linguistic population. That was just not how the mindset of the Colonials was programmed. Since the inception of the Constitution, we have always had a common tongue. Every street sign, public address, news publication (at least the outlets from the government) and law we have enacted has been written in English. It is expected that those governed by this government be able to understand it as it is written.
It is my belief, and that of many others much more educated in Constitutional law than me, that the intent of this amendment was to preserve the ability of the people to speak out against the same government and not be persecuted or prosecuted for their views. Break the law into separate sections and read it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The third section is often left out of this debate as the writing does not lend itself readily for disection for examination. I have done my best to include it, but it is neither here nor there in this discussion.
Again, by the letter of the law as it is written, you are correct. But I do not believe that this is what was intended by the people that penned the Constitution. The government has made no concessions to force anyone to learn the common language, yet ALL languages are not present in the concessions made for non-English speaking immigrants. I see Spanish, but that is about it.
If Jil wanted to open a Chinese grocery store and have everyone employed there only speak Chinese in it, the government can do nothing to stop it. That would remain the same even if English is declared the official language of the US. The wording would have to be carefully set to ensure this is the case, but it would reduce the demand on the government to cater to any minority, regardless of the language in question.
Just my opinion. I like the debate. I also want to make sure you understand that I beieve the differences in people are what make this country great, as long as there is the ability to communicate these differences.
His reply - tenuous at best, but he knew that and just thought the logic was funny:
In the spirit of debate, I offer the following disadvantage to having an official language:
The establishment of an official language will lead to Civil War.
Here is the Link:
The US Federal Government employed 2,768,886 employees. State and local Governments employed an additional 14,868,380 full time employees, and 4,834,692 part time employees, for a total of nearly 22.5 million people. Wal-Mart, often cited as the nation's largest commercial employer, only has 1.2 million domestic employees (counting everyone from their flagship Wal-Mart greeters, up to the CEO himself)
If the United States were to start officially communicating with Americans in English only, everyone within the federal government whose sole job is to translate documents into other languages would no longer be needed, and would thus be out of work.
Figures for this are hard to estimate, however there are an estimated 110 languages with 5 million or more native speakers, and an estimated 188 languages with more than 2 million native speakers. Assuming we only translate documents to languages where there are more than 5 million native speakers, The Federal Government would need to hire at a minimum 110 people for each department to do translation, and in document heavy departments, this number would have to increase with the work load.
The number of Federal Government Departments and Agencies totals to about 600, and the figure for State and Local governments is nearly impossible to calculate. At the federal level, there would need to be roughly 66,000 translators, if we were to have one translator per department, per language. Some of the broader departments will defiantly need more than one translator, because of the amount of documentation that is required to be converted.
The obvious Departments here would be Department Of Commerce (21 sub departments and agencies), Department of Education (43 Sub departments and agencies), Department of Health and Human Services (28 sub departments and agencies), Department of Homeland Security (14 sub departments and agencies), Department of Housing and Urban Development (13 sub departments and agencies), Department of Justice (47 sub departments and agencies), Department of Labor (18 sub departments and agencies), Department of the State (37 sub departments and agencies), have a combined total of 221 sub departments and agencies. If the 221 'Broad' Departments needed 20 translators for the 110 languages with over 5 million native speakers, and the remaining departments only needed 10, the US Federal Government employs 911,900 translators.
To extrapolate this to the State and Local governments: the 911,900 employees make up 32.93% of Federal Employees. This is equal to 6,488,975 employees. The grand total is 7,400,875 employees whose jobs would immediately be eliminated.
If we were to only translate to the top 50 languages, using the same method above, the total is 3,364,034 employees. Conservatively this is equivelant to Wal-Mart firing all of their employees…three times.
Here is the Brink:
We currently have 15.7 million people unemployed, which is a rate of 10.2%. Elimination of Translator jobs by federal, state, and local governments would add another 3.4 - 7.4 million on top of that, bringing the national unemployment rate to between 19.1 millon - 23.1 million.
The unemployement rate would jump to betweek 12.39% and 15.01%. Furthermore, because the Departments of Education, Commerce and Labor do not offer any documentation in other languages besides english, it will be much more difficult to assist those who were already in the original 10.2% that do not nativly speak english. Housing and Urband development will not be able to assist those in finding government assisted housing, and the department of justice will not be able to fairly prosecute non-english speaking criminals due to language barriers. Also, any non-english speaking convict in Federal Prison will have to be set free because their rights to a fair appeal process has been removed (trust me, the ACLU would have a field day with that one)
With unemployment at the highest it's ever been since the great depression, homelessness at its most epidemic, and crime on a sharp increase, The United States would devolve into Civil War due to the our inability to correct the situation.
I love my friends! They are as twisted as I am and comfortable being such!
Please note - I did not spell check or proof any of the above information, but copied as they were written. The letter of the email, not the intent, I guess.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Had to post this - Not mine, but feel the same way
This letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal on August 8, 2008 by Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Of Beverly Hills, CA. in response to the Wall Street Journal article titled "Where's The Outrage?" that appeared July 31, 2008.
Really. I can tell you where the outrage is. The outrage is here, in this middle-aged, well-educated, upper-middle class woman. The outrage is here, but I have no representation, no voice. The outrage is here, but no one is listening for who am I?
I am not a billionaire like George Soros that can fund an entire political movement. I am not a celebrity like Barbra Streisand that can garner the attention of the press to promote political candidates. I am not a film maker like Michael Moore or Al Gore that can deliver misleading movies to the public.
The outrage is here, but unlike those with money or power, I don't know how to reach those who feel similarly in order to effect change. Why am I outraged? I am outraged that my country, the United States of America , is in a state of moral and ethical decline. There is no right or wrong anymore, just what's fair.
Is it fair that millions of Americans who overreached and borrowed more than they could afford are now being bailed out by the government and lending institutions to stave off foreclosure? Why shouldn't these people be made to pay the consequences for their poor judgment?
When my husband and I purchased our home, we were careful to purchase only what we could afford. Believe me, there are much larger, much nicer homes that I would have loved to have purchased. But, taking responsibility for my behavior and my life, I went with the house that we could afford, not the house that we could not afford. The notion of personal responsibility has all but died in our country.
I am outraged, that the country that welcomed my mother as an immigrant from Hitler's Nazi Germany and required that she and her family learn English now allows itself to be overrun with illegal immigrants and worse, caters to those illegal immigrants.
I am outraged that my hard-earned taxes help support those here illegally. That the Los Angeles Public School District is in such disarray that I felt it incumbent to send my child to private school, that every time I go to the ATM, I see "do you want to continue in English or Spanish?", that every time I call the bank, the phone company, or similar business, I hear "press 1 for English or press 2 for Spanish". WHY? This is America, our common language is English and attempts to promote a bi- or multi-lingual society are sure to fail and to marginalize those who cannot communicate in English.
I am outraged at our country's weakness in the face of new threats on American traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What am I missing? Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tyson's plant in Tennessee . Tennessee , last I checked, is still part of the United States . If Muslims want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history.
In the same week, Random House announced that they had indefinitely delayed the publication of The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones, a book about the life of Mohammed's wife, Aisha due to fear of retribution and violence by Muslims. When did we become a nation ruled by fear of what other immigrant groups want? It makes me so sad to see large corporations cave rather than stand proudly on the principles that built this country.
I am outraged because appeasement has never worked as a political policy, yet appeasing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exactly what we are trying to do. An excellent article, also published recently in the Wall Street Journal, went through over 20 years of history and why talking with Iran has been and will continue to be ineffective. Yet talk, with a madman no less, we continue to do. Have we so lost our moral compass and its ability to detect evil that we will not go in and destroy Iran 's nuclear program? Would we rather wait for another Holocaust for the Jews - one which they would be unlikely to survive? When does it end?
As if the battle for good and evil isn't enough, now come the Environmentalists who are so afraid of global warming that they want to put a Bag tax on grocery bags in California ; to eliminate Mylar balloons; to establish something as insidious as the recycle police in San Francisco. I do my share for the environment: I recycle, I use water wisely, I installed an energy efficient air conditioning unit but when and where does the lunacy stop? Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, the California economy is being overrun by illegal immigrants, and the United States of America no longer knows right from wrong, good from evil.. So what does California do? Tax grocery bags.
So, America , although I can tell you where the outrage is, this one middle-aged, well-educated, upper middle class woman is powerless to do anything about it. I don't even feel like my vote counts because I am so outnumbered by those who disagree with me.
Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Beverly Hills, California
Really. I can tell you where the outrage is. The outrage is here, in this middle-aged, well-educated, upper-middle class woman. The outrage is here, but I have no representation, no voice. The outrage is here, but no one is listening for who am I?
I am not a billionaire like George Soros that can fund an entire political movement. I am not a celebrity like Barbra Streisand that can garner the attention of the press to promote political candidates. I am not a film maker like Michael Moore or Al Gore that can deliver misleading movies to the public.
The outrage is here, but unlike those with money or power, I don't know how to reach those who feel similarly in order to effect change. Why am I outraged? I am outraged that my country, the United States of America , is in a state of moral and ethical decline. There is no right or wrong anymore, just what's fair.
Is it fair that millions of Americans who overreached and borrowed more than they could afford are now being bailed out by the government and lending institutions to stave off foreclosure? Why shouldn't these people be made to pay the consequences for their poor judgment?
When my husband and I purchased our home, we were careful to purchase only what we could afford. Believe me, there are much larger, much nicer homes that I would have loved to have purchased. But, taking responsibility for my behavior and my life, I went with the house that we could afford, not the house that we could not afford. The notion of personal responsibility has all but died in our country.
I am outraged, that the country that welcomed my mother as an immigrant from Hitler's Nazi Germany and required that she and her family learn English now allows itself to be overrun with illegal immigrants and worse, caters to those illegal immigrants.
I am outraged that my hard-earned taxes help support those here illegally. That the Los Angeles Public School District is in such disarray that I felt it incumbent to send my child to private school, that every time I go to the ATM, I see "do you want to continue in English or Spanish?", that every time I call the bank, the phone company, or similar business, I hear "press 1 for English or press 2 for Spanish". WHY? This is America, our common language is English and attempts to promote a bi- or multi-lingual society are sure to fail and to marginalize those who cannot communicate in English.
I am outraged at our country's weakness in the face of new threats on American traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What am I missing? Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tyson's plant in Tennessee . Tennessee , last I checked, is still part of the United States . If Muslims want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history.
In the same week, Random House announced that they had indefinitely delayed the publication of The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones, a book about the life of Mohammed's wife, Aisha due to fear of retribution and violence by Muslims. When did we become a nation ruled by fear of what other immigrant groups want? It makes me so sad to see large corporations cave rather than stand proudly on the principles that built this country.
I am outraged because appeasement has never worked as a political policy, yet appeasing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exactly what we are trying to do. An excellent article, also published recently in the Wall Street Journal, went through over 20 years of history and why talking with Iran has been and will continue to be ineffective. Yet talk, with a madman no less, we continue to do. Have we so lost our moral compass and its ability to detect evil that we will not go in and destroy Iran 's nuclear program? Would we rather wait for another Holocaust for the Jews - one which they would be unlikely to survive? When does it end?
As if the battle for good and evil isn't enough, now come the Environmentalists who are so afraid of global warming that they want to put a Bag tax on grocery bags in California ; to eliminate Mylar balloons; to establish something as insidious as the recycle police in San Francisco. I do my share for the environment: I recycle, I use water wisely, I installed an energy efficient air conditioning unit but when and where does the lunacy stop? Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, the California economy is being overrun by illegal immigrants, and the United States of America no longer knows right from wrong, good from evil.. So what does California do? Tax grocery bags.
So, America , although I can tell you where the outrage is, this one middle-aged, well-educated, upper middle class woman is powerless to do anything about it. I don't even feel like my vote counts because I am so outnumbered by those who disagree with me.
Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Beverly Hills, California
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Something was brough to my attention
May father, a die-hard Conservative, sent me this email:
>I thought this was a great idea.
>>
>> THE PROGRAM:
>> On Friday, September 11th,
>> 2009, an American flag
>> should be displayed outside every home, apartment,
>> office, and store in the
>> United States . Every individual should make it their
>> duty to display an
>> American flag on this
>> eighth anniversary of one of
>> our country's worst
>> tragedies. We do this to honor those who lost
>> their lives on 9/11,
>> their families, friends and loved ones who continue to
>> endure the pain, and
>> those who today are fighting at>
>> home and abroad to preserve
>> our cherished
>> freedoms.
>> In the days, weeks and months
>> following 9/11, our
>> country was bathed in American flags as citizens
>> mourned the incredible
>> losses and stood shoulder-to-shoulder against
>> terrorism. Sadly, those flags
>> have all but disappeared. Our patriotism pulled us
>> through some tough times
>> and it shouldn't take another attack to galvanize
>> us in solidarity. Our
>> American flag is the fabric of our country and together
>> we can prevail over
>> terrorism of all kinds
>>
>> Action Plan:
>>
>> So, here's what we need
>> you to do .
>>
>> (1) Forward this email to
>> everyone you know (at
>> least 11 people). Please don't be the one to break
>> this chain. Take a moment
>> to think back to how you felt on 9/11 and let those
>> sentiments guide
>> you.
>>
>> (2) Fly an American flag of
>> any size on 9/11.
>> Honestly, Americans should fly the flag year-round, but
>> if you don't, then
>> at least make it a priority on this day.
>>
>> Thank you for your
>> participation. God Bless You and
>> God Bless America !
I got to thinking about it and made a few revelations:
(Buckle up, it gets fun from here!)
I like this concept, but think it should also be done on December 7, for remembrance of Pearl Harbor.
Maybe the citizens will remember that event and how we retaliated in such a fashion that Japan NEVER even THOUGHT about something like that again and start to wonder why Afghanistan is not equally super-spanked!
The dropping of "The Bomb" in Japan was an example of massive retaliation. At that point in our history, we were not concerned with all of the psycho-babble crap that keeps us (as a nation) from making a point and making it painfully clear. Now, we (again, as a nation) want to send aid in the form of food and medical supplies to our enemy so that we can look at ourselves in the mirror and say we are good people. That is bullshit. It is that coddling that has brought us to the point we find ourselves today. If the enemy is our enemy, they need to be pushed to the point of surrender - using whatever means necessary. We should have, on September 12, 2001, dropped so many bombs on Afghanistan that it was reduced to nothing more than glass slag that reflected the starlight in the cool night air of the middle east.
Look at the movies we like, where the bad guy is clearly defined and we want nothing more than to destroy him. Inglorious Basterds is coming out. It is a film by Quentin Tarintino about a group of soldiers that kill Nazis. That is their job. I'm looking forward to seeing it, if only to remind me of a time (before my time) when we held people responsible for their actions and exacted not revenge, but justice. The Nazis were evil. The skin-heads that follow that Aryan path are equally evil. The followers of bin Laden are also evil, but our nation wants to rehabilitate them - not ever realizing that there is NO rehabilitation for religious zealots. We feel bad for them.
"Poor misguided souls thinking that this is their way to heaven. We should teach them that love, not hate, and OUR God are the only way to heaven. It's not their fault. They were taught hate from a young age. We should HELP them, not fight with them. Awwww..."
Fuckhead thinking.
They will say/do whatever they have to to put themselves in a position of killing us. With the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese forced us to pull our head out of the sand and take action in the events of the world - drawing us into the war. In today's society, we need not have our heads pulled from the sand, but rather pulled from our asses. We need to wake up and see what is happening in the world and in our own country and make changes to become strong again.
In short, we need to revert to a former time of glory in our nation's history. A time when we defended ourselves and sought out those that were aggressive towards us - and SUCCEEDED in bringing them to justice. Our innocence was lost a long time ago, but our naivete seems to be making a comeback. We want to be everybody's friend and have no enemies. A wonderful dream, but impossible. For whatever reason - valid or not - people will hate us. Fucking deal with it! Uncle Sam needs to man-up and start kicking ass like we used to in "the good ol' days".
My father blamed the issue on the current administration and warned of imminent doom and destruction at the hand of Obama. I still think that it is the state of society for allowing the bleeding hearts (of ALL political parties) to corrupt our nation and turn the majority that has the vote to become so mush-minded that flashy smiles, empty rhetoric and promises of positive change sway them (the voters) to put ALL of the current political "Civil Servants" in the positions they have.
When it became inappropriate - even criminal - to employ spankings as discipline to our children, when it became offensive - even criminal - to compliment a person of the opposite sex on how they look, when it became too much for our social conscience to expect people to actually have to work for a living and - instead of continuing to make them do so - create social programs to keep them fed and clothed and housed with medical benefits, when it became all of this, THAT is when we, as a nation, began to throw it all away.
Utopia doesn't exist. We will never create it in this world. All of the people that feel that a hug is what is needed should try going to Iraq and give one of the MANY people there trying to kill us a hug. They will be stopped by one of two things: a bullet or a bomb. Either way, they will not have the voice to put any more soft-headed, greedy, only-out-for-themselves politician in a position to create policy to which the WORKERS of America have to adjust. The problem is not the politicians. The problem is the majority of SHEEP that put them in power.
>I thought this was a great idea.
>>
>> THE PROGRAM:
>> On Friday, September 11th,
>> 2009, an American flag
>> should be displayed outside every home, apartment,
>> office, and store in the
>> United States . Every individual should make it their
>> duty to display an
>> American flag on this
>> eighth anniversary of one of
>> our country's worst
>> tragedies. We do this to honor those who lost
>> their lives on 9/11,
>> their families, friends and loved ones who continue to
>> endure the pain, and
>> those who today are fighting at>
>> home and abroad to preserve
>> our cherished
>> freedoms.
>> In the days, weeks and months
>> following 9/11, our
>> country was bathed in American flags as citizens
>> mourned the incredible
>> losses and stood shoulder-to-shoulder against
>> terrorism. Sadly, those flags
>> have all but disappeared. Our patriotism pulled us
>> through some tough times
>> and it shouldn't take another attack to galvanize
>> us in solidarity. Our
>> American flag is the fabric of our country and together
>> we can prevail over
>> terrorism of all kinds
>>
>> Action Plan:
>>
>> So, here's what we need
>> you to do .
>>
>> (1) Forward this email to
>> everyone you know (at
>> least 11 people). Please don't be the one to break
>> this chain. Take a moment
>> to think back to how you felt on 9/11 and let those
>> sentiments guide
>> you.
>>
>> (2) Fly an American flag of
>> any size on 9/11.
>> Honestly, Americans should fly the flag year-round, but
>> if you don't, then
>> at least make it a priority on this day.
>>
>> Thank you for your
>> participation. God Bless You and
>> God Bless America !
I got to thinking about it and made a few revelations:
(Buckle up, it gets fun from here!)
I like this concept, but think it should also be done on December 7, for remembrance of Pearl Harbor.
Maybe the citizens will remember that event and how we retaliated in such a fashion that Japan NEVER even THOUGHT about something like that again and start to wonder why Afghanistan is not equally super-spanked!
The dropping of "The Bomb" in Japan was an example of massive retaliation. At that point in our history, we were not concerned with all of the psycho-babble crap that keeps us (as a nation) from making a point and making it painfully clear. Now, we (again, as a nation) want to send aid in the form of food and medical supplies to our enemy so that we can look at ourselves in the mirror and say we are good people. That is bullshit. It is that coddling that has brought us to the point we find ourselves today. If the enemy is our enemy, they need to be pushed to the point of surrender - using whatever means necessary. We should have, on September 12, 2001, dropped so many bombs on Afghanistan that it was reduced to nothing more than glass slag that reflected the starlight in the cool night air of the middle east.
Look at the movies we like, where the bad guy is clearly defined and we want nothing more than to destroy him. Inglorious Basterds is coming out. It is a film by Quentin Tarintino about a group of soldiers that kill Nazis. That is their job. I'm looking forward to seeing it, if only to remind me of a time (before my time) when we held people responsible for their actions and exacted not revenge, but justice. The Nazis were evil. The skin-heads that follow that Aryan path are equally evil. The followers of bin Laden are also evil, but our nation wants to rehabilitate them - not ever realizing that there is NO rehabilitation for religious zealots. We feel bad for them.
"Poor misguided souls thinking that this is their way to heaven. We should teach them that love, not hate, and OUR God are the only way to heaven. It's not their fault. They were taught hate from a young age. We should HELP them, not fight with them. Awwww..."
Fuckhead thinking.
They will say/do whatever they have to to put themselves in a position of killing us. With the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese forced us to pull our head out of the sand and take action in the events of the world - drawing us into the war. In today's society, we need not have our heads pulled from the sand, but rather pulled from our asses. We need to wake up and see what is happening in the world and in our own country and make changes to become strong again.
In short, we need to revert to a former time of glory in our nation's history. A time when we defended ourselves and sought out those that were aggressive towards us - and SUCCEEDED in bringing them to justice. Our innocence was lost a long time ago, but our naivete seems to be making a comeback. We want to be everybody's friend and have no enemies. A wonderful dream, but impossible. For whatever reason - valid or not - people will hate us. Fucking deal with it! Uncle Sam needs to man-up and start kicking ass like we used to in "the good ol' days".
My father blamed the issue on the current administration and warned of imminent doom and destruction at the hand of Obama. I still think that it is the state of society for allowing the bleeding hearts (of ALL political parties) to corrupt our nation and turn the majority that has the vote to become so mush-minded that flashy smiles, empty rhetoric and promises of positive change sway them (the voters) to put ALL of the current political "Civil Servants" in the positions they have.
When it became inappropriate - even criminal - to employ spankings as discipline to our children, when it became offensive - even criminal - to compliment a person of the opposite sex on how they look, when it became too much for our social conscience to expect people to actually have to work for a living and - instead of continuing to make them do so - create social programs to keep them fed and clothed and housed with medical benefits, when it became all of this, THAT is when we, as a nation, began to throw it all away.
Utopia doesn't exist. We will never create it in this world. All of the people that feel that a hug is what is needed should try going to Iraq and give one of the MANY people there trying to kill us a hug. They will be stopped by one of two things: a bullet or a bomb. Either way, they will not have the voice to put any more soft-headed, greedy, only-out-for-themselves politician in a position to create policy to which the WORKERS of America have to adjust. The problem is not the politicians. The problem is the majority of SHEEP that put them in power.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Me and Prop 8
Ok, so my next post will make one of my two readers kinda mad.
So Prop 8 failed in California, leaving the ban of same sex marriages in effect. I have no problem with this. I also have two different views on it, but both share the same general point: I am against same sex marriages.
Secular :
I am not saying that I oppose same sex couples. I do not. I feel that everybody has a right to live the way they live, for whatever reason, as long as it does not interfere with my right to do the same. I just think that trying to force the government to recognize this type of marriage as legitimate is wrong. This is the line in the sand. It has to be drawn somewhere.
As a nation, we need to understand that the idea of “tolerance” has gotten way WAY out of hand. The morals that make our country strong have got to have a limit or they never really existed at all.
Many states in the US banned interracial marriages prior to the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia. That ruling was a move in the RIGHT direction, as the color of skin is not a reason for discrimination. An Asian woman will be able to give birth to a white man’s child. The morals of the country were not diminished by this move. The only thing that was hurt was a dying prejudice that was out-dated anyway.
The difference between that and this is fundamental: same sex marriages cannot CREATE children.
From what I can see, the driving forces for the movement to legalize same sex marriages are the financial/legal benefits and protections and for validation. The basic fact is that same sex marriages ARE different from as they will not keeping the family name going – not to mention the propagation of the human race - never produce a child, etc . A marriage, as defined by the primary or first definition at http://dictionary.reference.com, is as follows:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
In fairness, there is this definition as well, listed fourth:
A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
I just want to point out that all of the definitions that deal with this type of definition use the phrase “husband and wife”. Says a lot, huh?
The legal/financial perks are in the form of tax rates and adjustments, insurance coverage, death benefits; the list goes on and on. If we set it up to allow this type of union to be recognized and receive these perks, what will come next? You have to be insanely naive to think that this will not lead to other people wanting these advantages for THEIR “special unions”. Do we allow polygamy? Is that going to be the next sub-group to yell discrimination? What about cousins? Or parents and children? I am not trying to be gross, but some people react with the same disgust to homosexuality as you just did to those examples (extreme as they may seem).
It’s a matter of consent! Two adults should be allowed to do whatever they want if they are both consenting!
Yes and no. Yes, two people OF PROPER AGE AND MENTAL ACUITY can consent to almost anything. The “no” comes in when it infringes on other people’s rights or presents a lewd or obscene public display. But consent has absolutely fuck all to do with this issue. The behavior is not illegal. You can have sex with anyone PROPER AGE AND MENTAL ACUITY that is willing to have sex with you. The marriage is not even illegal. It is simply unrecognized by the government. If you and your friends and family recognize it and accept it and deal with you and your significant other as if the two of you were legally married, what difference does it make what the government says? I, personally, have never needed a governmental validation of my feelings for or against anyone or anything. Why is this validation, or lack thereof, such a huge hairy deal? I love this or that is made no more or less valid by a nod of approval from Uncle Sam.
Biblical:
In Romans 1:26-27 (EMTV), Paul writes:
For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Really? Do I need to say anymore? It is a lust that is against nature. Simply put, a spit in the face of God, saying, “I can personally improve upon your creation. Check this out! I can stick this in here! Who needs women?”
Conclusion:
While I could not care less about a person’s sexual orientation, these are my beliefs. Those friends I have that are homosexual know me but may not know these views. They were not judged on their sexuality. They were judged on their humanity. They are my friends because I see more in them than their sexual orientation. I see more in them than their religious, political, ancestral or ethnic characteristics. And they see more in me than a condemning bible-thumper because they know me and know that I am not one to cast aspersions on others when I am so fatally flawed myself.
Thank you for your time.
So Prop 8 failed in California, leaving the ban of same sex marriages in effect. I have no problem with this. I also have two different views on it, but both share the same general point: I am against same sex marriages.
Secular :
I am not saying that I oppose same sex couples. I do not. I feel that everybody has a right to live the way they live, for whatever reason, as long as it does not interfere with my right to do the same. I just think that trying to force the government to recognize this type of marriage as legitimate is wrong. This is the line in the sand. It has to be drawn somewhere.
As a nation, we need to understand that the idea of “tolerance” has gotten way WAY out of hand. The morals that make our country strong have got to have a limit or they never really existed at all.
Many states in the US banned interracial marriages prior to the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia. That ruling was a move in the RIGHT direction, as the color of skin is not a reason for discrimination. An Asian woman will be able to give birth to a white man’s child. The morals of the country were not diminished by this move. The only thing that was hurt was a dying prejudice that was out-dated anyway.
The difference between that and this is fundamental: same sex marriages cannot CREATE children.
From what I can see, the driving forces for the movement to legalize same sex marriages are the financial/legal benefits and protections and for validation. The basic fact is that same sex marriages ARE different from as they will not keeping the family name going – not to mention the propagation of the human race - never produce a child, etc . A marriage, as defined by the primary or first definition at http://dictionary.reference.com, is as follows:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
In fairness, there is this definition as well, listed fourth:
A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
I just want to point out that all of the definitions that deal with this type of definition use the phrase “husband and wife”. Says a lot, huh?
The legal/financial perks are in the form of tax rates and adjustments, insurance coverage, death benefits; the list goes on and on. If we set it up to allow this type of union to be recognized and receive these perks, what will come next? You have to be insanely naive to think that this will not lead to other people wanting these advantages for THEIR “special unions”. Do we allow polygamy? Is that going to be the next sub-group to yell discrimination? What about cousins? Or parents and children? I am not trying to be gross, but some people react with the same disgust to homosexuality as you just did to those examples (extreme as they may seem).
It’s a matter of consent! Two adults should be allowed to do whatever they want if they are both consenting!
Yes and no. Yes, two people OF PROPER AGE AND MENTAL ACUITY can consent to almost anything. The “no” comes in when it infringes on other people’s rights or presents a lewd or obscene public display. But consent has absolutely fuck all to do with this issue. The behavior is not illegal. You can have sex with anyone PROPER AGE AND MENTAL ACUITY that is willing to have sex with you. The marriage is not even illegal. It is simply unrecognized by the government. If you and your friends and family recognize it and accept it and deal with you and your significant other as if the two of you were legally married, what difference does it make what the government says? I, personally, have never needed a governmental validation of my feelings for or against anyone or anything. Why is this validation, or lack thereof, such a huge hairy deal? I love this or that is made no more or less valid by a nod of approval from Uncle Sam.
Biblical:
In Romans 1:26-27 (EMTV), Paul writes:
For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Really? Do I need to say anymore? It is a lust that is against nature. Simply put, a spit in the face of God, saying, “I can personally improve upon your creation. Check this out! I can stick this in here! Who needs women?”
Conclusion:
While I could not care less about a person’s sexual orientation, these are my beliefs. Those friends I have that are homosexual know me but may not know these views. They were not judged on their sexuality. They were judged on their humanity. They are my friends because I see more in them than their sexual orientation. I see more in them than their religious, political, ancestral or ethnic characteristics. And they see more in me than a condemning bible-thumper because they know me and know that I am not one to cast aspersions on others when I am so fatally flawed myself.
Thank you for your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)