JeffPo's In the News Page
Last update: 08/11/08
This webpage is similar to my Soapbox page. But instead of long articles, it will be quick opinions on current events. Basically, if I read or hear something in the news that I want to quickly comment on, I'll do it here. This gives me a quick outlet to express my opinion (something I apparently have a need for) and also might spark some debate from those that disagree (or even agree) with me.
John Edwards: finally admits
extramarital affair - 08/11/08
Former Senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards has
finally confessed (after being exposed) to having an affair with a campaign
worker (Rielle Hunter) two years ago, despite previously lying about it and
denying it. When first confronted about the
affair, Edwards said, "The story is false, it's completely untrue, it's
ridiculous".
Here’s what Edwards hypocritically said in 1999 about
President Bill Clinton’s affair:
"I think this president has shown a remarkable
disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his
friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the
level to which that disrespect has risen."
It’s time for this ambulance chasing lawyer to be totally
gone from the public and from politics. He
NEVER had an interest in serving the public, but rather serving himself.
He was a bad senator and he would be a bad president.
Always just say no to John Edwards.
John McCain will be the Republican nominee for president - 02/07/08
Mitt Romney is bowing out of the race for the Republican nomination which effectively means John McCain will be the guy. While I kind of like McCain for his military service and his bipartisan politics, I hadn't really thought that much about Romney. But his "concession" speech says having a Democrat in the White House is the same as surrendering to the terrorists. Not only is that a bald face lie and distortion, but it pretty much lets me know what a piece of garbage Romney is. Now I'm glad he's dropping out.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama remain. Another piece of garbage, John Edwards, has already dropped out. I prefer Hillary over Obama given she's better qualified and he's too anti-gun. Plus he has no experience, in anything. He's good at giving speeches, but that's all I know.
I still don't know if I'll be voting Republican or Democratic this year. I need to research McCain a bit more. He's been somewhat of an insider and elitist all his life, which I'm pretty much against. He has definitely used politics and money to get where he's at. But I like his more liberal stance of politics and willingness to compromise. His military credentials are above reproach. Now let's watch how the hate mongers such as Coulter and Limbaugh spin this. I think they WILL support McCain, despite their lies to the contrary.
Right wing hate mongers attack John
McCain –
Rush Limbaugh on “Phony Soldiers”
–
Right wing hate monger and Republican party spokesman Rush
Limbaugh recently referred to soldiers that didn’t agree with supporting the
Is Bill O’Reilly a racist? -
09/27/07
Well, he could be. While
I can agree with him on some points, I generally consider him a right wing
hypocritical hate monger. He’s a
lighter version of Rush Limbaugh, though I think O’Reilly’s ego is much
larger. His recent comments after
eating at a
On the surface I agree that it appears that O’Reilly was expecting his dining experience to be different because the restaurant was staffed and frequented by black people. He seemed surprised that black people could actually behave in a restaurant. If he really believed this, at most you could say he believes in stereotypes, but you can’t make a case that he’s a racist. Oh, he might be one for all I know, but you can’t get that from his statements. In fact, I don’t even think he really believes in the stereotypes. I think he just stuck his foot in his mouth trying to make a point, but he inflated ego is keeping him from explaining himself because he wants to play up the “I’m a victim of the liberal media” angle. He’s a master spin doctor and is bringing the criticism upon himself. O’Reilly should just state what he meant, confess he messed up in his delivery, and be done with it. But like most right wingers, he thinks himself perfect so he’ll never own up to a mistake. In that case, he deserves any criticism he gets.
Say no to John Edwards - 08/08/07
Former single term US Senator and personal injury lawyer John Edwards is running for president (yes, again). He is a horrible choice!
Republican strategy = al Qaeda just as strong - 07/18/07
When White House Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend was pressed to at least admit that not catching Osama bin Laden is a major failure she instead said it was a “success that hasn't happened yet." What?!!! You have a President and a political party that NEVER concedes a point, NEVER admits a mistake, NEVER thinks they ever do anything wrong. They stay the course no matter what the data or outcome. After “mission accomplished”, billions upon billions of tax payer money spent, instant Halliburton millionaires at tax payer expense, thousands of American military dead, tens of thousands of American military maimed and crippled for life, we learn that al Qaeda is just as strong as ever. Why would anyone in their right mind support George Bush and the Republican party? While the Democrats might not have a clue or even an answer, everyone (with common sense) at least knows the Republicans not only have it wrong, but they will continue along the same wrong path!
Earthlink: Worst Customer Service Ever! - 05/04/07
I have an article on my Soapbox page:
Earthlink: Worst Customer Service Ever!
Stopping the Virginia Tech gunman –
I’ve heard a few people ask why the students/teachers didn’t rise up and stop the Virginia Tech gunman during his shooting rampage. While on the surface it seems like a logical thing to do, that is, everyone rush him and take him down, then beat the snot out of him, if you actually consider the situation and circumstances you’ll realize it would be a difficult task without some serious sacrifice. First of all, if another student or teacher had possession of their own firearm, they could have easily brought down the shooter. But the laws and rules (that criminals don’t follow) have disarmed us in that on school grounds (and our jobs), we’re nothing but sheep for slaughter when a madman shows up.
So the next response is group attack. And that would work. If a group attacked the gunman, grabbing his gun and punching him, they would have stopped him. But there would have been a very heavy price to pay. The gunman had the upper hand in every conceivable way. First he had the element of surprise. No one could sneak up on him. Secondly, he had the firepower. A semi-automatic 9mm Glock pistol is a formidable weapon. It can unleash a deadly round as fast as you can pull the trigger. And it can be loaded with up to 16 rounds. Plus he had a second semi-automatic pistol. Thirdly, and in conjunction with the weapon, the gunman had the proverbial “high ground” in the form of position and distance. He was at the door, so he could survey the entire room, plus by being at the doorway he was far enough away so that no one could grab him. That means for people to get their hands on him, they have to cover a significant distance. Far enough that a person would be shot multiple times.
The bottom line is that even though a group of people charging the gunman could have probably stopped him, the first few people at the front would likely be shot multiple times. That’s a BIG sacrifice to make, knowing that you WILL get shot, and possibly/likely killed. That’s why the students and teachers did not, and could not stop this gunman.
Virginia Tech Massacre - 04/18/07
I have an article on my Soapbox page:
John Edwards wastes campaign money - 04/18/07
Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards is proving once again, that despite his false claims, he does NOT represent the middle class. He recently got two haircuts from a stylist in Beverly Hills, CA, for the price of $400 each! He also spent $250 at a trendy salon and spa in Iowa, and another $225 at a salon in New Hampshire. Did this slimy lawyer millionaire, who claims to represent the poor and middle class pay out of his own pocket? NO!!! He used donated money from the Democratic Campaign! Wake up people! This guy was a poor excuse as a senator and if given the chance, he'll be a poor excuse as president. He only represents his own goals and ambitions. Plus, he STILL hasn't paid some people that worked on his FIRST campaign. The amount is a few thousand dollars yet this MILLIONAIRE refuses to pay! Edwards should not be trusted. Don't be stupid and support him or his campaign in any way.
Ann Coulter: more right-wing hate - 03/07/07
Republican spokeswoman and representative, Ann Coulter, is once again spewing her nasty right-wing venom in her continual attacks on anyone representing the Democratic Party. In the latest episode, Coulter referred to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot", a slur commonly used by people in their denunciation of homosexuals. Does Ann Coulter really think Edwards is gay? No, I doubt it. More than likely she just wanted to say something very mean and hateful, her typical operating procedure. It also might demonstrate some underlying hatred of homosexuals, which is also representative of the political party she speaks for. But her Republican audience ate it up, and applauded in apparent agreement. Republican apologist David Horowitz tried to explain it as Coulter thinking "faggot" means "sissy". No, Coulter knows exactly what it means.
Interestingly, fellow Republican hate monger Glen Beck actually criticized Coulter for her comment. What?! A Republican realizing that hate speech can sometimes backfire? I guess Coulter went a little too far for him and he's worried about it affecting the next general election. Anyway, I commend him on speaking against Coulter, even with a transgression this obvious.
"Why I Hate Blacks" - 02/28/07
No, not me. That was the title of an article by Kenneth Eng in the San Francisco-based newspaper, AsianWeek. Eng, a science fiction writer, had a long list of the stereotypical reasons why he hated black people. And of course it has caused an uproar. Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to condemn him and the newspaper. And of course the newspaper has issued an apology and fired Eng. The newspaper editors/owners are gutless and wrong. This is the United States of America, where we have first amendment rights, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press. We should be allowed to hate, or love, anyone for any reason. Sure it's controversial. Sure some will be offended. But that's a very small price to pay for the freedoms we enjoy. Plus, it can actually be a positive thing by being a catalyst to start discussions on race relations. Some of these perceived stereotypes need to be exposed, explored, and debated. Even so, I have a sneaky feeling that we're not seeing the true heart of Kenneth Eng. He was an unknown, aspiring writer before this. Now the whole nation is talking about him. He's even on MY webpage! :) I wonder if this was just a publicity stunt.
Barack Obama - political speak 02/28/07
Black presidential candidate Barack Obama said during an interview that he doesn't think he has a black "monolithic" vote just because he happens to be black. He's either lying, or stupid. Of course he has a large monolithic slice of the black vote simply because of his skin color. That's just the reality of the situation. Whether they admit it or not, black people want a black president and many will vote for him solely on this issue, regardless of his political views or party.
Also, have you noticed all the right wing Republican hate mongers seem to have nothing but nice things to say about Obama? And they criticize anything his opponents say about him. We've got a word for people that do this in North Carolina: Jesse-crats. The term was coined for Republicans that registered as Democrats, so they could vote in the primary for what they perceived as the weakest Democratic candidate. That way when their god, Jesse Helms, ran for the senate, he would probably win. I believe the Republicans think that America will not vote a black candidate into the White House so they are hoping, and doing whatever they can, to bolster Obama in hopes that he will be on the Democratic ticket, thus ensuring the Republican candidate will win. I predict they will not get nasty on Obama until (and if) he's the official Democratic candidate.
John Edwards: hypocritical, self-serving piece of crap - 02/22/07
It seems that hypocrite and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is first in line to start attacking his fellow Democrats in his campaign to win the White House. Edwards is chastising fellow candidate Hillary Bush for her vote on the war with Iraq. He negatively claims her vote is "between her and her conscience" and said, "It's not for me to judge". But this piece of crap Edwards actually voted for the Iraqi war himself!!! He has been running for the White House in some capacity for the last SEVEN years. He is driven by his own personal wants of power. Even as North Carolina's senator, he never served the people or even cared. He spent most of his time on the campaign trail. Now he has the nerve to cast stones at another candidate for doing the SAME EXACT THING that he did? Edwards was too much of a coward to vote against the war because he feared the political backlash in this Republican neo-McCarthyism era. He lacked backbone as a senator and he doesn't have the backbone to be president. Any Democrats voting for him just because he's a Democrat should be ashamed of themselves.
Roland Martin: black racist - 02/20/07
I was channel surfing when I landed on the Paula Zahn Now show on CNN. There were three people on there that I've never heard of. One was a black guy named Roland Martin. Apparently he has a radio show or something. There was also a black lady on there, and a white lady. The topics included flying the Confederate battle flag, parties in which people dress up as stereotypical minorities, and how women are portrayed in black Hip Hop videos/culture. According to Martin, Southerners are traditionally traitors to their country and that's what they represent when they flag the Confederate flag. This piece of crap doesn't understand anything about the southern culture or first amendment rights. When it comes to the minority themed parties, he thinks the students should be punished and blames the parents. He knows nothing about freedom of expression. Sure the parties might be offensive, but I don't drunken college students set out with a plan to demean minorities. It's a joke, a tasteless, thoughtless joke, but it's a joke. And what about the Hip Hop culture that portrays black women as sexual objects, as whores, as promiscuous, that promotes drugs and gang violence? Oh, he's okay with that because that's helped the black men become millionaires. I think Roland Martin is a racist piece of crap. Oh, the black lady on there is the same piece of crap as he is. She too had problems with southerners and the parties, but thought we should not be too judgmental of the hip hop videos.
Glen Beck: right wing hate monger - 02/20/07
Channel surfing again and came across Glen Beck, an extreme right wing hate monger. He was attacking Hillary Clinton for honoring her marriage to Bill Clinton. Apparently a recent poll of women thought Hillary was strong for working through her marriage and staying with her husband. Of course what he's really worried about is her gaining any points in the political arena. He's a typical, hate filled, hypocritical Republican. He couldn't even accept his two guests that agreed that the Clintons have a strong relationship and that working on a marriage is seen as strength. Apparently this loser is divorced so part of it might be his shame of being such a lousy piece of crap when it came to his own marriage. But more likely it's just the usual right wing attack plan. He finished the segment by picking on the clothes Hillary wears. Republicans have no shame or decency.
Barack Obama: the gutless wonder - 02/14/07
Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama apologized for saying the lives of the more than 3,000 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war were "wasted." Fearing the political backlash of the neo-McCarthyism that has been ushered in the by the Republicans, Obama said the remark was a "slip of the tongue". Shame on him for not having the guts to stand by his own words. Sometimes we do say things in a way that was not intended, but I don't think that is the case here. Lots of us feel our soldier's lives are being wasted in Iraq and I'm sure that's the true feelings of Obama. But I'm sure he's afraid that it will give Republicans (or even his Democratic opponents) ammunition to say he doesn't support the military. Not sticking to his guns is a mark against him in my book.
Forgiveness - 01/31/07
What does forgiveness mean? The church club social Christian will claim that we need to forgive sinners/criminals for what they do, but in the same breath they say the person still needs to be punished. Is that correct? Should a forgiven person still be punished? NO! To forgive means to absolve, to pardon, to grant relief from payment of, etc. Once a debt is forgiven, that debt is no longer owed. When Jesus forgave the adulterous woman, he didn't say, "Your sins are forgiven, but sorry, we've still got to stone you." Is God going to say at judgment day, "Your sins were forgiven, but you still have to pay by spending some time in the lake of fire"? Forgiveness means the debt is gone. So why are these Christians saying they forgive, but people still must be punished? It's because they are FAKE Christians. They don't read or understand the bible. They go to their church on Sunday, which is nothing more than a social club, and follow the secular, modernized teachings they hear. They want criminals punished, but they still want to shine their Christian halos and polish their Christian badges. So they falsely claim they have forgiven people. Being a true Christian is a tough road to follow. Being a fake Christian is as easy as attending the mega-church on Sundays.
Godless churches - 01/23/07
What's a Godless church? Drive around town and you'll find them about everywhere you look. See that behemoth of a church sitting on the corner? See the stained glass and manicured lawn? See the Mercedes, BMWs, and other luxury cars parked out front? That's probably a Godless church. Where you find a lot of money is where you'll find an absence of the presence of Jesus. One only needs to read the gospels to see that you can't love money and Jesus at the same time. These huge churches, with million dollar budgets, and their fancy buildings and organs and decorations are nothing but large secular businesses. They operate under the ruse of being Christian. They are nothing more than social clubs so that people can claim they are one with God, though by their actions through the week you wouldn't know they had even set foot in a church on Sunday. Have you seen how big the Colonial Baptist Church Corporation on Tryon road is getting? That is nothing but a big, social club business. I use to attend that church. Never, ever felt God's presence. It was no more religious than a music concert, or PTA meeting. It was just a place for the affluent to meet and greet and boost their holier than thou feelings.
Take the St. Michael the Archangel Catholic church for example. When a 75 year old usher, who had attended the church for 31 years, was suspected of taking money from the collection plate, what did the church do? Did they follow the teachings of Christ? Did they council the man? Did they take him under their wing, forgive him, and offer to help set him on the correct path? Nope! They called the police which setup a sting operation with the Cary Police, who installed 10 hidden cameras, planted marked money in the plate, and posed as worshippers. The old man was caught and the church is pressing charges. Do you feel the love? This is a Godless church.
Apple's fraudulent commercials - 01/18/07
I've never been one to pick sides when it comes to computers. While I exclusively use an IBM/Intel based computer (PC), it doesn't mean that I hate the Apple computer (Mac). In fact, I've used Macs in school and work. They seemed fine. I'm a PC man because that's what I'm use to. So why is it that so many Mac users not only exclusively use Macs, but also hate and denounce PCs? Not only that, they will purposely spread false information about the PC. Take the Mac commercials you see on TV. They paint the Mac as perfect, but the PC as boring and virus ridden, and not able to perform the same tasks. Nothing could be further from the truth. PCs can do all the things that a Mac can do. They can be powerful business machines AND entertainment machines. Just visit your local gaming store and see how many games there are for the PC versus the Mac. The current deceptive Mac commercial says how dangerous and scary it is to update a PC. Lies! I've been through several major operating system updates, and lots of software updates and it's always been pretty much a seamless operation.
Back in 2002, Apple ran commercials implying that you couldn't use your digital camera with a PC without searching for software drivers. Apple tried to scare people into believing they wouldn't be able to see their Christmas pictures. It was nothing but lies and fraud. As an experiment, I connected my digital camera to various machines with various Windows operating systems and every one of them displayed my pictures WITHOUT the need for extra drivers or software. If Apple has to stoop to lies and deception to sell their Macs, why trust anything they say and make?
Book of Faith? - 01/18/07
If I hear one more fake-Christian hypocrite claim the bible is a "book of faith" rather than a "book of facts", I think I'll puke. That's what you'll hear from these social club style Christians in response to complaints about biblical inconsistencies, or the fact that people often don't take some portions of the bible literally. It's what they are taught to say in their church club meetings on Sundays, and they just regurgitate the rhetoric without giving it any thought. But if the bible is not a book of facts, then by definition it is a book of fiction. That makes it no different that Huckleberry Finn, or Salem's Lot, or Catcher in the Rye. Time for these pretend Christians to actually read the bible they thump so much. They need to be able to give independent assessment and accounting of the bible rather than the hearsay of what some other fake Christian said during a church meeting. Either accept what the bible says, and deal with it, or take off the Christian costume. Otherwise you might as well be using a book from Oprah Winfrey's book club for a guide to your salvation.
Gods, spooks, and goblins - 01/03/07
Do you believe in spooks and goblins? Do you believe in Poseidon, Zeus, Jehovah, God, Allah, Vishnu, or any other god(s)? Do you pray or are you superstitious? Then do I have a website for you!:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com
But be warned, this site is NOT for the religious faint of heart. There are no punches pulled on this one. It's not nasty, but the author logically, intelligently, and concisely tells believers that they are delusional and their beliefs are nothing but fairy tales. Take a look.
Pat Robertson has been on the phone with God again - 01/03/07
God's right hand man, possibly ousting Jesus from the seat, Pat Robertson has claimed that God's been speaking to him again. Robertson said God told him that there would be a "mass killing" from a terrorist attack on the United States. The time frame is late 2007. God didn't give a specific date, apparently not wanting to spoil the surprise. Robertson also claimed that God told him a tsunami would hit America last year. That didn't happen. But Robertson thinks he has a pretty "good track record" though does admit, "Sometimes I miss." I guess God doesn't always get it right. I think it goes without saying, that Robertson (and everyone that follows or believes him) is a loon.
Don't trust John Edwards! - 01/01/07
Former personal injury lawyer and former North Carolina senator John Edwards is yet again running for president. Edwards announced his re-newed goal of becoming president while "volunteering" at a food bank in New Orleans. If you think he would have been there "helping" if not for his campaign ambitions, you are sadly mistaken. He has been running for president ever since being first elected for his single term as a senator. Instead of being here, or in Washington, representing the citizens of North Carolina, he was out on the campaign trail. Everything he does is orchestrated to help in his pursuit of his personal goals. He made his millions off the misery of others, by suing for big settlements. This multi-millionaire claims to represent the middle and lower class. He briefly became director of the Center on Poverty, Work & Opportunity. But just as he abandoned the people of North Carolina to campaign, he now has turned his back on the Center for his new campaign. He took that post only to add to his resume in his bid for the presidency. Don't trust him. He doesn't care about you. Don't vote for him. He sided with George Bush and voted to wage war against Iraq even though there was no proof of Bush's claims. Why? Because he was afraid he would lose votes in future elections if he didn't. Getting votes is more important to him than anything else. Now, thanks to his support of Bush, over 3000 American military have died in the Iraqi quagmire. He doesn't represent his fellow Americans, he only represents his own personal agenda and his pursuit of political power. Don't trust John Edwards!
Saddam Hussein executed! - 12/30/06
Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging on Saturday morning, Dec. 30, 2006. First let me state, that this was an evil, despicable man, who deserved death. He should have been doused with gasoline and set on fire. However, the new leaders of Iraq that try to claim Hussein went to the gallows as a "broken man" with "fear in his face" are liars. I've seen the video. While it is understandable that they would want him to fear his end, he did not. He was dignified and seemed brave to the very end. In fact, his executioners were taunting, hooded cowards. They hid their faces, shouted insults, and tried to provoke Hussein. This was NOT an official looking, government execution. It was a sectarian lynching. Because of President Bush, one evil dictator has been replaced by more evil. I have no sympathy for Hussein. But the new Iraqi government has no legitimacy. President Bush got Saddam Hussein, but in the process he started a civil war and has wasted over 3000 American lives. I sure hope Bush thinks it was worth it.
No Christmas for you! - 12/12/06
Well, no Christmas trees that is, for visitors traveling through the Seattle-Tacoma Airport (SEATAC). The airport had put up nine Christmas trees to decorate the airport and give it a festive look. But of course you know there's always a Grinch lurking somewhere. Jewish Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky complained about the display, saying he wanted a menorah displayed next to the trees. The Rabbi hired a lawyer and threatened to sue if he didn't get his way. Given how busy the airport staff is this time of year, and fearing the addition of a menorah would mean that even more symbols of the various other religions and cultures would have to be researched and added, the airport decided to do the most prudent thing and removed the Christmas trees. Of course even that didn't satisfy Bogomilsky and his lawyer. His lawyer, Harvey Grad, had the audacity to whine that he was concerned that the removal of the Christmas trees would portray the Jewish community as the Grinch. Given that this slime and his client threatened to sue if they didn't get their way, what did he expect?!
Given the negative backlash (rightfully so), the Rabbi Bogomilsky and counselor Grad have backed down on their threats of a lawsuit. The airport has decided to take time from their busy schedule, once again, and restore the Christmas trees that were taken down. But Grad couldn't let it go without more jabs at those that complained about the removal of the Christmas trees because of his actions. He had the nerve to question their "spirit of Christmas" and even tried to imply that the airport was holding "Christmas hostage". What gall! Bogomilsky and Grad are the ones that threatened to file a lawsuit because they didn't like the Christmas tree display the way it was. The airport and the local American public had the final say on these two Grinches.
"Protesting" funerals - 12/01/06
North Carolina approved a law that would ban people from trying to disrupt a funeral or memorial service. Anyone trying to do so could be charged with disorderly conduct. The law was passed in response to protests by a venom-filled church at funerals of slain American soldiers. The Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, led by hate-monger Fred Phelps, thinks God is the one killing our soldiers in Iraq, for punishment against America for allowing homosexuals to exist. And to express this perverted view, members of his church like to protest at the funerals of military personnel with signs saying things such as, "Thank God for 9/11," "God is U.S.A.’s Terrorist," "God hates you," "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "America is Doomed."
I applaud the new North Carolina law and hope other states enact similar, and even more severe laws against the activities of hate groups such as this Baptist church. While I fully support the First Amendment and the freedom of expression (especially if it's a pretty girl on a silver pole at the strip club), they shouldn't be used to torment those that are grieving and want privacy. Lines have to be drawn somewhere and this is a clear example of where it should be drawn. There is a point where human decency overrides perceived civil liberties.
“Take it up with God” – 11/29/06
A Memphis, TN church gave a New Orleans woman a $75,000 house after she told them that she had lost everything to Hurricane Katrina and wanted to settle in Memphis. The church agreed to give her a house, free and clear, if she and her family did settle in the area. Well the church gave her the house in February, and by September she had sold the house for a cool $88,000 (without ever moving in) and left town. There is also some doubt as to whether the woman actually did lose her possessions to the storm. Apparently the church members were too stupid to think about verifying the woman’s story before handing over a free house.
But the interesting part of this story isn’t the scam they pulled on the church, but rather what the husband of the woman said to a reporter afterwards. He said that anyone having problems with their deception and scam could “take it up with God”. I almost fell out the chair laughing when I heard that. I bet he practiced saying that line over and over before the interview. It was classic! Even better was the reporter's reaction. You could tell the comment came out of left field and smacked her like a freight train. Totally unexpected. Her response? She could only repeat his comment. "Take it up with God??!!", she said with exasperated disbelief. You could hear her frustration. She didn't know what to say after that. Of course religious doctrine implies they could in fact take it up with God if they didn’t like what happened. However the REALITY of the situation could be heard in the reporter's voice, because she KNOWS they might as well also take it up with Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster because the outcome will be the same.
Democratic Party takes the House! - 11/09/06
For the first time in about 12 years, the Democratic Party now holds a majority in the House of Representatives. And it's likely that they will also take the Senate once the count is settled in Virginia. Despite the low voter turnout, there were enough votes to remove incumbent Republicans throughout the land. Why was there such a backlash against the Republican Party and their politicians? Well the main reason was President George Bush himself. He has misled the American public time and time again. He has led us into an unnecessary war in Iraq and sacrificed the lives of thousands of American soldiers. He publicly claims he doesn't make mistakes and his "stay the course" mentality means he won't change, even if the path leads to ruin for our nation.
The second reason is the actions of the Republican members themselves. First they treat Bush as the second coming of Christ, and regard him as their Lord and Savior. They claim he can do no wrong. Then they go about their business as usual, which is directly opposed to the Constitution and the American way of life. And America finally said enough is enough! There were tired of the culture that Republican's nourish and represent. Americans were tired of the culture of corruption, the culture of deception, the culture of lies, the culture of greed, the culture of hate, the culture of intolerance, and the culture of neo-McCarthyism.
And let's not forget the right-wing hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Emmett Tyrrell Jr., Mike Savage, and others. I doubt there would have been a Democratic victory if they hadn't been there, spreading their vitrol across the airwaves, newspapers, and bookstores. They were the mouthpieces of the Republican Party and they helped bring the party down. Their unrelenting hate and intolerance, and their lies and deception, succeeded in turning mainstream Americans toward the Democratic party for relief. While the political candidates could only spend so much money on mud slinging advertisements, these hate mongers were out there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, sowing the seeds of destruction for the Republican Party.
Let's just hope the Democratic Party can figure a way out of the mess that the Republican Party got us into.
Republicans blame American military for mess in Iraq - 11/02/06
House Majority Leader John Boehner, speaking for his fellow Republicans, blamed the current political, social, and military mess in Iraq on our American military in a statement Wednesday. Following the Republican stay the course mentality of never accepting responsibility or admitting fault, Boehner and Republicans were trying to shield Defense Secretary Donalld Rumsfeld from any criticism. Boehner said, "Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld....the fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge". So the President and the Republicans sent our American soldiers into Iraq without a plan, on false claims, and without proper logistical backing, but when the inevitable quagmire of the situation becomes apparent, the Republicans want to lay the blame on our military leaders. They don't want to blame the Iraqi rebel fighters, the brewing civil war, or the international terrorists that have been pouring in since Bush helped open up the borders. And what about the Rumsfeld, since he's in charge of the military? No, Republicans can't blame other Republicans. So they blame our American military leaders, who are giving their lives daily in this screwed up war started by Bush and the Republicans.
John Kerry's foot-in-mouth disease - 11/01/06
Just when Democrats thought they saw a light at the end of the tunnel, along comes former presidential candidate Senator John Kerry with a botched joke that gives Republicans ammunition in their get-out-the-hate campaign. Kerry, while addressing students at Pasadena City College, said "study hard" and "do your homework" and "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." George Bush and other Republicans jumped all over this, claiming Kerry is calling American soldiers stupid, and he should apologize. Republican's have been given something they can run with, and get nasty. They know nasty. Democrats, who've been basking in the light that's been exposing the Republican culture of corruption, choked on their lunches.
Did Kerry call the troops stupid? Does he owe them an apology? The answer is no and yes. First of all Kerry did NOT call the troops stupid. While it may seem that way on the surface, the reality of the situation is that Kerry was trying to demean the president and messed up what he was suppose to say. It should have gone something like, "if you aren't smart….you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq". He was trying to insult the president's intelligence. While I suspect that Bush might be the least intelligent president we've ever had, Kerry shouldn't be stooping so low as to adopt Republican campaign tactics. He should apologize to the troops, but explain to them that he didn't intentionally mean to imply they were stupid.
And what have the Republicans done since learning that Kerry botched on low-blow joke on the president and really didn't call the troops stupid? Why they've continued to twist the facts, lie, and still say that he did call the troops stupid. They have learned that in America, lies and hate will get out the vote.
Hypocrite George Bush/Republicans on gay marriage - 10/31/06
George Bush is out campaigning for Republicans (at tax payers expense). Last week a New Jersey court sided with gay marriage advocates in ruling that they have been discriminated against. That's a no-brainer. But Bush and the Republicans are fearful that they won't be allowed to discriminate in order to gain political votes. Bush/Republicans are decrying gay marriage, and somehow see it as a reason to vote against the Democrats. But wait a minute, isn't it the REPUBLICAN party that seems to have all the homosexuals lately? Isn't Vice-President Dick Cheney the one with the gay daughter? Isn't the Vice-President's wife, Lynne Cheney, the one that write novels with lesbian love scenes? Wasn't recently disgraced gay congressman, Mark Foley, a Republican? And what about all the other gay Republicans? There you have it, typical hypocritical Republican policy.
Additionally, President Bush said, "I believe I should continue to appoint judges who strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench". Hmmm, previously a campaigning Bush said he would only "appoint federal judges that believe in God" (or something to that effect). By the way, that's a religious test, which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution. But given how the Republicans seem to daily wipe their butts with the Constitution, they're not going to let that stand in their way. It seems that George Bush's and the Republican's stance flips and flops more than pancakes.
George Bush and the Republicans only represent themselves and other Republicans. Our politicians should represent ALL AMERICANS, regardless of political party, race, creed, social standing, economic status, or sexual orientation.
Republican Spokesman Rush Limbaugh claims Parkinson's Disease effects are faked - 10/25/06
Hypocrite, liar, drug user, and all around nasty guy Rush Limbaugh, a Conservative talk show host and mouthpiece of the Republican party, has once again shown his ignorance and lack of any human compassion or decent morality. Limbaugh has denounced and criticized actor Michael J. Fox for having the audacity of letting the effects of his Parkinson's Disease be seen. Fox has done a political commercial for a Democratic candidate in favor of stem-cell research. You can see the full effects of the disease on Fox, by his shaking and rocking. Hate mongerer Rush Limbaugh claims that Fox is "acting". He says the shaking and moving is "purely an act" and that it is "shameless". Limbaugh claims that Fox is "exaggerating the effects of the disease". Remember that Limbaugh is the same guy that claims light pollution is fake (i.e. he effectively claims you can see as many stars from downtown as you can from the country) and that being hooked on drugs is a choice rather than an addiction (though he didn't make the same claim for his own drug usage).
The real facts of the matter are that Parkinson's Disease is real, and the effects are real. And they get progressively worse. Limbaugh is worried that this will cause Republicans to lose votes so he's willing to lie and assault Michael Fox's character in an attempt to keep that from happening. It's typical of Limbaugh and it's typical of Republicans. Remember during the last elections when the Republicans called people unpatriotic, even though they had lost legs and arms in various wars?! Limbaugh speaks for Republicans and their philosophy and they believe in and support what he says.
Michigan's Board of Education finally shows Intelligent Design - 10/11/06
The Michigan State Board of Education has approved a curriculum that supports the teaching of evolution in science classes, but NOT "intelligent design". The reasoning behind the idea of intelligent design is that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by a higher force (i.e. God). Ironically, this type of reasoning is how most gods were invented. Man couldn't explain things like wind, storms, lightning, the stars, etc. so they invented gods to explain them. I applaud the Michigan Board of Education for realizing that SCIENCE, not religion, should be taught in SCIENCE classes. While the theory of evolution might not yet be an absolute proven fact, it's the best theory going so far with tons and tons (both figuratively and literally) of evidence and TESTABLE science. Teachings about God, Vishnu, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Zeus, Apollo, Amon-Ra, etc. should be done in the churches, synagogues, temples, shrines, covenants, etc. Finally, an Education Board that shows some signs of intelligent design in their decisions.
Apex, NC chemical fire - 10/10/06
A hazardous waste disposal company, Environmental Quality Industrial Services, located in Apex, NC, had an explosion and fire on Thursday night. Some residents in the area were evacuated because of the fear of toxic fumes. The very NEXT day, the less desirables of our community (in my opinion) are already crawling out from under their rocks and filing lawsuits, trying to make money any way they can. This is a symbol of what's wrong with our society and what erodes the social values we use to have in the Southern states. We don't even know what caused the explosion and fire yet. We don't know if it was negligence from the company, or just an unforeseeable accident, or sabotage. The lawsuit claims that chlorine gas was released (among other things), then goes on to state how chlorine gas was a weapon during World War I. That's irrelevant to this case, but sounds good on a lawsuit when you're trying to get some stupid jury to give you some cash. However, the company has stated that chlorine gas was NOT stored at the facility . Furthermore, air samples taken by state monitors did NOT show any elevated levels of chlorine gas. So it appears that they are just making this up!!! THEY should be sued for making false claims! It's despicable what people and their lawyers will do in this day and time for a buck.
Nuclear North Korea - 10/09/06
North Korea claims to have tested a nuclear weapon. The test has been met with condemnation. However, North Korea developing nuclear weapons was an inevitable path given the policies of President Bush and the Republicans. Labeling them as evil, attacking another country that was labeled as evil, and refusing to sit down at the negotiation table does not make for good international diplomacy. Do you feel safer today than five years ago?
Here's my full article on the subject:
Nuclear North Korea (with thanks to President Bush & Republicans)
Man shoots fleeing criminal - 09/20/06
62-year-old Randle Holmes of Smithfield, NC fired shots into a car that was carrying 19-year-old Derrick Barnes. Holmes claims Barnes has just tried to burglarize his home and was fleeing. Holmes fired four times, striking Barnes once in the arm. Barnes is charged with burglary, but the District Attorney, Tom Lock, is looking into charging Holmes with felonious assault or shooting a gun into an occupied vehicle.
Sadly, the laws of man are probably against Holmes. In North Carolina, you can use lethal force to stop someone if you fear for your life or fear great bodily harm. But if the assault has stopped, the law doesn't allow you to shoot the fleeing criminal. It all comes down to the attitude of the local District Attorney, or the Grand Jury. I'm of the opinion that not only should you be allowed to use lethal force to stop an attack, but the laws of nature would say that you can use force to remove the threat. An escaping criminal is still a threat. They are a threat to you because they may return and they are a threat to the public because they will probably attack someone else. If a person is willing to break into a home, more than likely they are willing to do violence against anyone they find inside the home. The results are usually very bad. It should never be a crime to remove these bad people from society, whether they are coming into the home or running from it. The people that take out these criminals should be viewed as public servants.
NOTE: I do not condone shooting people just because they are annoying, or harassing, or trespassing, etc. You shoot when you fear for your life, or feared for your life. I'm talking about dealing with people that would do violence against you or your family. Nor would I ever actually shot a fleeing burglar. I'm just saying I wouldn't condemn those that do, and I think the laws should be changed so that they would not be in danger of prosecution.
Comair plane crash from wrong runway - 09/13/06
Comair Flight 5191 crashed on the morning of August 27, 2006, while attempting to take off from a Lexington, Kentucky airport. Forty nine people were killed, with only the co-pilot (who was piloting the plane when it crashed) surviving. Just five days later, on September 1, the first lawsuit against the airline was filed by the family members of a crash victim, in an attempt to make some money off of the tragedy. I'm sure there will be many more. Even before this suit was filed, a Texas law firm ran a full page newspaper ad, promising maximum damages payments. The lawyers eyes are lighting up with dollar signs. Seems like a day doesn't go by that we don't hear of some discrepancy or problem with the airport or the control tower. Given the common stupidity that runs rampant in most jury pools, the lawyers are overdosing on this "slam dunk" get rich case. Any more "good news" and the lawyers will blow a happy/greedy fuse in their brains.
Here are the true facts of the case as we know them. There was one controller in the tower, when FAA regulations said their should have been two. The controller instructed the plane to use Runway 22, a 7000 foot runway. The plane took Runway 26 instead, which was only half as long, which is why it crashed (i.e. never got enough speed to fully fly). The taxi routes at the airport had recently been changed. Comair had charts depicting the old taxi routes. The lights on the short Runway 26 were out. And controllers at the airport had complained about a hostile work environment and being understaffed in the months preceding the crash. Slam dunk case? Yes, given how stupid American juries are this is a lawyers wet dream. However the ONLY ones really responsible for this crash are the pilot and co-pilot.
First of all, the air traffic controllers are only responsible for giving the pilots clearance. Once that's done, their responsibility is over. Sure, a more alert, less busy, or even a second controller might have noticed the plane taking the wrong runway, but it's not their job to monitor the plane. The pilots have supreme authority on the plane. It's their responsibility to know the airport, the runways, and any changes that might have taken place. You're taught that during flight training. Even if the taxi routes changed, the runways did not. The pilot, who taxied the plane, made the mistake of turning onto the wrong runway. There should have been a sign indicating the runway number. He apparently didn't pay attention to that. His compass heading should match the runway number he had clearance for. He apparently didn't pay attention to that. The runway lights were out (and it was dark). They noted it, but still didn't give it the concern they should have. Both the pilot and co-pilot failed on these three key things, and that resulted in the crash. They bare the sole responsibility for it. Of course the lawyers are only going to sue whoever has money. They don't care about who's really responsible. Oh yeah, when the co-pilot woke up in the hospital, he said, "Why did God do this to me?" Maybe the families should sue God. Given how rich the churches and organized religions are in America, the Guy should be loaded!
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. shows ignorance once again - 08/25/06
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the extreme right wing columnist known for his hypocrisy and hate mongering, once again reaches out to spread mis-information and demonstrate his total lack of understanding of even the simplest of remarks. Given the incompetence of his lord and saviour, current president George Bush, and the extreme corruption now prevalent in the Republican party, Tyrrell often reaches back in history to bash Democratic Presidents of the past. He has to do something to deflect attention away from the GOP. So he bashes Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, etc. I think he secretly hopes a Democratic candidate takes the White House so he can once again bash a sitting president (given that his hypocrisy keeps him from bashing the current one).
His latest column attacks Clinton for celebrating his 60th birthday. Tyrrell just can't seem to stand how successful Clinton was and is. So Tyrrell attacks everything Clinton says, but in doing show he shows his own ignorance. When Clinton said he hated turning 60, referencing how he use to the young guy, Tyrrell twisted it to imply Clinton was in the minority, quoting that 77 percent of 60 year olds are satisfied to be where they were in life. But Clinton didn't say he wasn't satisfied with where he was in life, he just didn't want to be old!!! I bet if given a choice of being 60 or 35, that 77 percent would rather be 35! So either Tyrrell is an idiot, or he is purposely being deceptive. You choose. He also used this latest column to take yet another swipe at Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed looking for those weapons of mass destruction that Bush claimed to exist. This mother has EARNED the right to say anything she wants against Bush. People that vilify and denounce her are pieces of crap.
On a parting note, even Tyrrell's previous column demonstrated his ignorance. He claimed that "most Americans agree" with how Bush is "handling the war on terror", quoting it as 55 percent. Excuse me? 55 percent seems to almost cut it down the middle! With almost half of Americans in disagreement, I don't think this is something to stand on a stump and beat your chest over. Is Tyrrell bad at math or just stupid? But with all the lies, hypocrisy, corruption, and anti-American/Constitution activities we see from the Republicans these days, I guess Tyrrell is trying to turn lemons into lemonade.
The Sham Court for Saddam Hussein - 07/26/06
Saddam Hussein, former ruler of Iraq before the American invasion and occupation, is a very nasty person. I'm not talking personal hygiene here, but rather he was a murderous, viscous, dictator responsible the misery and deaths of many. However, his current trial is nothing more than a puppet show in a kangaroo court. First of all, the 148 people he is accused of killing came about after an assassination attempt. Former President Clinton even ordered a missile strike after a failed assassination attempt on Former President George Bush. A better case can be made for the multitude of other killings Hussein is responsible for. But the biggest sham is the conduct and lack of professionalism from the court officers.
The prosecutors and the judge frequently bicker back and forth with Hussein, to a degree that they are using the court as a stage to express their political and philosophical beliefs. In one exchange between the prosecutor and Hussein, they argued and argued over how Hussein referred to himself. He calls himself the president of Iraq, and rightfully so. The prosecutor, in a show of power and disgust for Hussein, didn't want to refer to him that way. So back and forth they went. It was very childish and causes one to really question the credentials of the prosecutor.
Just this week, the Chief Judge showed his incompetence and lack of impartiality by arguing with Hussein over how Hussein should resist the American occupation. The judge accused Hussein of "inciting the killing of Iraqis". Shouldn't the judge be judging the case, rather than making his own personal accusations? He even cited percentages of how many Americans are killed for every Iraqi. Then amazingly, he gave Hussein what he thought was a better tack at ousting the Americans. He instructed Hussein to tell people to "attack American bases, not the market places and cafes." He said to "let them go on and attack the Americans." Excuse me?! Not only is this sorry excuse for a judge sitting up there and bickering with Hussein on a daily basis, but he outlines a better solution in killing Americans and getting them out of the country? Is the goal to humiliate and convict Hussein at any cost, even at the expense of a legitimate and impartial trial? Given the silence from the US on the court proceedings, it's no wonder that America is seen as a hypocritical nation.
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., typical Republican hypocrite - 07/14/06
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is an extreme right wing collumnist (i.e. blame everything on Bill Clinton and the Democrats while Republicans can do no wrong). And like most far right Republicans, he exhibits classic hypocrisy. In a recent column, he complains about the attempted extradition of British bankers to face charges in the United States. That are suspected of being part of the Enron scandal that ruined so many lives. Tyrrell claims that without bail, they could remain in jail for "as much as two years". He claims that even if they are found innocent, because of those two years of lock-up, "their lives are ruined". Yet Tyrrell is just fine and dandy with people being locked up for FOUR YEARS in the Guantanamo Bay, never being charged with a crime, and with no end in sight to their incarceration. In fact, he complains about them getting lawyers. So, up to two years will "ruin" the lives of rich bankers, but FOUR YEARS and counting is okay for others? Typical right wing hypocrisy!
Bush, Cheney, Rove, & Libby: evil doers - 07/14/06
President Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove (White House political adviser), and Lewis Libby (Cheney's former chief of staff) treasonously conspired to leak classified information and exposed the identity of an undercover CIA agent (Valerie Plame Wilson). See my longer article concerning this subject. They did this for revenge and political gain, because her husband has written an article critical of the Bush administration's trumped up reasons for attacking, invading, and occupying Iraq. Well Valerie Plame Wilson has now filed a lawsuit against Cheney, Libby, and Rove, claiming they conspired to ruin her career. From the facts seen thus far, she is entirely correct and should win this case. Personally, I think she should also definitely sue columnist Robert Novak because he was part of the conspiracy and actually published the article that exposed Wilson. I also think she might out to sue Bush too, but I think he's probably set up enough scapegoats to take the fall for him.
Enron & Kenneth Lay - 07/13/06
Former Enron executive Kenneth Lay died of heart attack on July 5th while vacationing at one of his mansions. Lay was convicted of six federal counts of fraud and conspiracy concerning the collapse of Enron. Lay misled investors and employees (many lost their life savings), "cooked" the accounting books, cashed out his own stocks for hundreds of millions of dollars, while hiding the fact that the company was in a death spiral of economic failure. At his memorial service, Lay was described as a "good man", a "straight arrow", a "Boy Scout" who lived by "Christian-Judeo principles". What a warped joke! And a slap in the fact of those Lay defrauded and destroyed, and an insult to the Boy Scouts and Christians. I doubt they would want Lay representing them. Regarding the Boy Scouts, Lay fails because he lacks the traits of being trustworthy, loyal, and reverent. He wasn't morally straight. As for Christian principles, lying and stealing aren't part of them. In regards to money and greed, Jesus tells us in Matthew 19:24 " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Wonder where Lay went for his eternal reward?
:)
Working for a living - 07/06/06
Republicans continue to push for a repeal of the estate tax, while at the same time leading an effort to NOT raise the minimum wage. Currently the minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Back when I worked for minimum wage, it was about $3.35 an hour. On this I managed to buy food (unhealthy diet of cheap meat and noodles), pay rent (had five roommates in a two bedroom apartment), and pay for school (and books). It was a struggle that I wouldn't care to repeat and I don't see how people actually support their families on it, especially with the daily trials of life (such as sickness, automotive repairs, and other bills). The last time the minimum wage was raised was in 1997. Since then, members of Congress (mostly millionaires) have raised THEIR OWN PAY by $31,000 a year! Let's see, poor people don't deserve an increase of a single penny yet these ALREADY filthy rich people think they deserve $31K MORE of taxpayer money per year. They're all hypocritical pieces of crap!
Attention!: Iraq ain't Japan or Germany! - 06/27/06
For the second time in recent days I've heard idiots compare our invasion and occupation of Iraq to our WWII war with Japan and Germany. Each was done to somehow justify the policies of George Bush. The latest idiot to do this R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., an extreme right wing columnist who in my opinion equates Republicans to all-knowing, all-righteous gods while Democrats are evil demons. What little I have read of his writings has displayed the usual, common partisan hypocrisy that has come to dominate the GOP.
What we are doing in Iraq cannot compare to our military actions in Japan and Germany, neither in the acts themselves or the reasons we did them. Japan and Germany of the 1930s and 1940s were huge conquering war machines, with world dominance as their goal. Nation after nation had fallen to them. And they directly assaulted the United States and its interests. Anyone who thinks the Iraq can be compared to Japan and Germany can either be classified as idiots, or purposely being deceitful to push a political agenda. You choose which is the case.
North Korea might test long range missile - 06/20/06
Remember North Korea? The one I said Bush should be paying attention to instead of creating a terrorist haven in Iraq? Well it seems that they might be on the verge of testing their long range missile. The US, and others, are all in a huff and talking about possible punishment and sanctions. No matter how evil North Korea might be, it's still a sovereign nation. If the US can test it's missiles without sanctions, why can't North Korea test theirs? That's their point of view and a valid one. Of course, sometimes sanctions work and it's a better diplomatic tool than bombing raids and military invasion. I just don't know how to deal with the hypocrisy of the situation. We've reached a point as a nation, that we are strong enough, and willing to demand that others not pursue the path that made us strong.
Democrats going too far with Iraq pullout requests - 06/20/06
This is a warning to the Democratic party....ease up on demanding immediate or very near future troop withdrawals! You are dealing with the Republican party, which as demonstrated that they are very effective in staging get-out-the-hate campaigns. Yes the president misrepresented the case for war. Yes American soldiers are dying daily in search of Bush's weapons of mass destruction. Yes there are terrorists in Iraq (NOW, since Bush has opened up the borders for them). Now that Bush has turned Iraq into a terrorist Disney World, we can't just leave without a good plan. It's a quagmire and I don't know what the solution is. Of course we all support our troops and want them to kick butt in every battle. But Republicans, and the mindless minion that support and vote for them, will twist your good intentions of bringing our troops home, into some sort of anti-patriotic support for the terrorists. It will cost you in the next elections.
PS If you voted to give Bush the power to wage war without going through congress, quit whining about being wrong and sorry for your vote. Let's face it, the Republicans were riding the wave of McCarthyism and labeling anyone who didn't side with them as unpatriotic. Just admit you lacked the political strength to stand up for what was right. Bush NEVER presented enough evidence that we should attack a sovereign nation. Every single one of you should have voted no and demanded that ONLY congress can declare war. Bush, the Republicans, and those that support and vote for them continue to daily wipe their butts with the Constitution and the sorry Democrats are letting them get away with it!
Girl Sues MySpace Over Alleged Assault - 06/20/06
A 14-year-old girl claims she was sexually assaulted by a 19-year-old man she met via the MySpace social website. She's suing MySpace for $30 million. Apparently she holds them responsible for her own stupidity and ignorance. MySpace has no responsibility what so ever for this alleged assault. It was the girl who took the initiative to contact and meet up with this guy. Yet again idiots in our society don't think they should be responsible for their own actions. This case should be thrown out! Or maybe her parents should be charged since they gave her a computer and didn't provide "meaningful protections or security for underage users". Any jury that sides with this idiot family should be publicly caned.
Professor: Jesus may have walked on ice, not water - 04/06/06
Doron Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, claims that a natural explanation for the water-walking miracle attributed to Jesus might have been that Jesus was actually walking on a patch of ice. He claims that water and atmospheric conditions in the region 2000 years ago might could have been chilly enough to produce ice patches during cold spells. Nof doesn't know what he's talking about. A real miracle is probably more likely that his scenario. I would think this guy is intelligent, so I reckon he's doing this for publicity.
First of all, it has to be below freezing for a few days on end to make ice thick enough to walk on, especially on a large body of water. And even then it will still be relatively thin. I live in North Carolina and I have walked on ice, though I haven't seen ice thick enough to walk on in many, many, many years. We've had quite a few cold snaps this year, and it never produced ice thick enough to walk on. A free floating patch would have to be even thicker. And think of the dynamics. You'd have to maintain your balance while not slipping. Was Jesus a surfer dude?!
Secondly, if ice did form, everyone would know about it. All the kids would be playing on it. The response from the boat crew would not have been "look at that ghost", but rather "look at that fool out on the ice"!
Thirdly, the book of John tells us it was during or after Passover. Doesn't that occur during the spring? If we are going to have a rare, water freezing cold snap, I'd figure it would happen during the winter months.
Fourthly, what about Peter? The book of Matthew has Peter walking on the water with Jesus. Don't you think Peter would have noticed it was ice instead of water?
Fifthly, both books of Matthew and Mark, just previous to the water walk, talk about sending the multitude of people away because they are in a "desert" (i.e. it's HOT!). While desert regions can certainly get quite chilly at night, it's not enough to freeze the water to walking thickness.
With so much going against Nof's theory, it's quite clear that he hasn't given this any thought at all and doesn't seem to have a clue. You don't have to worry about Jesus being added to the Disney on Ice lineup. If Nof's wants a natural scenario, a more likely explanation would have been that Jesus was walking on a sandbar. I've done this and I've seen people do it, and it really does look like you're walking on the ocean.
Black congresswoman plays the race card - 04/05/06
U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (Democratic party), of Georgia, is claiming the efforts of a Capitol Hill police officer to stop her from entering the Capitol amounts to racism, and has even talked about filing "assault" charges against the police officer. She of course is an idiot. The facts of the matter is that the politicians are suppose to wear tags that identify them as members of congress. She admits she wasn't wearing hers. The police officer claims he didn't recognize her. Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant to her actions. My company requires ID badges and even though the lady at the front desk recognizes me each day, she still asks to see my ID. The police officer told her to stop. She didn't. When the police officer took hold of her arm in an effort to stop her, she allegedly struck the officer.
It's obvious that she knew why the police officer was holding her arm, and there's no way she felt in danger or any need for self defense. She seems to think her privileged position puts her above the rules others have to follow. She showed a disregard for protocol, a disregard for security, and a disregard for the law. Not only was the police officer justified in grabbing her, but after she assaulted him, he should have put her on the ground and in handcuffs. If she's too stupid and arrogant to follow the simple rules to get into the building, what kind of damage might she be doing to our country when congress is in session?
UPDATE NOTE: I just watched an "interview" of McKinney by CNN's Soledad O'Brien. Now I'm convinced that McKinney is a piece of crap and should be voted out of office! She had her lawyer there and he basically did all the talking, though they never answered a question. Time and time and time again, Soledad asked McKinney to tell her what happened that day and McKinney refused. I guess she doesn't want to admit she illegally assaulted a police officer. She only promoted her racial and political agenda, even going wildly to the topic of the Iraqi war. Hopefully a political opponent can use this to unseat her in the next election. I hope they charge her with a crime. I can guarantee if I did what she did, I would have been arrested and prosecuted.
UPDATE NOTE 06/20/06: A grand jury stupidly decided NOT to indict this idiot woman on assaulting a police officer. I guess she really is above the law!
Vice-President Dick Cheney shoots fellow hunter - 02/17/06
Last weekend Vice-President Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington (a lawyer friend) while quail hunting at a ranch in Texas. Cheney, who was using a 28 gauge Perazzi shotgun (made in Italy), hit Whittington in the face, neck, and chest. Whittington (age 78) remains in the hospital, and suffered a mild heart attack when one of the pellets migrated to his heart. It does appear he will recover. The news wasn't released until about a day later. Cheney also didn't talk to law enforcement until the next day. The media has been in a frenzy over this story.
First of all, the media has a right to complain about the lack of details and revelation on this shooting incident. When the Vice-President of the United States shoots someone, it's news! Had they made a full disclosure right away, there wouldn't be much of a mess. However this administration, and Cheney in particular, have pretty much gone out of their way to keep the press in the dark on matters big and small, so that is partially fueling this fire. The local law enforcement have already deemed this an accident and will not press charges. Cheney did lack the proper permit, but has already taken care of that.
Any problems? Yes! Within an hour, the victim was already at the hospital. At that point Cheney should have been interviewed by the police. Things are fresh in his mind and witnesses, plus the cops can see if he was under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. Rest assured, if you or I shot someone, we wouldn't have the luxury of waiting until the next day to speak with the police. While I do think this is just an accident, I also think it was because of negligence and disregard for safety on Cheney's part. Number one, you're suppose to know where your hunting partners are. Number two, you shouldn't fire on the level, especially if you don't know where your hunting partners are. Quails are low flyers, which means you need to be extra careful. And number three, know your target! If the sun is in your eyes, or anything else is problematic, don't shoot! If someone is so focused on shooting a bird that they don't realize they are pointing at a person, that person is too dangerous to be hunting.
Two other things still bother me about this fiasco. The first is that the Cheney defense league is already trying to blame the victim, saying he walked up "unannounced". Sorry, but in all the quail hunting I've done, we never walked around announcing ourselves. If you don't know where your partner is, don't shoot! Secondly, Cheney was using a foreign gun that costs tens of thousands of dollars (over $20K!) that he traveled personally to Italy to buy. What the hell is wrong with buying American! I'll take my American made Remington shotgun over Cheney's Italian gun any daggone day of the week. Go USA!
Senate Judiciary Committee: just a sham - 01/12/06
Let's stop the pretending. People have already made up their minds on the subject. Nothing new is going to be learned. The senators should just vote, or filibuster, or whatever and be done with it. President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The Republicans couldn't be happier given Alito's stance on abortion and other causes adopted by the GOP. The Democrats are worried for the exact same reasons.
Listening to the questioning is nothing but an exercise in frustration. Alito is never going to give a straight answer, or anything that can be construed as an answer to the more controversial topics. I hear the question, then I hear the babbling rhetoric from Alito, and I realize he didn't answer the question at all. If he's not going to give answers, why waste time asking questions? If he doesn't have the fortitude to be honest and forthright, then just use his past rulings, statements, and papers to form your opinion (this also applies to any potential Democratic justices in the future). Alito is on record as being against abortion and has even stated he doesn't consider it a constitutional right. So you can bet your bottom dollar if given the chance he will vote to overturn it. Simple as that. Alito listed membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (an organization wanting admission restrictions on women and minorities) on a job application. He claims no recollection of his membership. You've got two choices people, either he is lying now (there's no way an educated person wouldn't remember a job reference like that) or he was lying when he listed it (i.e. he did it because he thought it would make him a better candidate for the job). You choose which lie you think he told, but don't fool yourself into thinking he hasn't lied.
So let's stop pretending this is a real hearing, because it's nothing but a sham, wasting time and tax payer money. Either confirm the dude, or filibuster him. Even though he doesn't have the guts to give real answers, we already know where he stands on the issues.
Republican Apologists - 11/28/05
The Republican apologists are now coming out of the woodwork, trying to explain away the failures of President Bush. Funny how they criticized the Democrats for doing the same thing during Clinton's presidency, but blatant hypocrisy seems to be the hallmark of the Republican party. Although the Republicans seem to whine about the "liberal" media with every breath they take, I can't seem to turn on the radio or television without coming across a Democrat bashing commentator. Where are all the radio and television station programs that have Republican bashing?
Anyway, well known Republican apologist and hate-monger Ann Coulter is yet again on the warpath, attacking Democrats with her lies and misinformation. She now refers to Democrats as "gutless traitors" for exercising their constitutional rights in questioning President Bush (who I remind you, was a draft-dodger). The Republicans had no problem criticizing and humiliating President Clinton before the world, making us seem weak and disorganized, yet apologists like Coulter cry foul if their Lord and Savior, George Bush, gets any type of criticism. McCarthyism worshiper Coulter brags about the "scores of foreign terrorists" that have been killed in Baghdad. The key word here is FOREIGN. Of course we're killing scores of them. George Bush has now turned Iraq into a terrorist Disneyland for God's sake! It went from a tightly controlled dictatorship to a terrorist breeding ground. All thanks to Bush.
Partisan hate-monger Coulter also trivializes the price our American soldiers are paying. She says we've done all this work with "just over 2,000 deaths", and downplays it by comparing the death toll to the Civil War, WWII, and Vietnam. Apparently Coulter is too ignorant to realize that not only have we lost brave American servicemen, but each death also represents many more shattered lives. How many children have lost a parent? How many parents have lost children? Brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives? Friends? What of the thousands upon thousands of wounded Americans? Those that have lost eyes, hands, feet, legs, arms, the ability to walk, etc.? And what of the thousands of innocent Iraqi dead? Coulter is so busy being a Republican apologist, spewing hate and distorting the truth, that she doesn't see the big picture (or she does and willingly deceives). I'm not naïve, I know war isn't clean. But I despise people like Coulter, who trivialize the American cost just to cover-up the lackluster decisions of her god (President Bush).
Bob Woodward's comments on CIA operative leak - 11/21/05
Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, is apparently somehow involved in the case of where a CIA operative's name was publicly listed in a newspaper. What gets me is how dismissive he is of the potential damage it could have caused. His reasoning is that the damage from CIA's agent exposure was "quite minimal". That's like being dismissive of the damage a drunk driver can cause, just because they happen to make it home okay after a night of drinking.
Robert Blake liable in wife's death - 11/21/05
In a repeat of the OJ Simpson trial, actor Robert Blake was found innocent of murder in his criminal trial, yet found liable for the death in a civil trial. He was ordered to pay $30 million in damages. I hate to say it, but if you take a look at a civil trial jury selection, you're probably looking at some the most stupid and illogical people around. The jurors said they were swayed by Blake's combative attitude and how he confronted the plaintiffs' attorneys. In other words, rather than solely relying on facts and evidence as they should, they ruled against Blake because they didn't like him. He could have got up there and personally cursed each juror, and they still should only used fact and evidence in deciding the case. Our civil "justice" system is nothing but a joke.
Equal justice? - 11/16/05
A 41 year old woman from Colorado, Silvia Johnson, wanted to be a "cool mom". She had parties for high school students that included alcohol and drugs. She admitted having sex with high school boys. Johnson plead guilty to misdemeanor counts of sexual assault and felony accounts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Meanwhile, a North Carolina woman, Ann Miller Kontz, pleaded guilty to murdering her husband by poisoning him with arsenic (and it took more than one try) and conspiracy to commit murder. She is alleged to have been having an affair with a co-worker of hers, who allegedly helped plan the murder. He committed suicide after being interviewed by police. The bottom line is that Kontz planned and executed a murder plot on her husband. How much prison time did she get? … she was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
This just goes to show how screwed up our courts and legal system is. Justice varies from court room to court room, from state to state. Although what Johnson did was wrong, at least legally, we are talking about consensual sex here. These were high school teenagers, who know right from wrong, and who were willing participants. Johnson should have received a very light sentence, possibly just probation, with a requirement for counseling. The teenagers involved should also be required to go to counseling (remember that they also broke the law by consuming alcohol and drugs). She should have NOT been sentenced to a ridiculous 30 years in prison.
Kontz on the other hand, outright murdered someone. A slow, painful murder with arsenic poisoning. One she had to plan, and then work on over time since the first poisoning didn't kill her husband. Think of the husband's shattered family. Think of the co-worker's shattered family, given his suicide and alleged involvement in this plot. But Kontz is sentenced to less time that the "cool mom". Only 25 years for purposely, cruelly snuffing out the life of an innocent man. Instead, Kontz should have been sentenced to death, and executed with arsenic poisoning.
Texas overturns death sentence for third time - 10/06/05
For the third time, confessed and convicted killer Johnny Paul Penry's death sentence for a murder he committed has been overturned. He claims he's "mentally retarded" and should not be executed for his crime. Around 1979, Penry broke into Pamela Moseley Carpenter's (age 22) home and raped her, beat her, and stabbed her. He admitted to planning the attack. He admitted to laying in wait, for her husband to leave. He admitted that he planned to kill her so she couldn't identify him. When he committed this crime, he was on parole for another rape he had committed.
What a bunch of crap! First of all, he should have been executed after the first rape. But no matter what some IQ test says, this man is fully responsible for his actions, especially given the planning he did, his reasoning, and the brutality of it. He knew what he was doing and knew the consequences of it. However, he should not be executed with lethal injection. After a lengthy torture session, possibly over a few days, he should be tied to stake, doused with gasoline, and set on fire.
NC Lottery Vote: Democrats LOSE integrity - 08/31/05
Just days after I praised the Democrats for taking the high road, they pull a Republican-style "fast one" and take the low road to get the lottery vote. North Carolina will now have a lottery, after Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue cast the tie-breaking vote to approve the bill. Senate leader Marc Basnight called the Senators back to Raleigh to vote because he thought the votes were there. Two Republicans were missing and apparently there either wasn't a provision for their votes to be included, or they just didn't cast them. The "fast one" was Perdue suspending the rule that requires TWO separate votes on TWO separate days. They are not playing fair when they suspend rules to give themselves an advantage. It's sneaky and makes them just as bad as the ones they complain about. Does the ends justify the means? In some cases it might. I think North Carolina should have a lottery and will benefit from it. But I don't think the Democrats should have stooped to such a low to get the law passed. They've burned a honor and integrity bridge with me on this one. Besides, until we actually join the Powerball with other states, I don't think the lottery is going to live up to it's full potential for our state. I wanted a lottery, but not like this. Shame on the Democrats for not playing by the rules.
North Carolina's Superintendent of Public Instruction - 08/24/05
North Carolina FINALLY has a new Superintendent of Public Instruction, NINE months after the November 2004 election. Democrat June Atkinson, who garnered 8,535 more votes than her opponent, was sworn into the office on Tuesday, after the General Assembly of the Senate and House. Why did it take so long? Because the piece of crap Republican that ran against her and lost, has been contesting the results from day one. See my other posting below, called "2004 Superintendent of Public Instruction election - 02/16/05". This is typical Republican hypocrisy and bitterness. More than 50 lawmakers, almost all Republican, wrote "protest" on their ballot. Apparently they thought they still couldn't determine a winner. This was a statewide election with a clear winner. If someone doesn't think June Atkinson should be in that office because of the vote count, they are clearly an idiot.
NC Lottery Vote: Democrat shows integrity - 08/24/05
Unfortunately, North Carolina is still without a lottery. The decision is still determined by law maker vote, instead of popular citizen vote. And for some reason, only Democrats support the lottery in NC (it doesn't seem to be a partisan issue in other states). Tuesday night ended with the lottery approval being only ONE VOTE SHY. But here's the amazing part…the Democrats could have actually got that vote on a technicality. A Republican that was missing could have had his vote thrown out because he failed to follow proper procedure with his absence request. But Senate leader, Democrat Marc Basnight, chose not to take advantage of that loophole and decided instead to decide the vote in "an honorable way". It was completely to the Democrat's advantage, yet they chose to lose the vote because of honor and integrity. I doubt you'll EVER see that from today's Republican. Their win at all cost attitude means they'll stoop to any level, without regard to civility, legality, morality, or honor, in order to get their political agenda in place. Bravo for the Democrats showing what kind of integrity we need from our law makers.
NC Governor denies pardon - 08/19/05
NC Governor Mike Easley had two cases of men wrongly convicted of rape to consider. He pardoned Leo Waters, who had already served 21 years in prison. Waters was freed from prison when DNA evidence proved the perpetrator wasn't him. A pardon of innocence allows a wrongfully convicted person to seek $20,000 a year from the state for each year the person was imprisoned, up to an amount of $500,000.
However, Easley denied a pardon for Sylvester Smith, who was convicted in a 1984 trial of first degree rape and two counts of first degree sexual offense. Smith's alleged victims, who were children at the time, recanted their earlier testimony blaming Smith. They claimed their grandmother told them to lie to protect the real culprit, who was a cousin. This actually exposes a problem with our courts, in that they rely too heavily on verbal accounts, which are often fabrications. Anyway, a court ordered Smith released from prison, he won a new trial, and a prosecutor dismissed the charges. So why did Easley deny a pardon in this case?
It just so happens that Easley himself was the prosecutor that sent Smith to jail! What we have here is an EXTREME case of conflict of interest. Easley should grant a pardon because we all know that without the children's testimony, especially if they are pointing the finger at someone else, Easley NEVER would have got a conviction in the first place. It's wrong and egotistical to deny a pardon, and I think it borders on being a crime. Why won't he admit he made a mistake? Is he afraid of a potential civil lawsuit? Did he suppress evidence at the original trial, and now he's trying to keep it from the light of day? I've said it before, that we need a system in place that will allow the Lt. Governor to make decisions, such as pardons and clemency, when the Governor has a clear conflict of interest. I've just lost a lot of respect for Mike Easley.
Should "Intelligent Design" be taught in science class? - 08/18/05
Lately we've been hearing a lot of people say that "intelligent design" should be taught in science class, right along side evolution, geography, and other sciences. This is basically from pro-Christian groups (though I think them mostly hypocrites), who are trying to get God back in the classroom, under the radar of the separation of church and state. They say something along the lines that everything is too complex for us to understand, so some supernatural being must have done it. Rubbish! It's nothing but religion and religion should NOT be in schools. Teach religion in church or at home, but reserve the classroom time for facts and science. Just because we don't currently know how something happened, or have all the facts and information, that doesn't mean we have to assume some giant invisible spook in the sky did it. And which "designer" would the religious nuts have us pick? God? Zeus? Apollo? or any of the other numerous gods of the world? There's no reason to speculate about which god, if any, had a hand in the design of universe. Religions can do that in their religious services. School classes should be used to taking the facts as we know them, and seeing how they fit together. When it comes to gods, spooks, and spirits, it's only a guess since no one has any proof beyond voices in their head. When God appears on Good Morning America, or Larry King Live, then we'll know.
Anti-War protests - 08/18/05
Cindy Sheehan's son , Casey, was killed in Iraq last year will looking for all those weapons of mass destruction that President George Bush claimed to exist. Since learning of all the deception from the president and his supporters, Sheehan has turned her sorrow and outrage into an anti-war protest. She's currently camped out near Bush's ranch, demanding he meet with her and answer some questions. Others have jumped on her band wagon and now anti-war protests and vigils are popping up all over the country. A lot of Republicans, the heartless cannibals that they are, have turned on this grieving mother, denouncing her for having the gall to exercise her first amendment right. They claim she's hurting troop moral, she's dishonoring her son with her own political agenda, etc. Bullcrap! That's all part of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" rhetoric that Republicans continue to spew. Sheehan, by virtue of her son losing his life because of George Bush, has EARNED the RIGHT to protest this war, and Bush's actions. The ones that question and demean her are the real ones with political agendas.
"bring 'em on'' - 08/03/05
In July 2003, Republican President George Bush had a message for Iraqi insurgents that wanted to attack and kill American soldiers. He said, "bring 'em on''. Well today, Iraqi insurgents once again fulfilled Bush's request by killing FOURTEEN Marines in a single road side blast. TWENTY-ONE Marines have been killed in Iraq over the last three days. In rising to Bush's call, the insurgents are developing more and more sophisticated weapons; even shaped charges that easily penetrate the armor of our military vehicles. To date, the number of U.S. troops killed in Bush's war on Iraq stands at 1,820. That's ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY Americans that are now dead, from trying to find those weapons of mass destruction that Bush claimed to exist...from trying to stop the building of nuclear weapons that Bush claimed Iraq was involved in...from trying to cut the links to al Qaeda that Bush claimed to exist. We have since learned that all of Bush's claims were false. Yet day after day, more and more Americans are being butchered, cheered on by Bush's request for them to "bring 'em on''. How many families have been shattered and destroyed? How many other Americans have been mutilated, maimed, and crippled in Bush's war on Iraq? Thousands!!! An attack on Afghanistan was mandated by their attack on us. And we should attack to stop potential harm to the United States and its citizens. But the floundering and unjustified war on Iraq is because of one particular president and one particular political party. It's a stinking quagmire that will undoubtedly cost many more American lives. How anyone can vote Republican and still be able to look an American soldier in the eye is beyond me.
Toddler killed by careless, incompetent police - 07/14/05
During a standoff with police last Sunday in Los Angeles, Jose Raul Pena allegedly used his 19 month old daughter, Suzy, as a human shield while he took shots at the police. Pena fired 40 shots at police during three separate exchanges. The police (SWAT) responded by firing 90 shots at Pena, killing him and his daughter. The coroner determined that the little girl was killed by a single police bullet to the head.
This demonstrates just how careless, incompetent, and cowardly some police can be. One of the scariest things you can see in a civilized community is a police officer with their gun drawn. They seem to lack the training (both physically and mentally) needed in these situations, and that coupled with their ego driven authority status makes a deadly combination. This hostage situation unfolded over a couple or so HOURS. That's PLENTY of time to bring in negotiators and police snipers. What you don't do is fire haphazardly at a guy holding a child! The police claimed they were forced into their actions. Bull-crap! Cowards! If they were being fired upon and they lacked the skills to shoot their weapon accurately, they should take cover or run. They are the ones that forced the final showdown. From what I've read so far, the guy was trapped. A sniper should have EASILY been able to take him out. Even the regular police should have been able to accurately shoot without killing an innocent toddler. There is no excuse for this kind of tragedy. While I remove no blame from Pena, I also hold the police officers directly responsible for killing the child. And the fact that the police are even now "circling the wagons" and not accepting responsibility raises red flags and warnings that this is a continuing problem. It's disgusting! How in the world can someone fire at a person holding a child when they know they don't have the skills to accurately place the shot? And 11 officers fired! There should have been one or two expert snipers in place to cleanly take Pena down.
Some police need to lose their jobs over this. And they should be treated JUST LIKE a civilian who fired blindly at a criminal and killed an innocent person. It's NO different.
Note: A radio news report says the police shot came from a rifle. If true, that's even worse given how much easier it is to place a rifle shot over a handgun shot. If true, criminal charges should be brought against the officer.
Iraqi war update - 07/01/05
President Bush claimed that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" and implied they were working on nuclear weapons. Bush tied Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Because of these things, and neo-McCarthyism, Congress (the gutless wonders that they are) gave Bush the power to wage war and he did. But we quickly learned that none of it was true. We were misled. Hussein was just a bad dictator who had a bad history with the Bush family. Now over 1,700 Americans have died in Iraq (not to mention the thousands that have been wounded and maimed). Over 12,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. With no controlling dictator, Iraq has become a terrorist haven as foreigners pour into the region. The cost so far is over $200 billion. Yet even though our country was misled about the reasons to go into Iraq, and there seems to be no end to the violence and the deaths of our service men, Bush still claims the "sacrifice" is worth it. This is from a man who pulled strings to get into the National Guard so he would NOT have to serve in Vietnam (then he barely showed up for duty). This is from a coward that runs for cover every time a plane happens to fly too close to the White House. This is from a man who faked Christianity to get votes from those too stupid to see through his ruse. At some point America needs to say, enough is enough!
Michael Jackson verdict - 06/14/05
Michael Jackson has been found NOT GUILTY on all accounts in his child molestation trial. He was charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy two years ago at his Neverland Ranch. Whether or not justice was served, this is the CORRECT verdict for this trial. Finally, jurors actually followed the rule of law, followed the instructions of the court, and used their brains instead of their emotions in their decision making process. Did Jackson commit the crimes he was charged with? I don't know. Given how weird he seems and the circumstances he was in, it's certainly possible, or maybe even probable.
What is certain is that the district attorney did NOT prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The things that are beyond doubt is that the accuser (and others) are proven liars and are in this for the money. That doesn't mean that some things they claimed weren't true, but when they intentional lie, as they did and confessed to, it puts doubt onto all of their testimony. I can't help but feel that the mother and family intentionally put the accuser in this situation with future hopes of collecting some money.
But the thing I'm most happy about is the performance of the jury. They did an excellent job and weren't swayed by the underhanded tactics of the district attorney. For example, the DA deceitfully tried to make it seem that having pornographic material in your home makes you a bad person, and a molester. The jurors saw right through that ruse. In reference to the material, a juror said, "Anybody can own them", and "It doesn't prove the charge". Another juror claimed that they did what they were "instructed to do". Bravo!
Note to the logic impaired: If Jackson really did those things, regardless of how bad the family might be, he should be punished. Even if it was entrapment, driven by monetary desire, it would still be criminal intent on Jackson's part. My comments are only relative to the jurors following the rule of law.
"Deep Throat" revealed - 06/01/05
The informant known as "Deep Throat", that helped bring down the Richard Nixon presidency, has stepped forward to reveal himself. Mark Felt, the second in command of the FBI at the time, helped provide information to the Washington Post that exposed the details of the Watergate break-in and cover-up. Although his family might consider him "heroic", I don't see anything heroic about his actions. Certainly, a lot of it was due to "sour grapes", for being passed up by Nixon to be head of the FBI. Part of it might have been loyalty to the FBI, and not liking the way Nixon wanted to control the organization. And part of it could have been a sense of duty, to expose the corruption and crime in the Nixon administration. Nonetheless, Felt did the right thing in exposing the conspiracy.
Russian "justice" - 06/01/05
Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been found guilty of fraud and tax evasion and sentenced to spend about 7.5 years in prison. A lot of people feel that he was singled out by the Kremlin (i.e. Putin) because of his support for opposition political parties. Although I have no doubt that this is a political prosecution, at the same time this guy benefited and became rich because of corrupt politics and government policies. He bit the hand that fed him and now he's paying the price. It might be unfair that others are not being prosecuted, I'm not going to shed a tear for the one they did decide to go after.
Arthur Andersen conviction overturned - 06/01/05
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of accounting firm Arthur Andersen, which had been convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to Enron. The court cited faulty jury instructions. Something's rotten here. I believe Andersen knew exactly what Enron was up to and they knew exactly what they were doing, and why they were doing it, when they destroyed those documents. Even if they had a company policy that said documents should be destroyed....even if the instructions to the jury were wrong, I believe Anderson willingly and purposely destroyed evidence in an attempt to cover up what Enron was doing. But believing something and proving it in court are two separate issues. The ones that were hurt were the innocent employees (and consumers). The rich executives are STILL rich, and that shows you there is still something wrong with the system.
Poker a game of skill? - 05/24/05
A group wanting to open a poker club in Durham, NC got a negative ruling from a local judge. Under North Carolina law, it is illegal to play a game of chance if betting is involved. Why it is illegal, I have no idea. But since you can throw all your money away playing the games of chance at the NC State Fair, it probably has a lot to do with fake morality, hypocrisy, and who gets the money. The judge in this case ruled that poker is not like a sport, where talent is the main reason for winning. While I agree that cards are dealt and drawn on chance, I'm certain that to actually win at the game takes quite a bit of skill. Winning one hand is not true "winning". Walking away with more money is winning. And if you don't know when to hold them or when to fold them, that's just not going to happen. It's a game of knowing the odds, knowing the deck, and evaluating the style of the other players. I use to have a simple poker game on my computer. I found that if I played each hand to win, trying for that inside straight for example, I always ended up in the hole. But if I played with more skill, observing when other players bet, and folding much more often, I came out ahead. Better to lose a few small antes than a large pot. The better hands would pay off in the end. So poker is most definitely a game of skill. Rather than arguing the point with experts, those guys should have given a demonstration by playing a few hands with the judge.
More evil - 05/23/05
An 8 year old girl went missing on Sunday. By sheer, uncanny luck, she was found alive under rocks and crushed concrete INSIDE a covered recycling bin dumped in a garbage trailer at a shuttered landfill. Apparently the 17 year old that was staying with her godmother sexually assaulted the girl and put her in the trash to die. Along with assault, the guy is also charged with attempted murder. If the police account is true, this guy needs to be horse whipped, then tied to a stake, doused with gasoline, and then set on fire. I really wish this world had a deity that would at least look out for the children. But if God isn't going to do it, WE need to do it. And it starts by making gruesome examples of those we catch.
Another one bites the dust! - 05/13/05
Connecticut executed serial killer Michael Ross at 2:25am. Hooray!!! He had been sent to death row for the murder of four young women and confessed to four more, and most of them he also raped. The only sad thing about his execution is that he should have been doused with gasoline and set ablaze rather than killed with a lethal injection. Abandoning all his appeals, Ross willingly went to the execution chamber. Of course, there were idiot protesters there, saying he shouldn't be executed for his crime (even though he is guilty without the shadow of doubt). One had a sign that falsely proclaimed that "all life is sacred". If you want to put religion on it, read the Old Testament for proof that not all life is sacred.
Ross was almost executed in January when a stupid federal judge scolded his attorney and even threatened to lift his law license for trying to hasten Ross' execution. That shows another flaw in our legal system. Legally, a lawyer is suppose to make sure proper legal procedures are followed and all your rights are intact. But in today's society, people, such as this judge, assume lawyers are suppose to get their clients out of punishment, regardless of guilt.
Religious Politics - 05/11/05
A Baptist preacher in Waynesville, North Carolina is accused of running nine congregants out of the church because they disagreed with his Republican politics. The claim was that during the last presidential vote, he said people that support John Kerry should repent or resign, and that he has continued to "preach" politics that culminating in voting the nine people out of the church. I read today that although he welcomed the people back (most likely due to the negative publicity), he has resigned. Good riddance!!! There is NO place for this type of crap in a house of worship. It has nothing to do with God, but rather it is firmly rooted in politics, secular concerns, personal agendas, and hypocrisy. Republican political candidates are not saints!
Sadly, I even heard my own preacher from the church my grandfather founded criticising anyone who was going to vote for Bill Clinton. It was very, very wrong to use God's house to push his own political agenda and the only reason I didn't say anything was because I didn't want to embarrass my family members. It will NOT happen again, though I may give them a word of warning that they might want to step out of the church for a few minutes. :)
Sad state of human affairs - 05/11/05
Seems like I can't read the news without hearing about a child that has been killed by some horrible, sick, excuse for a human being. It weighs heavily on my soul. I detest the low lifes of the world but those they prey on children are the worst. I truly believe that these people should be tortured long and hard, and in public, before finally being executed (in the most gruesome way possible).
Biblical inconsistencies - 03/22/05
I recently came across a website devoted to bashing the Mormon faith. I noticed that one of their arguments relied on an event in one gospel, that didn't happen in another. That got me thinking about the bible and its various events. Consider the following case when Peter denied knowing Jesus...
In Matthew, Jesus tells Peter that he will deny Him three times before the cock crows once.
Matthew 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
From Matthew we get this timeline: Peter's denial -> Peter's denial -> Peter's denial -> cock crows
But in Mark, Jesus tells Peter that before the cock crocks twice, he will deny Him three times.
Mark 14:30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.
So from Mark we get this different timeline: Peter's denial -> cock crows -> Peter's denial -> Peter's denial -> cock crows
This is significant because a) it's an inconsistency, b) it's Jesus doing the talking here, and c) if you mix and match what happens, it will mess up a prophesy from Jesus. Does this inconsistency matter in the big scheme of things? Probably not. But it is interesting because I've run across a couple of people that just can't handle it. They claim there are no inconsistencies in the bible and flat out refuse to acknowledge or answer questions in regards to such things.
There are most definitely inconsistencies in the bible. Acknowledge them. Study them. Attempt to find a solution. But to deny them shows a form of deception, not worthy of those that consider themselves a Christian.
Bible fact or Bible faith - 03/01/05
Twice in one week I've heard references to the bible as a "book of faith" rather than a "book of facts". If you hear something like that, it should raise red flags all over the place. It means the person or organization is having trouble dealing with something within the bible, quite often something that probably condemns something in their lifestyle that they don't want to change. It's also a way of not having to deal with some of the harsh realities of the bible, or some of the things that might seem contradictory. A lot of organized religions today are nothing more than social clubs. People get together to sing and eat and talk about the business of the church. If they actually paid attention to what the bible says, they would have to change their lifestyle way too much. So instead of changing their ways, they change what the bible means, or white-wash it with general statements like it's a "book of faith".
If you can't accept the facts of the bible, you might as well be reading some secular work of fiction.. It could equally inspire you without giving you factual events. A man was arrested this week for being the BTK (bind, torture, kill) serial killer. He was charged with the brutal murders of at least 10 people. Yet he was the president of his church council!!! I'm sure that he too saw the bible as a book of faith rather than a book of fact, or truth. More people need to believe the wages of sin are real and literal, especially if they call themselves Christian.
Juvenile death penalty - 03/01/05
The Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 vote, has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional for criminals that were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes. The court said it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and that the United States should "acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime". First of all, they shouldn't be using an international trend to measure the Constitution of the United States.
Secondly, what are they going to do with all those sentenced to life instead of death? If the murderers are somehow less culpable because of their age, then likewise, shouldn't they be sentence to less time? Isn't locking them away for life, or even very long sentences, also a form of cruel and unusual punishment?
Personally, I think they should be held FULLY accountable for their crimes, and be executed if the crime is murder (and a few others). I would say the age limit should be 16. Since we think 16 year olds are capable of driving large vehicles on the road, and making life and death decisions with each turn of the steering wheel, they should also be held accountable for the heinous crimes they commit. Especially when those crimes show obvious planning, calculation, and evil intentions. Although teenagers may act more impulsively than older people, they still know right from wrong and the consequences of their actions. I think the Supreme Court is quite wrong on this ruling.
NOTE: I do realize that some people are saying 16 year olds shouldn't be driving either, but that doesn't change my mind in thinking they should be held fully responsible for their criminal actions. 16 year olds might like to drive fast and reckless, but they still know it's wrong.
2004 Superintendent of Public Instruction election - 02/16/05
When you hear about a Democrat contesting an election result, you hear a lot of flap from Republicans about how the Democrat should concede, especially for the "good of his party". But when the shoe is on the other foot, I don't seem to hear the same kind of comments. Although I hate to make general, partisan type comments, it seems increasingly clear that the Republicans follow the "put a Republican in office at all costs" mantra. Morality, decency, and legality doesn't seem to matter.
In November, we had a North Carolina state election for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Democrat June Atkinson beat the Republican Bill Fletcher by 8,500 votes. That's right folks, EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED votes. Yet Republican Fletcher is STILL contesting the election, THREE months after it happened. Fletcher wants 11,000 ballots thrown out, claiming the people voted in the wrong precinct. There are two things wrong with this picture. First of all, precedence has already shown that in similar cases, what matters is the actual vote rather than where it was cast. And secondly, in a state wide election, it shouldn't matter at all where the vote was cast.
This is yet another example of a Republican NOT wanting to count people's votes because it won't be in their favor. Disgusting Republican tactics like this make me want to join the Democratic party more and more.
American Idol rejects God's choice! - 01/20/05
First of all, I don't watch the American Idol singing show. I hate it and all the other "reality" shows that have flooded television over the last few years. But my family watches it, which means I do catch parts of it when I'm in the room. Anyway, on the latest round of the show an attractive girl told the panel that God himself wanted her to perform and told her she would win (or something to that effect). Well, her singing was less that spectacular and she was booted from the show. After her dismissal, she offered some comments for the designated jerk of the judging panel, Simon. Unfortunately, they had to "bleep" out a lot of what she said! This is one of God's chosen? I believe this is yet more proof of my hypothesis that most do NOT actually believe in God, despite their claims. How can a person claim to be in God's court at one moment, then speak Satan's language a few minutes later?
Abu Ghraib abuse trial - 01/07/05
The accused ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, Spc. Charles Graner, is going on trial. Graner doesn't deny abusing the prisoners. There's photos of him doing it. One shows him cocking his fist to punch a hooded detainee. He's accused of jumping on them, stomping their hands and feet, etc. The prosecution claims he punched one man in the temple hard enough to knock him out and require medical treatment. What's Graner's defense? He claims he was just following orders!
For those of you that think that's a justifiable excuse for his actions, let me remind you that the Nazis also used that excuse when they went on trial for killing millions of Jews. And it's probably true. I have no doubt that Graner was ordered to "soften up" the prisoners, though I doubt anyone told him what technique to use. I also have no doubt that Nazis were ordered to kill Jews. But if you think that is a good enough excuse for Graner, then you should also agree with those Nazis. Personally, I don't except it as a justifiable excuse. Those actions show evil intent in their hearts. It's takes a bad person to do that to people, just because you had orders. Consider this, the Nazis might have faced one of Hitler's firing squads if they had not followed orders. What would have happened to Graner had he refused to abuse prisoners? Probably nothing, because a) it would have been the legal thing to do, and b) others would fear exposure if they tried to punish Graner.
Should Alberto Gonzales be Attorney General? - 01/07/05
White House counsel Alberto Gonzales is President Bush's nominee for attorney general. But I think his past stance on torture definitions should eliminate him as a candidate. Gonzales was involved in a Justice Department memo that tried to redefined torture so that the people could torture prisoners "legally" without fear of prosecution. They wanted to define torture as something that causes "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." That means the famous Vietcong technique of shoving bamboo shoots up your fingernails would be sanctioned by Gonzales. Arms twisted behind the back and out of socket? Okay with Gonzales. Wires wrapped around genitals and electrified? That's okay too with the Gonzales' new torture definition.
The problem is that Gonzales agrees with the mentality that you can change the rules and laws as you see fit to protect yourself when you want to do bad things. That means as attorney general, he might lobby to change the laws and rules in order to prosecute someone that is actually behaving legally under the current system. That's not right and it's against the American way. It's also hypocritical. Gonzales also wrote a memo in w