A Clue to the Crimes

Sweden was hit by terrorist attacks on Saturday during the Christmas shopping season. While police are stopping short of declaring the two explosive attacks Islamic in nature, the following audio file was sent to the Swedish news agency hours before the bombings:

Now the Islamic state has been created. We now exist here in Europe and in Sweden. We are a reality... I don't want to say more about this. Our actions will speak for themselves.

Sweden's Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt had this to say about the incident:

[The attack] is unacceptable because Sweden is an open society and an open society which has stated a wish that people should be able to have different backgrounds, believe in different gods or not believe in any at all, and live side by side in our open society.

I have the following to say to the Prime Minister (and the people of Sweden):

Fred, I have here at my desk a clue. I'm taking out a Sharpie pen and am writing "Islam" on it. I will place the clue in a package and send it international post to you. When you receive it, take it out of the envelope, hand it to your personal secretary, and have him toss it to you. Catch the clue, Fred. Catch the clue. I appreciate your view of how the world and your own country should operate. I really do. In fact, I would love to live in such a society... theoretically. However, countries have borders because not everyone shares those opinions. Those borders define states for the rest of us. Without them, any state can be declared. And when that happens, the state of your own country changes. Don't just take my word for it... reread the suicide bomber's own words.

A Burning Sensation

The first thing they teach you in journalism school is to keep your pen as light as a feather when covering touchy subjects such as freedom of religion. There is nothing in the world, they tell students, that will fill an editor's inbox faster than the suggestion that religion is passé or one is better than another. And if you are writing about Islam, get ready to lose a cartoonist or two before the death threats and bombings subside.

Fortunately, I majored in management with a ridiculously strong emphasis on military history, so screw the terrorist Muslim scum. I'll speak my mind, thank you very much.

Now, I want to be perfectly clear on this: I believe in and fully support the principal in this country that the government should never interfere with a people's desire to gather for religious ceremony. I also believe those religious orders have no business trying to strong-arm the government and trample on individual rights. And I also believe that Islam is not a religion, but rather a blood-thirsty evil Cult of Death, Fear, and Hatred. Is that clear enough?

You may have read this week about a Reverend Terry Jones down in Florida who was planning to burn several hundred copies of the Qur'an on Saturday to mark the 9th anniversary of Islam's Attack on the World Economy (failure) and Sensibility (success). This has caused no small number of significant public figures to bemoan his right to do so while imploring him to show true Patriotic spirit by cowing down to those who have murdered, are murdering, and will continue to murder Americans in the name of Islam.

I'm not here to defend Terry Jones: I know nothing about him. For all I know he is a Jew-hating psychopathic religionist who embezzles money from gullible non-thinkers through the false guarantee of divine deliverance. And I have no intention of defending his right to burn a book, because I just can't really get behind book burnings myself - unless it's really cold out and the book is really pointless, like the Qur'an. No, I'm here to talk about the outpouring of support for those that would have us all dead.

Let's start with General David Betrayus. He has claimed that the act of burning these Qur'ans would put American soldiers in harm's way. I don't want to speak for any soldiers but I don't see that not burning Qur'ans has kept them out of harm's way, General. Do you honestly think that bowing down to our enemies all over the world and allowing them to build victory mosques on battlefields is a way to strengthen our soldiers' defense? I'll tell you what puts soldiers in harm's way, Dave: putting an automatic weapon into the hands of a 19-year old Ohio farm boy, sending him to a violence-plagued cesspool that has never had a sustainable central government - not even under the iron fist of the Soviet Union, putting in place restrictive policies, and demanding that he be an ambassador of the United States to the very people trying to kill him! Quit expecting him to do your worthless Secretary of State's job! His is hard enough:

"Johnny! Remember what we did when the wild hogs were threatening the crops? Do the same thing to the Muslims, boy, then get back home!"

Do you remember when a political soldier was someone like Omar N. Bradley (The G.I.'s General, our last 5-Star General, and by God one helluva fine American who knew what it was all about - taking care of his boys)?

"George, you know we need to kick their asses and I know we need to kick their asses... but you can't say to Congress, 'We're going to kick their asses.' You've got to be delicate when talking to Washington. Now, let's go kick their asses!"

That was it. That was as far as politics got into a real soldier. But with Colin Powell all the rules changed. They started wanting to be political advisers. Started thinking they should be handling policy. Generals who wanted to shape international diplomacy. No! Go kill, break, and suppress. Protect your soldiers through aggressive maneuvering and attacks. When your forces sit still - literally or figuratively - the danger they are exposed to increases exponentially!

[Please don't write in and defend McCrystal, either. By his own admission he voted for Barack Obama, a Muslim. That would be like Ike voting for Joe Kennedy. And if that weren't bad enough, his favorite beer is Bud Lime. Dude... Bud Lime? Tough, soldierboy. Real tough.]

And speaking of our Supreme Muslim Leader, Barack Obama has decided to weigh in on the issue with... look, is there even any point in covering what you all knew would happen? Hope & change, hope & change.

The last one I want to cover is the response from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the guy pushing for the mosque to be built near Ground Zero. Terry Jones has postponed the Dove World Outreach Center's Qur'an Burning and Covered Dish Supper pending the relocation of the proposed mosque to be called Cordoba. Again, I don't want to speak for anyone, so I will let the Imam speak for himself via this article from ABC News:

"My life has been dedicated to peacemaking... If I knew this would happen, that this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn't have done it."

But, he explains, he must build the mosque at the original site in order to defend us against "danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security."

"We have freedom of speech, but with freedom comes responsibility. ... This is dangerous for our national security, but also it is the un-Christian thing to do."

"I am glad that Pastor Jones has decided not to burn any Korans... However, I have not spoken with Pastor Jones or Imam Musri [a Florida imam purported to have acted as a go-between]. I am surprised by their announcement. We are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we here to barter. We are here to extend our hand to build peace and harmony."

"I'm less concerned about the radicals in America (anyone against the building of the mosque) than the radicals in the Muslim world."

"Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this."

Who negotiates what? Is this Muslim really telling us what would be Christian? Peacemaking? Does this remind anyone else of that Mel Brooks song?

I don't want war! All I want is peace... peace... peace!

A little piece of Poland,

A little piece of France,

A little piece of Austria

And Hungary, perchance!

A littel slice of Turkey

And all that that entails,

And then a bit of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales!

Are there any questions about what this mosque represents? About what Islam's opinion of America is? About how we should proceed? Still not sure whether or not we are in a religious war against Islam? Are you sitting on the fence? Are you a Muslim?

If you are a Muslim, the last thing in the world I'd want to do is convert you into my belief system. You'd probably just screw it up and give it a bad name anyway. But I will ask you to go through the same process I put myself through: look closely at and study objectively all of the beliefs put into your head by others. Ask yourself: Does my religion truly represent who I am as a person?

In my case I had to throw some supposed tenats of my religion out. Some were just things that many who claimed to be like me felt. Others were dead wrong. And still others are tightly held beliefs of the church, but I just can't buy into them. Don't worry - God and I have discussed these issues in depth and we're okay with it. At least, I am. He has the perogative to disagree with me in the end. But for now, I have to live with myself.

As a Muslim you don't have to ask yourself things like:

• Is drinking an alcoholic beverage in moderation really evil?
• Do I need to stay pissed at the Jews forever?
• Do the Romans share any blame for the death of my Savior?
• Does prophecy render all of those feelings moot anyway?

But you might want to ask yourself things like:

• Do I really believe burning people alive is a God-ly activity? [WARNING: That link is VERY graphic - I made myself watch it and several others on the site, but they absolutely made me physically ill. If it doesn't make you ill, you might be a Muslim - scumbag. And if it doesn't make you angry, you are not human.]
• Should women really be beaten on a regular basis?
• If my children go through a rebellious stage does murdering them make me a better parent?

Again, I'm not telling you how to live your pathetic, evil life... I'm just suggesting an alternative to death and hatred.

In the meantime, The Western World needs to stop Muslims from building victory monuments and financial centers in this country or any other, eliminate their training grounds, and beat them into submission... or extinction - whichever is required for survival.

I know this has been an uncharacteristically heavy posting for me, but it's hard to take this subject matter lightly. Still, I am a professional who is committed to his audience. So, in deference to Jeff Foxworthy, I give you the following:

How to tell if your religion is really a blood-thirsty cult:

If when you proclaim "God is great" people react with fear, you may be part of a blood-thirsty cult.

If your spiritual leader beats women and married children, you may be part of a blood-thirsty cult.

If the only guaranteed passage to paradise is by murdering someone in the name of your god, you just might be part of a blood-thirsty cult.

If you've ever flown an airplane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people to demonstrate your faith in God, you perhaps should consider the possibility that you just might be part of a blood-thirsty cult.

If you've ever cheered at news that a small boy has blown himself and 30 or 40 market goers to pieces, and yet are outraged when someone 8500 miles away threatens to burn a book printed, sold, and purchased 8500 miles away, I'm pretty sure you are part of a blood-thirsty cult.

If you hate South Park... you're just kind of stupid and take yourself way too seriously.

And finally, if you are a Muslim, you are part of a blood-thirsty cult. May you be buried face down under a dog, and may Hitler and Jeffery Dahmer play marbles with your... well, I wouldn't want to offend anyone.

GOD BLESS THE SOLDIER - THANK YOU!

-FOR ALL THAT YOU ARE, AND ALL THAT YOU DO-

I Was Wrong...

Hope I didn't make you choke on your coffee... spit takes are so passé. My wife gets downright giddy when she hears me use that phrase: I was wrong. Granted, it's very rare and, quite frankly, I think I've dwelt upon it long enough.

What I really wanted to write about today is the World Cup. You may have heard something about this going on in the news lately. I heard about it for a while before I realized they were talking about a soccer game. I'm from the South and I know that down here we have a tendency to over explain just for the sake of throwing extra syllables into everything, but didn't you think: "World Cup? World Cup what? World Cup of Hockey? World Cup of Dancing? World Cup of Hot Wings?" As uppity as the rest of the world claims Americans to be, I think it's downright conceited not to finish the name of your little tournament.

Turns out, though, that it's kind of popular. In fact, it's the most watched sporting event in the world, over NASCAR and Baywatch. According to Wikipedia 715.1 million people will watch it this year. I'm guessing that ".1" is the portion in the United States. Now, I don't consider myself an expert on the game of soccer (though my little brother did play one season of little league, so...), but I thought I might take a few minutes to explain the game to you, good reader, just a bit.

WHAT SOCCER IS

Soccer is a game played on a field the size of a Walmart parking lot, with 22 waif-like men sporting Don Johnson beards, two grumpy coaches who can't be understood... even in their own language, one ball - which apparently can be a little too round, and two jibberish-shrieking announcers who could fain excitement at a Stutterers Anonymous funeral. The object of the game is to kick the ball around the field until one of the teams runs out of penalties or the stands erupt in flames of violence. The players are not allowed to use their hands for anything other than slapping and adjusting crotches.

Except the two goalies. Their job is possibly the most important on the field. When the ball has spent too much time being knocked about at one end of the field, the goalie is supposed to pick up the ball, place it carefully on the ground, then kick it clear to the other end so the fans sitting down there can watch some of the "action" for a while. Sometimes the ball will accidentally roll into the net when the goalie is trying to pick it up. In those instances they just put the ball back in the middle to give the centerline folks a show for a bit.

I don't think there are any cheerleaders in soccer, but quite frankly, I don't think I want there to be. Let's face it: most of these countries aren't known for their beautiful people, with the exception of the Netherlands, whose women were ironically arrested and kicked out of the World Cup stadium. I'm not sure about any mascots either, outside of Posh Spice. And I can only guess that there are a multitude of sponsors associated with soccer, because we only catch the occasional commercial that Kevin Nealon shares with us on one of his stupid banned commercials shows.

WHY SOCCER SUCKS

Besides the absence of hot cheerleaders, I think there are several other specific reasons that soccer is not particularly popular in the U.S., though, like socialism, it seems to be catching on of late. To start, it's the name. Now, everywhere else in the world this game is called football. Of course, we already have a game called football, so we can't call it that. Plus, although that descriptive term probably fits the foreign game a little more accurately, the confusion would be an insult to Dick Butkus, and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

The Brits are especially bad about looking down their noses at we Yanks for our misnomenclature. That's a turn-off right there from the start. But let's take a look at where "soccer" came from. Back in Jolly Old England times the folks playing this brand of football wanted to differentiate it from Rugby Football, so they started calling it Association Football (due to official organizations and ministers and elves and wizards and all those other sort of titles they have in England). As any fan of The Young Ones (one of the greatest shows of all time - hint, hint for Christmas) knows, the Brits love to create shortened nicknames for everything:

television = tele
French fries = chips
John, Paul, Ringo, & George = John & Paul
Association Football = Soccer

So, the next time the Queen of England calls you a barbarian for referring to it as soccer, tell her, "Takes one to know one, Betty!"

Another reason we don't like soccer is the lack of action. Part of the problem is the size of the field: it's enormous! These guys are spread so far apart that the ball has to travel 14.6 miles (or 6,312 kilometers for you soccer fans) between kicks. That's where those ridiculous announcers come in. Here's a typical spastic reaction by an announcer old enough to be hanging around outside a Miley Cyrus concert looking for dates:

Good God, what a reaction from a man that old. Jeez, get a life. It's not like Dale, Jr. took the checkered flag or something.

If they'd make the field a little smaller, and the action a little faster, we Americans might get into it. But I just don't see this happening. One of the primary tactics of the soccer man is called flopping. The idea here is to get the other team penalized. You know how punters and place kickers will act like they've been plowed into when a rusher gets close? Multiply that by ten Liston-Ali factors and you've got any typical soccer player coming within ten yards of another. They flail about and writhe on the ground until the referee points at a random billionaire in shorts and orders him out of the game. It's so silly even the American team's coach in the World Cup doesn't like it. But it's such an integral part of the game many say the U.S. will never be taken seriously in the world of soccer until it learns to embrace this tomfoolery. Should we recruit Vince McMahon to coach the team?

This garbage gives the game a very un-manly reputation in a country where girls' softball results in broken bones and stitches. Soccer is so wimpy that a headbutt to the chest four years ago is still infamous. I was 20 yards up the stands when Quentin Coryatt delivered this shot on Kyle McPherson:

Had that occurred in a soccer game, Coryatt would be rotting away in jail today... with 36 Dutch models.

As much as the wimpiness and lack of action gives me the yawnies, it's the fact that ties are celebrated in soccer that turns Americans off the most. (I know hockey has 'em, but fights, man, fights!) I'm not saying a tie should never be allowed to happen: sometimes offenses suck so badly that there really is no point in going into quintuple overtime. But ties should never be celebrated. They may not exactly be a losses, but they sure as hell ain't wins!

Of course, I reckon soccer is great for countries like Italy who - not counting four World Cup titles - haven't had any kind of real victory since Emperor Claudius conquered Britannia. And France and England certainly have had their share of ties, coming from the same families and all. (Funny, they each have one World Cup title, as well.) Americans just don't like ties. We didn't tie the eight year American Revolution... we won it! When Europe was mired down in WWI and WWII, we went in and broke through. We're used to being the tie breaker. Hey, that's a great idea!

When any World Cup game looks like it's going to end in a tie, why not send the Super Bowl Champs from that year in and break up the tie? Now I'd watch that!

I WAS WRONG

You probably thought I'd forgotten about my opening... I didn't. When this World Cup 2010 started I said there was no way I could care less about it. Turns out I was wrong: the Americans lost and now I actually care a little less about what occurs from here on out. Spain vs. the Netherlands - hopefully it won't last 80 years this time. Yawn.

In Good Hands

"Your daughter is on a French fishing boat in the southern Indian Ocean, 2000 miles from any land."

If a statement such as this comes as good news to you... perhaps you are allowing your child to take too many risks.

Just as at least 18 people drowned in southwest Arkansas, Abby Sunderland - shaken but healthy - was plucked from the storm-stirred waters just north of Antarctica. This rescue cut her around-the-world solo navigation attempt short, but given that her boat was disabled, she's lucky to be back on dry ground... or at least in the hands of a bunch of French fishermen.

There has been a lot of conversation the last few days about what kind of parents would allow their daughter to attempt such a dangerous feat in the first place. Some have claimed that girls can do anything a boy can do, and after all, Abby's 17-year old brother managed this same journey himself. Others argued that the timing was the real issue, given the severity of the winter stormy season in the southern Indian Ocean. Apologists have pointed out that Abby's father is a professional sailor and tutored both children on handling the seas, so she was well-prepared for any eventuality. I've come to a slightly different conclusion given the latest fact brought to light:

Abby's mother is expecting her eighth child in the coming weeks. When you have that many kids you have the leeway *ehem* to take greater risks with a few of them.

That's Not My Problem

I hope that everyone was able to spend some time between throwing the ribs on the barbie and passing out in a drunken stupor to give thanks for the brave men and women who have given up a part of their possessions, their freedoms, their innocence, and their lives so that we all can enjoy ours. I want to thank each member - past, present, and future - of our military forces: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. While Memorial Day is set aside specifically for those soldiers who are no longer with us, we recognize there is much more to lose than your life, and we all thank you.

I have to admit, though, that I had a difficult time with my personal remembrances and meditations yesterday. I was distracted by the Israeli raid on the blockade-busting supply vessel that left 9 Hamas - uh, Palestinian supporters dead. The news called it a failed raid. I don't see how... unless they were trying to kill more than 9 activists. I want to explain, though, that it wasn't the raid itself that had me distracted, but rather my anger at what will most certainly be sanctimonious drivel coming out of the Obama Administration. So far the administration has cautiously stated it wants a little more background on the situation before making a statement. Okay, here's some background:

The Allies created Israel after World War II. The Palestinians had stolen the land from the Jews during Holy Wars several hundred years (histories vary on time line) before that, but there was plenty of Muslim land in the Middle East for them to settle on after WWII. The problem was that NO Muslim country wanted the Palestinians. Egypt is open about this fact,and the rest of the Muslim world only sides with Hamas to hurt Israel. While Jews and Palestinians are seemingly only wanting a homeland, the Palestinians use terrorists in an attempt to get their way. While the United States feels it has a right to defend itself from Muslim terrorists all over the world, it seemingly has problems with consistently recognizing Israel's right to do the same. And by "consistently" I mean any time the damn Democrats are in charge.

Enough of that. Hooray, Israel! I apologize for the way this country is treating you. It is our White House that takes this position. Please, in the future, make sure your brethren over here quit voting for the damn Democrats! Florida and New York are ridiculous with it. And at the rate illegals are streaming over our southern border and being registered to vote by Democrat groups, you'd better hope Hamas never learns to speak Spanish.

Speaking of dirty, worthless, moronic, amoral, unethical scumbags, the Gores are getting divorced. Having gone through a divorce myself, I wouldn't wish the experience on any other human. That leaves out my ex-wife and AlGore. This putrid pile of political pestilence has been married to AlGore for 40 years. Or was that supposed to be 'married to Tipper Gore?' It doesn't matter... they are interchangeable. She fed for years on parents' fears that their children would grow up to be violent devil worshipers if they were allowed to listen to music albums that did not contain a warning label, and he has fed upon the fear he instilled in Americans about the world turning into a microwave oven because of hairspray and air conditioners. I wonder if they will split all of the tax dollars they stole from us down the middle, or if he will get more because of his Nobel Prize? Oh, and Academy Award? And upcoming Papalship.

Finally, yesterday I was watching Pawn Stars on the History Channel. There was a marathon, much time was wasted. To the point, a college kid bedecked with a torn camouflage baseball cap and sporting a Cajun-esque dialect came in with a miniature suit of armor. It was pretty cool, amazing detail. Paulie told him that it had been used as home decor back in the Victorian Age. (I don't know the name of the guy on Pawn Stars, so I just call him Paulie. A 'Paulie' is the dirtball son of any guy who would be lost to you in the annals of obscurity but for getting a stint on a reality show on TLC, History, Discovery, etc. - which is called "Teutuling".) He explains that it would have cost about $100, which is, adjusting for inflation, roughly $1900 today. The kid asks, "Is that how much you're going to give me?"

"*chuckle* No."

"Why not?"

"Because the suit of armor hasn't kept up with inflation."

"But that's not my problem."

I hate this kid with every pore of my soul. He should be pithed. His parents should have been sterilized. His grandparents dug up and thrown into jail. I can safely say that had I been the pawn shop owner I would have reached out and hit him in the head with the first tape deck I could grab. "But that's not my problem." Yes, it is specifically your problem! You are the one with what is essentially the Franklin Mint Collector Plate of the Victorian Age. You are the one wanting money for it. You are the one who walked into the Pawn Shop seeking said funds. And you are the one wasting - presumably - your time and money on the college education you claim the money will go toward.

I hate to sound so hateful but these are exactly the mentally lazy fleshballs who are plunging our country into the debt of socialism. "That's not my problem." The Mantra of the Me Generation. (As well as my generation, the Baby Boomers, and everyone else.) These people need to be identified and exported... immediately. Before it's too late. There is great responsibility that goes along with living in a free society, and this guy clearly hasn't even tried to step up to the plate and educate himself in the school of responsibility and self-reliance. And what was almost as sick, Paulie let him pawn it for $1100 to help him out. I'd have only offered him the business card of a local doctor who might be able to help him remove the suit of armor after I'd-

All right, this is going down hill. I'm going to end this with a little advice to my young college-faring friend on Pawn Stars:

Remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people. Try not to open your mouth too much in class, idiot.

Boy, I'm in a mood today.

It's All Up In The Air

As President Obama prepares for a mass bowing in Capenhagen, the Environmental Protection Agency is announcing today its opinion that heat-trapping greenhouse gases are endangering people's health.  This is in response to the Supreme Court's previous ruling that an endangerment declaration must exist before the EPA can begin regulating factories under the Clean Air Act.  Yes, you read that correctly: before the EPA can regulate business, it must only claim that business is hurting people.

This move will certainly help Barack Obama in his effort to become the next Secretary-General of the United Nations by showing the world that America can control its dogs. For anyone thinking this is about climate change (man-made or not), take a look back at the old Kyoto Protocol, which we were prudent enough not to ratify.  (This will not, I fear, be the case this go around.):

unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

Check especially Article 11(3) and Article 22(2).

The former reveals monies will flow from "developed" countries to "developing" countries. That second group includes many of the same countries accused by the U.N. of gross human rights abuses. Hmmm.

Article 22, with its "vice versa" tag, means that groups like the E.U. will vote for ALL of Europe, and it will do so with that many votes. (Sorry if any member state disagrees with the E.U.) It also means that ANY regional economic group (let's say, African Union?) would get more votes than an economy the size of the U.S. (1 vote). From where does the money flow, and where does it go?

Or, to be less U.S.-centric, there are 27 members of the E.U. There are 53 countries in Africa. What if there was an African Union? Do you think, with that disparity of voting power, any money would flow FROM Africa TO Europe?


So, the next time you hear how terribly the United States is destroying the world and how critical it is for us to join international "pollution" treaties, ask yourself what it all means as you look at pictures like these:

 

 

This 'n That

I've been off the computer the last couple of days because of a terrible infection. Some dunderhead decided to write a program that would worm itself onto my computer at work to pop up warnings that some program was trying to worm itself onto my computer. A horrible mess that is still ongoing. At home, my wife's computer got the same. I have hidden all weekend in the corner of my closet, clutching all my electromedia protectively.

Here's the deal: anyone who writes a virus should be executed. It is a horribly insidious thing to do, not to mention supremely cowardly. I consider it the digital equivalent of torturing neighborhood cats, a great identifier of the sociopath in the making. I say kill the hackers before they start trying to have drifters for dinner.

Over the weekend Barack Obama made new strides in alienating himself from the American public. His proponents bragged that he was finally going to conduct one of those Town Hall Meetings he promised during the campaign. His detractors couldn't resist pointing out that it was being held in China.

But before reaching out to his comrades in the People's Republic of China, he participated in another event of his Worldwide Limbo Contest, this time defeating 5'5" Emporer Akihito of Japan. It should be remembered that the undefeated Obama stooped before the Saudi Crown Prince just last April, showing the world he could bow lower than the 5'6" Abdul-Aziz.

His greatest challenge will be his upcoming bout against North Korea's Kim Jong-il, measuring just 27" at the shoulders.

The wait is nearly over; The Twilight Saga: New Moon opens in theaters everywhere this Friday. Do you remember when you could identify a vampire by his hideous fangs...

... rather than his pouty eyeliner?

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 2009

The AP headline says it all: In a surprise, Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, I would say it is a surprise. Certainly to me. To other conservatives. I'll bet a lot of liberals are quite surprised, although I doubt any would admit it. Let me tell you just how surprising it is.

Few of you know that I suffer from low blood pressure. As a child I grew up in my grandfather's shop and he passed on some great mechanical skills. Most importantly, though, he taught me patience and that I shouldn't lose my temper with inanimate objects, like metals, tools, and Democrats. This patience, coupled with my advanced sense of superiority, results in my having extremely low blood pressure. To combat this situation I regularly listen to National Public Radio.

That's what I was doing on my way to work this morning when I heard the announcement that the prize from the Norwegian foundation had gone to Obama. 'For what?' came to mind. 'For his offer to host the Olympics in Chicago? For his worldwide apology tour? For making friends with the Taliban? To encourage him not to send 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan?' (BINGO! I win.) But I must admit that I was interested to hear how NPR would gloat. This is when I knew just how surprising this move was: they didn't even know how to respond. The only reaction they could muster was calling 1986 Nobel Peace Prize recipient and author Elie Weisel on the phone and asking for his reaction. I loved his book Night, but was a bit disappointed by his response to the NPR inquiry.

Weisel was clearly surprised by the award, as well. He had a hard time finding words at the beginning, and was shy to evaluate the legitimacy of another's award (as all awardees should be). He finally stated, in justifying this award, that Obama gave America the chance to correct a long-time wrong by electing a black man to the presidency. Excuse me, Mr. Weisel, but no it does not. What I or we as a nation do now does not erase, correct, deny, or change what OTHER people did LONG ago. It just speaks for who we are...now. Isn't that what remembering the Holocaust and seeing a unified and independent Germany today is all about?

And if it really is about America correcting her prejudices as Mr. Weisel suggests, how strong a statement did electing Obama really make? After all, didn't we not elect the first female president? Does that mean we love black people, just not women? That would take race out of the whole equation. A truely colorless, sexist election. I know that in my case I did not vote for Obama for a number of reasons, not one of which had anything to do with his race(s). But I'll bet there were a HUGE number of people who voted for him specifically because he is black. Hmm... is that racist?

There's really no need to go into whether a Nobel Peace Prize should be handed out for actual past deeds or in Monty Hall-esque style just to get the contestant to keep opening doors; you can decide that on your own. I don't expect to ever be placed on the board of judges or to receive one of these awards, so I don't care. But it sure is nice to think a Norwegian organization has recognized America for stopping her racist ways and finally treating a black guy right. Think I'll fly over and celebrate with a black Norwegian man... I wonder if I can find one?

HOLLYWOODLAND

Hollywood is all aTwitter over the Swiss arrest of French director Roman Polanski at the Zurich Film Festival. It seems that many of his peers feel it unjust that an "international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend" the 76-year old admitted child molester. That little gem came from the petition SACD (a French artist and film industry association) produced with the goal of winning his release on bail. Like nearly every other French-led attempt to affect the behavior of another country over the last 100 years, the effort has failed miserably.

Before I go any further into this issue, allow me to give you a little background. In 1977, Polanski accepted a plea bargain and pled guilty to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. After a 42-day psychiatric evaluation, Polanski feared that the judge in the case would renege on an agreed probation, so on the eve of his sentencing hearing he fled to France by way of London. He has been gone ever since, suffering through a life of freedom, financial success, professional accolades, and an Oscar.

Being the intrepid blogger that I am, I did a little research on the issue. It seems the minor that Polanski engaged in "unlawful sexual intercourse" with was one 13-year old Samantha Gailey. Polanski's grand jury, after hearing Miss Gailey's testimony, indicted him on five charges:

1. 
   
   Rape by use of drugs
   
   
   
2. 
   
   Perversion
   
   
   
3. 
   
   Sodomy
   
   
   
4. 
   
   Lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14
   
   
   
5. 
   
   Furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor
   
   
   

I reviewed 36 pages of Miss Gailey's testimony (what did you do for lunch?). You can find them at The Smoking Gun - just click on the image to the right. Pay special attention to the end of page 17 and beyond. Keep in mind that at the time this rape occurred this girl was 13-years old and Polanski was 44-years old. That's a difference of 31 years for those keeping score.

"Rape?" you ask. "The charges didn't say anything about rape. And isn't a person innocent until proven guilty?" Read the transcript, and remember that it was so damning that Polanski pled guilty. Sure, they were lesser charges - that's why it's called a plea bargain. Polanski got the bargain; little Miss Gailey got raped. If there is any question in your mind about whether he did wrong by this girl, why don't you ask your 13-year old daughter what she thinks?

There's your background. Back to the petition. Just based upon what I already knew about the case from a lifetime of hearing about it I couldn't understand why anyone would sign a petition in this creep's defense... even cowardly Hollywood-types. Notice that I didn't say it surprised me, just that I couldn't understand it. Perhaps you are having a difficult time, too. Let's explore it together.

The SACD wants to point out that it is conspicuously not talking about the charges against Polanski, just that he was arrested at a film festival. Here is the first element of this moral failure: these people clearly think they and what they do are above the rest of society. Their film industry celebration carries with it protection from the retribution for crimes committed against your daughters. What if the Vatican were to protest that a priest was in church and therefore could not be arrested for raping altar boys? What would you think if a drunk driver tried to escape arrest on manslaughter charges by hiding at an A.A. meeting? Am I immune to legal prosecution as long as I am attending a... I don't know where bloggers gather... as long as I am at Starbucks? Of course not! But the Hollywood elite are not your normal rapists.

Having said that, superiority alone doesn't account for everything in this case. How can a group of people dedicated to ending human trafficking in the third world, rape in the Congo, and the selling of little brown children on the black market (except to fellow Hollywood elitists) defend a man who provided alcohol and drugs to, molested, raped and sodomized a 13-year old girl? Okay, in Woody Allen's case it may not be THAT big a stretch, but what about the 700+ other signatories? It's a matter of philosophy.

The other day my son and I were on a road trip so, having him trapped in the cab of the truck with me, I instructed him on the importance of establishing principles in one's life... and staying true to them. We talked about the apparent difference between embezzling money from someone's retirement plan versus seeing a jerk drop a $20 bill and not mentioning it to him and picking it up after he leaves. One is plainly wrong while the other... well, might be tempting. This is a common problem for many people, and it is the result of learning about right and wrong actions rather than right and wrong philosophies. If you only accept that some actions are wrong, you will likely hesitate, balk, or just fail in the face of a challenging situation. But if, early on, you establish philosophical stances, you will more clearly understand what is right and what is wrong in any situation.

I likened it to a scantron sheet. These are the sheets that have the little bubbles labeled A, B, C, D, and E. You fill in the corresponding bubble for each question asked. If each of these represented the situations you face in your life and you are only armed with the knowledge of right and wrong actions, it can be a daunting task to check each of your answers. Now picture your set of philosophical stances, let's call them principles, as a scantron answer key where each correct answer lines up with "A." By placing the key on top of the scantron sheet one can quickly and clearly identify the "right" actions.

The people who have signed this Polanski petition never went through this process in their life. They never sought the answers. They never accepted truth. And they have no principles. This is why their actions can so often be contradictory. It is why Rosie O'Donnell can work to make handguns illegal for you while her bodyguards carry them. It is why Congress can push Health Care Reform for you, but leave themselves out of it. Hollywood-Washington. They've got you surrounded, America.

I don't know how all of this mess with Polanski will end up. There is talk of misconduct of one of the D.A.'s in the case. The mother of Gailey seems to have been complacent with her accompanying Polanski - there certainly seems to be some hero-worship going on. Some point out that the victim of the crime now wants Polanski forgiven so that all of this would be over - of course, would we really care what Sharon Tate has to say? It's about punishment and stopping future crimes. And folks, if a 44-year old man is capable of drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13-year old girl once, I'll bet you he's done it before, since, and a hundred different ways.

Although I don't know how the case will end up I can assure you of this: Had Samantha Gailey been my daughter there would not have been a Roman Polanski-directed film after 1977. Hell, there wouldn't have been a Roman Polanski after 1977. And I defy any man who reads that transcript to suggest otherwise.

CHOICES: Mice or Men

I do not believe in fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in fate that falls on them unless they act. - GK Chesterton

The other day I sat down in a local eatery for what promised to be a pleasant lunch of enchiladas, refried beans, and rice. I was dining alone at my table due to several factors, including the fact that I have no friends. There were several other occupied tables in the restaurant: two pairs of women, an assortment of men, a couple in their 60's, and a young fella of undetermined age. This last was actually sitting with his back to me at the adjoining booth. I noted he had long, stringy hair, was wearing a "Louisiana" hat indoors and at the table, and was listening to an iPod or some such device.

Shortly after my food arrived his phone rang. This fella proceeded to talk on the phone while eating. And he talked loudly, his hearing no doubt affected by the earbud still plugged into the hole on the other side of his head. Now, this combination of behaviors was enough to annoy me, but I'm a live-and-let-live type of guy. But then the language turned south. At first it was just an a-s here, or a sh*t there, but then it rapidly escalated. F-bombs were being dropped at a rate that would make The Dude blush, hurled across the room at unsuspecting diners, propelled by this Bayou Bum's awesome level of tactlessness.

I watched the wait staff: perhaps out of fear of a tipless reprisal, or because of a tenuous grasp of English profanity, they did nothing to stop him. I watched the man eating with his wife: he was in his 60's but a pretty large guy. He did nothing but look offended for his wife. I didn't look to the other men in the room to do anything because I was as capable as they; my pause was out of deference to the wait staff and the man dining with his wife. Having heard more than I'd wanted I got up and walked over to the public offender, interrupted his phone call, and said, "Hey, there are ladies present in this room... would you cut out the profanity." While technically a question, the intonation made it clear this was a command. He understood, apologized, and cleaned up his act (the language, anyway... I doubt the hair had been cleaned in days).

Why do I tell you this? To look like the hero? No. I most certainly wasn't a hero; I merely requested that another guy show some respect to the women in the room. I wasn't looking to get into a fight either. I'm at the age where I don't even want to fight. It's not that I can't or won't. I've won and lost many in my life. I've forcefully taken swinging bats away from people. I've gotten into a fight (flanked by my brother and former brother-in-law) against 30 people... while dressed up as an M&M (the green one, right Philip?). I've bloodied and been bloodied. Fun and games back in the day. Recently, though, I had an experience that convinced me those days are gone.

Earlier this year, as I did some ring mastering for mixed martial arts fights, I realized just what is walking the streets out there. It wasn't that these fighters were any stronger or tougher than me. I don't even think most of them were that much better at fighting. But what I came to accept is that there are a heckuva lot of people out there who care far less about their own bodies than I care about mine. These guys were getting the fluids beat out of them for a chance to win less than I was making just talking. Of course, those guys are young and can heal while I'm at the age that blowing my nose wrong could result in a stress fracture.

Anyway, back to the restaurant. What astounded me was that not one other man in the restaurant - not even the employees - would do anything about this guy's behavior. I felt a stunned silence fall over the dining room as I confronted the foul-mouthed magpie. Why? Is it that shocking when a man stands up and does what a man should do? Evidently - and sadly - it is: the magpie did as instructed. I certainly didn't mind doing it, but why did the other men refuse? Especially the employees whose job it is to provide a pleasant atmosphere for their customers?

I experienced a similar incident when I was working at McDonald's back in college. A woman and her teenaged daughter came in, followed by two rather drunk 20-something nothings. One of the two drunk men stood right behind (no more than an inch between them) the teenaged girl and proceeded to make lewd comments about her to his friend. The woman and her daughter were scared to death, as evidenced by the looks on their faces. I came out from behind the griddle and informed these two dunderheads that they were going to apologize to the young lady and then leave, thus avoiding a very embarrassing beating in a fast food restaurant. (I was not bluffing as it would not be the first time I'd fought in a restaurant... or even the second. I was a bit wild in those days.) Short story long, they apologized, the two women shot out of the restaurant, and the two drunks wandered out, figuring I meant what I had said and could back it up.

The manager then pulled me to the back, told me to go home, and informed me that I would likely be fired unless I apologized to the drunks. I put the likelihood of that happening in terms of snowballs in hell and his growing of huevos. Alas, my job was spared on my way out when both mother and daughter ran into the restaurant, wrapped their arms around me, and thanked me profusely for standing up for them when no one else (including said manager) would.

Again, I don't bring this up to claim to be a hero. In both incidents I merely did what any man should, so it has nothing to do with self-aggrandizement. And this piece isn't about the deplorable state of American eateries, their employees, or patrons. My whole point is that we have become such a feminized society that men don't stand up in the face of even the simplest of circumstances. Could there have been trouble from the swearing TexMex customer? Unlikely. The two fast food drunks? More likely, but they were both drunk and I was young, sober, and disaffected. I'm sure you see these failures every day: Men ignoring rude behavior. Doors closed in women's faces. Thank you's going unsaid. These are but little issues of civility, yet we as men seemingly can't stand up and demand them. What does that mean for the future?

We needn't wait for the future - the results are all around us. We have a government that is spending us into a $12 trillion national debt that our kids and grandkids will have to pay. While between several thousand and several million (depending upon your news source) people marched on Washington, DC in opposition to this, it's still just an empty gesture. The current administration knows all about symbolic actions, empty gestures, and escalated threats. They mean nothing; therefore, they garner no respect from those in charge. At some point someone must stand up, say, "Enough is enough," and do something about it. Aren't you glad George Washington did? What if he'd said to himself, "Well, it all might cause an ugly scene?"

This manless state of ours is resulting in far worse and immediate dangers for us. Take the current situation with Iran. For quite some time the Iranians have refused to allow international inspectors to examine their uranium enrichment program in order to evaluate whether the rogue state is trying develop nuclear energy capabilities or nuclear weapons. There have been clandestine programs put in place by the Israelis and the U.S. to sabotage Iranian enrichment efforts, but none have been given the green light to act. It is likely the U.S. program has been dismantled, though I have no substantiated information either way (please feel free to comment). On September 20 of this year, Iranian President Mahmoud "Members Only" Ahmadinejad stated that U.S. officials know they are wrong about claims that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, while Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expounded by saying:

The U.S. officials who talk about Iranian missiles and their danger while saying Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb, they know these words are wrong.

Our response was to invite Iran to "dialogue" about its nuclear program. Five days later Iran revealed the existence of a secret underground uranium enrichment plant near Qom. This time the Western world's words were tougher. At the G-20 Barack Obama himself pointed out that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow." England and France joined the U.S. in demanding Iran disclose its nuclear ambitions "or be held accountable" to an impatient world community. Just three days later, in what was a surprise to these same leaders, Iran announced the testing of a missile that could reach any perceived threat to Iran, including Israel, parts of Europe, and U.S. military bases in the Middle East. The U.S. reaction has been a sort of stunned silence.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised the empty gestures and hollow threats haven't been more numerous, given that it was just last month that the Russian cargo ship Arctic Sea went on its bizarre tour of the terrorist world, likely delivering nuclear and/or missile materials to Iran. Of course, this policy of downplaying the importance of keeping nuclear technology out of the hands of dangerous, fanatical extremists is quite consistent with how the administration has dealt with North Korea.

If I had asked you a year ago to name the two most dangerous and downright unstable national leaders in the world, what percentage of you would have replied with Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Well, guess what? These two mad men now (or very soon will) have nuclear material and viable ways to deliver them across a wide arc... unless we do something right now.

But then, if we as men can't stand up to a four-letter word like F*CK, how are we ever to face one like NUKE?

HELTHКAЯE ЯEFORM (Part 5)

Barack Obama pulled it off: The Full Ginsburg. This little maneuver is named after William Ginsburg, Monica Lewinski's lawyer, who once took a damage-control tour of the five big Sunday morning talk shows. (It should be noted that The Full Ginsburg is very different in nature from The Full Lewinski.) So, Obama hoped to match the success of that tour - who doesn't have the utmost respect for M.L. today? - by attempting the same. Last weekend he hit ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and... Univision. Okay, so maybe it was ¿todo el Ginsburg?

This conspicuous absence from Fox News came as a surprise to some and a shock to none. It seems no one wanted to come to terms with Obama's blatant avoidance of the Republican-leaning network, but he really had no choice. For weeks the administration and media had built up the importance of his joint address to Congress in the fight to turn the reddening tides of Health Care Reform. Representative Joe Wilson put an end to that effort with just two words: You lie. Say what you will about decorum, tradition, and self-control, his outburst took every bit of the hot air out of the Helthkare Яeform balloon. I am not defending Joe Wilson because I don't know him and he is a politician, but I will state this move was - intended or not - brilliant.

So when Uncle Barack hit the airwaves he wanted to make sure no one had the opportunity to take away from his agenda by shouting out anything like the truth. [A little explanation here: In his joint speech to Congress Obama stated: The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. This was untrue and that is why Wilson shouted you lie. The media reported that the President's plan does not endorse insurance for illegal aliens and therefore Wilson was wrong. Perhaps they are playing semantics like the President, but in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute he... well, I'll let him speak for himself (as reported by The Washington Times):

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else."

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

It appears that in politicospeak both Wilson and Obama were right. People in this country illegally right now are going to be insured; people in this country illegally right now will be legal by that time. There - no illegal aliens will be provided insurance because there will be no illegal aliens. Gee, no wonder he chose Univision to round out his Modified Ginsburg.]

Back to Fox News. The President skipped appearing on Fox News to send a message to all you Red County rural people out there: The Democratic Party doesn't care what you think, what you believe, or what you have to say. We have the power and we will do what we want, and you slow-witted, homophobic, racist dirtballs are gonna take it.

I know it sounds as though I'm putting words in their mouths now, but consider these:

1. 
   
   Robert Gibbs on Presidential School Speech
   
   
   
2. Nancy Pelosi on Conservative Dissent
3. Jimmy Carter on Joe Wilson
4. Department of Health and Human Services on Free Speech

And that last one takes us to the main subject of Part 5 in this series: Medicare and Medicaid. The purpose of this health care reform initiative (aside from using U.S. taxpayer money to buy votes from the uninsured) is to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid... or rather, shift it to private insurance carriers. How do I know this as a fact? The central stated objective is to provide (read: force) EVERYONE in this country to have health coverage. Medicaid is coverage for the very young and the destitute. Medicare is for older folks who can’t afford the expenses associated with their advancing years. Private health insurance policies are for, seemingly, the people in the middle who can work and pay for coverage in the event of illness.

Currently, this is optional, as it should be. A healthy 22-year old single male really has no major reason to carry health insurance. Can bad, expensive things happen to him? Yes. Statistically, is that possibility worth him spending cash that could otherwise be used for education, professional training, or career advancement? No. Yet he will be forced to have health insurance. Why? Because that's the only way the system will work.

This same 22-year old will no longer need Medicare when he gets older: his employer-provided, mandatory health insurance will be there... into perpetuity. (Yes, employers, get ready to provide health insurance as a permanent - i.e.: post-retirement - benefit.) And his kids? They will have mandatory coverage under his employer’s policy as soon as they come out of the shoot. And if he isn’t employed? The government will ultimately assign coverage from a private insurer. [Please see Part 1 where I compare it to auto insurance, or listen to Obama's own recent comments where he confuses it with auto insurance (4 minutes and 16 seconds mark).] Why? Because Medicaid and Medicare are doomed and Congress knows this. For that matter, anyone with a smattering of mathematical knowledge should also know this. Let me explain:

There are approximately 8 billion Baby Boomers out there right now, steadily approaching the age of incontinence, with only about 47 Gen-X’s to pay the tab. (The totals may be a little off, but I stand behind the ratio.) There is no way for the members of Generation X to provide enough tax revenue to pay for the demands on the Medicare system of so many Baby Boomers. Turn the numbers any way you want. Have the GAO shift the columns in any magical way it chooses. Ask Congress to retroactively shift fiscal-year dates up and down. (These are all tricks the Federal Government regularly uses to convince Joe Public that the balance sheets are legitimate.) No matter how you stack it the system is grossly top heavy. But Medicaid and Medicare in particular are untouchable.

Remember when George W. Bush wanted to shift Medicare to private insurers? The AARP talked about marching on Washington with walkers and torches. “You want us all to die!” they shouted. Yes, actually, that’s what they are waiting for. But you refuse to comply. No politician will touch these programs because they fear reprisals from the voting block that the AARP represents. But if they shifted the burden onto insurance companies and employers, why, you'd have insurance coverage throughout your career and retirement, your kith and kin would also be covered, and only big, bad corporations would have to pay for it. [I've already covered the fallacy of taxing corporations - please go back and reread the second half of Part 4.]

There is a lot here to digest... and my lunch hour is over... so I will stop at this time and continue Part 5 over the next several days.