Eating Blunt's Cake

Many in the blogosphere were pointing out that John Murtha had been identified as ethically challenged by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) before he lost his bid, with the support of Nancy Pelosi, to become Majority Leader. So, in fairness, if a collective *we* are going to consider CREW a credible and reliable source, it is only fair to point out that Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) has also been ethically problematic. According to CREW's Beyond Delay, they had this to say about Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO):

"His ethics issues stem from his misuse of his position for the benefit of his family."

The site claims:

"By pushing for legislation that would benefit Philip Morris and UPS, and, as a consequence, his then-girlfriend and his son, Rep. Blunt may have violated federal law and House rules." (emphasis mine)

...and there's more if you are inclined to read the links.

You may be wondering why I bring this up, especially considering that in the past I have seldom called this sort of attention to Republican leaders. Well, it's because I want to be fair and like many Americans I am weary of corruption among our Representatives in Washington D.C.

I'd like to call attention to Rep. Blunt's recent statement reported at ColumbiaTribune.com, Blunt role viewed as a ‘moderate’ signal:

"Today begins the rebirth of House Republicans’ common-sense agenda with a leadership team that is more unified than ever, ready to regain the trust of the American people and ready to restore faith in our ideals." (Again, emphasis mine)

Isn't that special? Republicans clamored for a return to conservative roots for multiple months prior to the election but there was no interest on the part of House Republicans or Senate Republicans to hear the unrest of their constituents. They had to lose their majority before they were willing to recognize that there was a serious problem with their credibility among Conservative supporters.

So, as though you are paying attention "today," Representative Blunt, I'm sorry but, at least for the time being, you're a little too late with your promises of "rebirth" and "restoration." You, in your arrogance, along with a good many other Republicans, lost the election for many fine Republican Representatives and Senators during this election cycle. Please, do remember that as you take your new position as Minority Whip in the new Congress, Representative Blunt. You can pat yourself on the back and thank yourself on behalf of Jim Talent and your Republican constituents in Missouri. I would have preferred that you had decided to return to a "common-sense agenda...regain the trust of the American people and...restore faith in (Republican) ideals" before the election rather than after the election, but what do I know?

The Fairness Doctrine

Two days after the Democrats gained a majority in the House and the Senate, the "fairness doctrine" has reared its ugly head. Didn't take the left wing blogosphere long to fire it up, did it?

I am a regular listener of the Neal Boortz Show! He's been warning his listeners that the Democrats will try to chill free speech by reinstituting the "fairness doctrine" for a long time. Read: here (under THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO AGENDA?) here (under FEDERAL CENSORSHIP COMMISSION STRIKES AGAIN) and here (under BLACK DAY FOR THE LEFT).

So, on November 9, 2006, two days after voters elected a Democrat majority, The Huffington Post blogger, Dave Johnson, wrote Restore The Fairness Doctrine! Surprise, surprise!

According to Dave Johnson: "the Fairness Doctrine:"

"would open up America's "marketplace of ideas." It would help to restore civility to our public discourse. It would help restore our democracy.

If the Fairness Doctrine were restored we would begin to see a variety of issues covered by the broadcast media, from a variety of perspectives. Currently we only see subjects that the corporate world is interested in, covered from a pro-corporate perspective. Imagine the effect on the country if the public were exposed to a variety of viewpoints on issues like trade, consumer protection, sustainability, unions, health care, global warming and energy, religion, the environment, nutrition, and SO MANY other issues!

Imagine the effect on our civic discourse if stations had to give time for a response to everyone that Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter smeared on the air!"

But wait just a doggone minute!

Doesn't the media already offer "a variety of issues?" Does the media currently only offer "pro-corporate perspective(s)?" Don't people with varying viewpoints already have forums in which to discuss "issues like trade, consumer protection, sustainability, unions, health care, global warming and energy, religion, the environment, (and) nutrition?" Are people who are "smeared" by Ann Coulter being denied the right to speak out on their own behalf over our airwaves if they so choose?

Further, was Mr. Johnson's article on the "Fairness Doctrine" fair? Did he practice what he preaches Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter should practice? Did he give them an opportunity to respond to his opinion that they "smear" other people? Did he adequately give the other side of the argument, the side against the "fairness doctrine?" Nope. He didn't.

There is another side of the story and a different perspective which Mr. Johnson failed to give equal or "fair" time and consideration.

According to The Heritage Foundation, The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair:

"The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles....

...The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as "unbalanced" views."

In other words, in view of our changing culture and "changing informational resources and technology," the fairness doctrine would have the opposite effect than that for which it was intended. Instead of encouraging differing viewpoints to be heard it would stifle the voices which are heard now.

Today, if there is a perspective one would like to consider, all one has to do is click a mouse, type a few characters, click a mouse again and one can access thousands of links to information on any given subject via the internet.

The real reason those on the left would like to see the Democrats reintroduce the "fairness doctrine" is not to make sure differing viewpoints and perspectives are heard. The real reason is that they want to silence Conservative radio talk show hosts.

Mr. Johnson gives himself away when he mentions Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter but doesn't mention any of the radio talk show hosts on, say, Air America, for instance. Why does he not mention any Air America radio talk show hosts? Because he has no problem with the "smears" perpetrated by leftist radio talk show hosts, and apparently he doesn't value his own free speech rights much either. If the Fairness Doctrine is intended to force Ann Coulter to offer other perspectives (and how many other perspectives are there on any given subject, is she required to give one alternative perspective or three alternative perspectives?) then will the fairness doctrine not also effect him, "an active participant in the progressive blogging community..." as described in his own bio, the link for which is listed above? What price are leftists ready to pay to silence the right? Are they willing to give up their own freedom of speech simply to keep a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter from voicing his/her perspective? I'd like to know what is "fair" about the leftist "doctrine."

According to Wikipedia, regarding the Fairness Doctrine, they quote State Rep. Mark B. Cohen:

"State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said "The fairness doctrine helped reinforce a politics of moderation and inclusiveness. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules blurred the distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, and helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today.""

I guess we just can't have people speaking their minds and disagreeing with one another, leading to "the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today," now can we? How will the government (or leftist socialists) be able to keep the citizens under control if they are openly and honestly discussing issues of concern, getting excited about issues, taking an interest and forming their own educated opinions!? Stop that dang discussion...let's get back to a day when we all relied on Walter Cronkite to tell us what to think. Dang that Al Gore for inventing the internet! Dang that Rush Limbaugh for giving a voice to the conservative movement which it had never been allowed before!

Donkeys who Champion Ethical Purity

At The Blotter, ABC News' Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz Report:

"that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was one of the members of Congress Abramoff had allegedly implicated in his cooperation with federal prosecutors."

Abramoff who reported to a federal prison close to investigators today has begun to offer testimony regarding Democrat Senators.

In The Blotter story, Abramoff is reported to have stated that Senator Harry Reid not only accepted money from Indian Tribe clients but that Reid "requested" it. Further, The Blotter reports:

"A spokesperson for Reid, elected yesterday as the Senate Majority Leader, said the senator had done nothing illegal or unethical.

"We have no idea what Abramoff is telling prosecutors to save his skin, but I do know that these kind of old allegations are completely ridiculous and untrue," Sen. Reid's spokesman Jim Manley told ABC News." (emphasis added)

We were led to believe that such words when spoken by Republicans implicated by Abramoff rang hollow. Reid's spokesman apparently believes they will have more weight when uttered by a Democrat since everyone knows the new Democrat party plans to usher in a new age of ethical purity.

According to HeraldTribune.com Pelosi has a plan for Nonpartisan ethics reform:

"Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who could become speaker of the House if her party wins enough seats, has vowed to "drain the swamp" of ethical misconduct if she wields the gavel."

Pelosi is the speaker of the house now, so, naturally, in keeping with her plan to "drain the swamp" of ethical misconduct, Pelosi is backing Rep. John Murtha for majority leader. The only problem is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) BLASTS PELOSI ENDORSEMENT OF UNETHICAL MURTHA FOR MAJORITY LEADER, where they listed Murtha as one of:

"The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). As reported in the study and by the news media, Rep. Murtha has been involved in a number of pay-to play schemes involving former staffers and his brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha."

You can read more about Rep. Murtha at John Fund on the Trail.

Meanwhile, in other news, yesterday, November 14, 2006, S.D. page scandal senator resigns. It seems that at the same time the mainstream media, left-wing blogosphere and press were so busy with the Republican Mark Foley scandal regarding alleged inappropriate instant messages which were sexually explicit and appeared to be grooming pages for later sexual encounter, State Senator Dan Sutton (D - South Dakota) was busy avoiding judgement by a Republican controlled Senate, opting to leave, seek and gain re-election with a 57% voting majority when faced with allegations that he:

"...groped a male high school student who served as a page."

The AP story at the link above tells us that:

"The new Senate seated in January can take up the issue."

Yes, "the new Senate seated in January can take up the issue."

Foley resigns, he is taken out of the running. Sutton runs to hide, we hear next to nothing about it from the mainstream media or press who is overly occupied with the scandalous Republican Mark Foley and Sutton is quietly re-elected by 57% of South Dakota voters.

I'm so proud of our new ethically pure Majority leaders. Ain't you? ;)

Who Needs Senate Orientation Any Old How?

CBSnews.com reported today that Freshmen Lawmakers Begin Orientation, it appears that all of the newly elected freshmen Senators were in attendance...

...with the exception of Senator Elect Claire McCaskill.

According to the report:

"Tester later appeared with his fellow Democratic freshmen _ minus Missouri's Claire McCaskill, who is on a post-election vacation with her husband...."

Kevin McCarthy of California remarked that:

"...the ethics training was important for those like him who came from state legislatures with different rules."

Indiana Rep. Joe Donnelly, a Democrat is reported as expressing:

"he was mostly concerned about getting his office up and running "as quickly as possible, so we can start working for the people back home.""

According to STLtoday Missourians should just Mark Her Absent, one of her spokeswomen said:

“She promised her family that, win or lose, she would take time to be with them after this election.”

Well, I don't know about the rest of Missourians but as a married woman who loves and values my own husband, I think I could expect my husband to be understanding about my need to attend orientation on behalf of my constituents who just days ago elected me to represent them in the United States Senate. If this is any indication of what we can expect from a Senator McCaskill I must say I'm even more underwhelmed than expected.

From the reports I read it appears that McCaskill is the only freshman Senator who felt that orientation simply wasn't important enough to set aside previous plans. Perhaps she feels she has enough understanding of her new job that she really didn't need to be there.

McGovern: "There isn't going to be any decisive victory in Iraq."

Over and over again wary Republicans have accused the Democrats of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq and over and over again the Democrats have kept their "plan" for victory in Iraq to themselves, offering nothing but destructive criticism. Now, just as wary Republicans have suspected all along here is the proof that we were right in our suspicions that Democrats had no plan for victory in Iraq.

FOXNews reports that Former Presidential Candidate George McGovern will Discuss Iraq Exit Strategy With Democrats, and here it is in a nutshell folks:

"George McGovern, the former senator and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate, said he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June." (emphasis mine)

McGovern told reporters:

"There isn't going to be any decisive victory in Iraq."

Not if left up to the Donkeys, that's for sure.

A Donkey of a Different Color

With so many different issues driving voters to the polls Tuesday, I had the unfortunate experience of learning why a few Republicans chose to vote this past election day. It wasn't because of Immigration, Social Security, or even the war in Iraq. It was because of race.

My husband, a lifelong Republican, works for a business where nearly everyone employed there is a Republican and talk of politics is a regular part of their lunch breaks. Afterall, TN is a red state, so it's really not surprising. It being Election day, talk was more lively than usual and talked turned to how everyone would be voting that afternoon. Out of a table of seven men, my husband was the only one voting for Bob Corker because he felt he was the best man for the job. Five of them were voting for the simple reason they didn't want to see a black man win the senate seat for TN. The only democrat at the table was voting for Ford. I have to wonder if, like me, he felt terribly disheartened by the whole exchange. I wasn't even there and it has dampened my enthusiasm about the victories the Democrats achieved that day. I've not even had the heart to talk about Tuesday's outcome on the political thread that I participate in.

Because I had plans to see show at the Knoxville Civic Auditorium Tuesday evening, I had decided to take advantage of the early voting that had been going on in TN. I knew it was going to be a tight race and was looking forward to watching how it all unfolded on Tuesday. Whether Harold Ford lost or won, I felt he had campaigned well and won the admiration and support of many people across my area of East TN. It would have been quite an achievement for him........becoming the first black man sent to the senate from Tennessee since Reconstruction. I was anticipating leaving the show and catching up on all the election news on the way home. But after my husband shared with me what had happened that afternoon, all I could focus on was how stupid and mean some people are. All the way to the show I steamed and fumed. All the excitement I had been feeling vaporized. I shouldn't have given some ill-breed idiots that type of power over my feelings and I think it had to do largely with the shock. Racism isn't anything new here, but I had hoped people would have enough sense and decency to base their votes on the issues they felt strongly about or the content of a candidate's character. I can take the candidate of my choice losing because others didn't like his stance on the War on Terror or his fiscal policies. Disappointed, of course. But that's all part of politics........ya win some and ya lose some. But to think race played a part in it..........well, that's a little hard to take.

I'm not saying I believe all the people who decided to vote Tuesday were there to vote against a man only because he was black or that's even why he lost. For a Democrat, I think he did very well in a conservative state. I'm just saying that knowing anyone did is discouraging and heartbreaking.

On a different note, I just want to commend Jacke for being such a good sport. She has taken the results of the election with grace and style.

Saddle up your Donkeys

Naturally, all the liberals in my debate group are gloating and drawing conclusions that because the Republicans in the group haven't said a lot today after the Democrats took the House and garnered a small majority in the Senate that we're all off licking our wounds and pouting, crying and sulking, angry and depressed.

I'm not. I'm thankful to be living in the greatest country in the world. I'm happy that Republicans have not reacted in the way that the Democrats have reacted in the past when they have lost close elections. Crying voter suppression, voting machine irregularities, voter fraud and the like. I take a chance in saying this, hopeful that Republicans will continue to act like resigned adults, accepting of the choice of the majority in our country. It seems to me to be the responsible and graceful thing to do.

There will likely be those who will blame the media. I can't say that I would blame them for that, it is very tempting, but I don't want to react the way Democrats react to loss. This should be about what is best for our country and I don't think challenging the election every time one's party loses is the best for our country, this is where I differ from Democrats and I hope the Republican party continues to accept their loss with grace and maturity and with a hopeful optimism for the future.

There is some speculation that perhaps Allen will call for a recount in his race, see Webb Clings to Small Lead Over Allen. If the margin is slim enough I couldn't really blame him for that but for the most part Republicans have resigned themselves to the fact that the majority of Americans have spoken and have decided to give Democrats a shot at problem solving in both the House and Senate.

I have no problem with checks and balances. Perhaps they will be healthy for our Nation. That said, I am patiently waiting to see what the Democrats will actually do with their majorities since they kept their "plans" so well hidden that no one really knew what they were voting for, they only knew what they were voting against.

Republican Representatives have been too complacent. They have not been conservative. They have frustrated many of their consituents by not being attentive to what it is the people they were supposed to be representing wanted. It is true that the Bush Administration has not communicated well with the public. I'm not sure why but I don't think Republicans had to lose this election if they had lived up to their own conservative standards and communicated them well.

Likely, Republicans are missing the Great Communicator today. Facing the same problems that Bush has had, Ronald Reagan could have kept the people's support because he had a way of articulating himself that people understood and we enjoyed claiming support of him. The American people are asking for more than sound bytes and rhetoric.

So, saddle up your donkeys, Democrats. Let's see your brilliant ideas. As you've been pointing out, they can't be worse than "stay the course." I'm not so sure about that but I am truly anticipating what your "plans" will be and you can rest assured that America will be watching. Just as you are taking pride in "holding the Bush administration accountable" today, you will be held accountable for your actions. It is a grave responsibility. You asked for it, you got it.

My First Springfield Bloggers' Meeting

The Springfield Bloggers were having a live election night blog session (which apparently pooped out about 10:30) so I went to the Pub and met up with them tonight, excuse me...last night. Well sorta. As stated before, I'm a little shy so I didn't run around the table introducing myself individually to each and every person there and can't say I know who every single person was due to my own awkwardness.

It was a hoot to spend some time talking with John Stone of Curbstone Critic but I was suprised to find that it appears he only has the one set of clothes. Fortunately, his red plaid shirt must have been recently washed...whew! Just one word of advice, John: Buttons are there for a reason.

Then my husband and I scooted off to the Libertarian Party gathering and I had a nice visit with The Libertarian Guy (tm).

Congratulations to the Democrats seem to be in order.

Woo hoo.

Norma Champion is Misrepresented?

The Libertarian Guy (tm) clued me in that he and other politicians would be speaking at Cornerstone Church tonight and so, I decided to drive my Ma's big old Lincoln Towncar over that way and listen up.

The first thing I did was visit the table set up by the door which was covered with papers, bumper stickers and various other goodies. I picked up one of the papers that had Champion and Harpool plastered all over the front of it with little summaries of their views on Healthcare Cuts, Lifesaving Cures Through Stem-Cell Research (Amendment 2) and School Vouchers. The paper was paid for by Harpool New Direction Committee.

I took a seat in the second row of chairs and began to look over the front page of the Harpool paper. I read there:

"Champion supports taking dollars originally allocated for the public school system and diverting those moneys to individuals to attend private schools - the program is commonly referred to as a "voucher program."

"Harpool opposes vouchers. He believes that we should support our public schools, not abandon them."

Being a supporter of school vouchers I naturally bristled at the implication made by the Harpool paper that if you support school vouchers that translates into a desire to "abandon" public schools. It is just this sort of divisive language that keeps us from being able to discuss policies and ideas openly. So, I was thinking to myself, I hope Ms. Champion will mention her stand on school vouchers when she speaks when, about that time, Ms. Champion arrived and sat in a seat about three down and directly in front of me. I approached her, shook her hand and told her that when I was five or six years old I had been on "Children's Hour" with her and that she had scolded me for using my modeling clay to smear out a picture on a piece of paper rather than modeling something with it. I mentioned that the paper seemed to cast her in a bad light and, at that point I don't think she realized I was talking about the Harpool paper because she said the paper didn't endorse her and that was why...I didn't even realize until a moment ago that the paper was paid for by Harpool's committee. That explains the unflattering pictures of Champion and the glowing, toothy smiles of Harpool. Duh.

After Champion spoke and there was a call for questions no one appeared to be getting up to ask a question so I thought I'd give it a shot. Thinking about the vouchers I wanted to give her an opportunity to expound on her reasons for supporting them. I was surprised to find that she doesn't support school vouchers at all, so I guess Harpool or his paper are lying...I mean, if she says she doesn't support them why does his campaign rag state that she does? Politics is a dirty business, ain't it?

She said there were other ways that parents who wanted to send their children to private schools or home school them could have their expenses off set. Such as giving them tax credits.

I wish I could tell you more because she gave a rather lengthy list of other ways the issue could be addressed but apparently, though I thought I had my recorder turned on I didn't get anything recorded, isn't that special? All I can find is the recording of a police officer who spoke at my AWANA Sparkies Club meeting last night and my nephew saying "hello, Jacke."

You might find the police officer's comments interesting but they wouldn't tell you much about Champion's views on how to compensate parents for sending their children to private schools or for home schooling them. I'm not supposed to be *professional* am I? I'm just a lowly blogger doin' this fer kicks. You can sue me out of the stinkin' high pay I get fer doin' this.

Anyway, should parents get new money out of taxpayer's dollars for choosing to send their children to private schools or home schooling them? That doesn't seem to be a very "conservative" approach to me. I still like the idea of reimbursing them by voucher, that way they would simply be getting some of the money back they are paying into the system for access to public education of which they are not taking advantage rather than forcing them to pay for something they aren't using and then forcing all other taxpayers to give them credits or other forms of reimbursement.

I suppose all the money comes from the same place anyway, right? OUR POCKETS. Lots of people pay into the public school system who don't have children enrolled in government schools, unless you consider grandchildren, great grandchildren, infinity. If we pay it in one place and take it out another place we're still all depending on the government, huh? Dang it, now I'm thinking I don't like government schools (but support them anyway because what else can we do?) and I don't think government is responsible for paying for other's choices not to use the government school system either. Sigh. I guess I'm still trying to "figure it out as I go along."*

Thanks, Libertarian Guy, for the head's up...I enjoyed it and yer still tew kewl.

*Indiana Jones

You Want to Patent What!?

According to the International Herald Tribune, patent law is getting tax crazy. Get this: because a U.S. appeals court passed down a ruling that business strategies could be patented in 1998, individuals can now file for patents on tax strategies. As a matter of fact, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already issued around 50 of them and there are more pending.

Andrew Cohen at washingtonpost.com writes: Don't Take My Advice-It Belongs to Me:

"Attorneys now are patenting their novel ideas, in the tax code area, so as to try to prevent or limit their competitors from also using those ideas to better serve their clients."

It appears now that when your friendly H&R Block tax preparer accepts your shoe box of prized receipts he may need to do a patent search before he can utilize tax strategies to save you a little of your hard earned cash. Do you have any idea how long it takes to do a patent search!? Those of you who are accustomed to e-filing need to crack the old patent law textbooks as well or you could find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit for using someone's patented strategy for saving yourself a buck when filing your taxes.

If there was ever a reason to reform our tax system and get rid of the thousands of pages of tax codes, here ya go!

I'd like to continue to voice my grandiose support of the FairTax but let's face it, Americans for Fair Taxation ARE lobbyists. Lobbyists are considered likely beneficiaries of these new patents, considering that they are in the position of lobbying Congress for new tax breaks and often the first to be privy to the information of a passage of a new tax break on behalf of their clients.

I have to confess, while still loving the idea of the FairTax I have become quite disillusioned with the organization which runs the grass roots effort to see it hoisted into law. Get ready to start all over again hitting your Congressmen and Senators up to support it and co-sponsor it under a new Congress and Senate. It just seems like a vicious cycle to me. I agree it is important to educate people about it and yes, it's important to contact your representatives about it, I agree that without Americans for Fair Taxation it wouldn't have the great numbers of supporters it has today (and that said, I didn't hear about the FairTax from Americans for Fair Taxation or one of their grass roots supporters, I heard about it from Neal Boortz) but we get all these co-sponsors in the House and Senate, then we have a new House and Senate and have to start the process all over again.

Will anyone ever actually bring the FairTax to a vote!? Grrrrrrr.

Missouri's Amendment 2

There has been much sensationalism and misinformation spread about Amendment 2 which will be on the Missouri November ballot, with each side accusing the other of misrepresenting the Amendment.

Rush Limbaugh stepped in it when accusing Michael J. Fox of going off his prescribed medication to enhance the debilitating evidence of his disease when making a campaign ad for Claire McCaskill. According to a Washington Post article: Rush Limbaugh On the Offensive Against Ad With Michael J. Fox, Rush reportedly said:

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

Think Progress weighed in yesterday with: Parkinson Foundation Debunks Limbaugh’s False Smears of Michael J. Fox, which was a misrepresentation, as well...they claim to quote a particular Washington Post article with their link: "According to the National Parkinson Foundation, Limbaugh has no idea what he’s talking about. The Washington Post reports " however, when one clicks on the link, which takes one to this article: Rush Limbaugh On the Offensive Against Ad With Michael J. Fox , the quote they claim comes from that article is not to be found there, rather there is a statement by John Rodgers, Michael J. Fox's political advisor who happens to sit on the board of the Parkinson's Action Network:

""It's a shameless statement. It's insulting. It's appallingly sad, at best.""

It may well have been a "shameless statement" but the quote Think Progress attributed to that Washington Post article is simply not there. That same Washington Post article quotes Limbaugh as saying:

" "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act.""

So, that's fine, Rush has apologized. It doesn't change the issue of Amendment 2 one iota.

For more information about Amendment 2 here is an excellent site: 2Tricky.org

Let's not get so involved in the rhetoric surrounding the issue that we fail to carefully study the real issue, Amendment 2: 2006 Proposed Initiative Petitions.

Claire McCaskill supports Amendment 2, Jim Talent opposes it.

The good old days?

In the political debate group that Jacke and I both belong to we recently discussed the need for the tone to change in Washington........politics in general, for that matter. Once upon a time I used to believe that politics would be much improved if they were carried on with the same civility, passion and honor our founding fathers had when laying the foundation for this great nation. After all, the words written by those great men live on to support such a notion. Boy oh boy, was I wrong.

I think it was the eloquence of the words they wrote that clouded the cruelty and backbiting from 20th century eyes. Over the last couple of years, I've taken the time to read more about those days and the men who made them historically significant. Wow, were they ever a wild bunch and and their political fueding was just as wild. In fact, the nastiness we see in politics now often pales in comparison to things that went on back then.

The only difference I really see is the caliber of men in goverment. Now it's like watching a B movie cast trying to revise the roles first played by Oscar winners.

For all their faults, our founders laid the ground work for a nation that has thrived and grown beyond their wildest expectations. For all their differences and conflicts, they built a nation that has stood up to the test of time. They were exceptional me who created a form of government which could flourish despite their flaws and the flaws of all those who followed.

It would be wonderful if the tone in Washington changed. If it doesn't.........well, history has shown us we'll survive no matter what the tone is.

Dog Eat Dog, Dog Eats and That Doggone PJ

Oh my heavens! It's a dog eat dog political mess out there right now isn't it?

I've been dinking around in that political debate group. Trying to remain neutral for the most part, with an occasional good spirited jab at propaganda promoters, that simply can't be helped nor do I make an effort to do so. I've actually been skipping over a lot of the political hype and rhetoric because I recognize it for what it is, a bunch of hype and rhetoric.

My husband and I are a little distressed this week. The kids we have been taking to church with us for about four years have moved away and this morning was the first morning that they weren't telling us long winded stories and singing silly, scary Halloween songs to us on the way to church. For four years we were like a little family unit and it was like part of our family and part of our hearts were missing this morning. We are reminding ourselves that God is with them and they are God's children but it was a difficult morning. Knowing that this is the way it will be until further notice was no comfort. The little children I considered my adopted grandchildren are gone. No curly headed darling sitting in my lap, snuggling against my chest this morning as the choir sang. I was glad I would be in Children's Church rather than sitting in the service without the oldest one, it would have felt like the proverbial salt in a wound when I was already feeling so emotional about it.

I've been waiting for something to come along that I can sink my teeth into but it just hasn't materialized. The few blogs I frequent have been mostly unsatisfying, though Andy Cline at The Rhetorica Network has intrigued me with his entry: What should journalism try next?

I had been enjoying a little innocent banter with John Stone at Curbstone Critic but he seems to have gone a little goofy with his obsession with Vincent David Jericho. Out of his last fifteen postings six of them have been about Jericho. It seems when his coffee maker isn't flooding the countertop or Paris Hilton isn't making public appearances in negligees he has little else on his mind.

What's a person to do for a little thought provoking banter? It's either polls or unfounded claims of a right wing defense of Foley when no one has defended him at all. I'm pretty fed up with people lying and misrepresenting myself and other people.

I did have this thought which I posted as a reply there tonight:

In all honesty, we, all of us, need to move beyond painting each other in sound bytes. The thing is, we let the politicians and Media with a capital "M," divide us. I respect the few politicians who are trying to tone down the rhetoric a little bit. I think there are a few of us who enjoy the rhetoric as if it were a sporting event but do it tongue in cheek. There are some issues which deserve better than to be treated as a political game and the war in Iraq definitely applies. You know, if our two parties, in what has become a two party system can keep the people divided and free from real dialog then that two party system has nothing to fear. Have you noted that some people are now calling both parties by one moniker? "The Republicrats." Status Quo, and as one of my favorite Libertarians often says: "Have a government approved day!"

Of course, I'm referring to the swmolibertarian, known as The Libertarian Guy who has posted some interesting posts lately, see: If you're on the ballot, you deserve to be in the debates. and: Why this election is important..., but do remember, he's way too cool to actually represent any of us average, dull creatures around here. ;)

Tomorrow begins a new week. New adventures with Mother. New adventures with my grousing husband. New adventures with keeping up with myself and that pesky little allergy-ridden, old gray man of a terrier I've been loving for 15 years this month. Geesh, he mopes around these days, that is when he isn't sleeping or eating. Ah, a dog's life!

One last thing. The most interesting thing I've seen written in days was written by a moderate Democrat and my fellow contributor to this web log, PJ. Doggone it, I wish she'd put her thoughts together and get it posted right here on JackeHammer!

The Preening, Powdering, Pampering and Perfuming of Mother

I love my Mother. Let's say you pretend that I said that 1,000 times before I proceed.

Last Tuesday she had a Doctor's appointment but I got to her house to discover that her water was off, a regular occurrence where she lives. We had to reschedule her appointment because she had no water and no way to get showered, preened, powdered, pampered and perfumed.

The appointment was rescheduled for Tuesday of this week, or so we thought. She even got the regular recorded call from the Doctor's office last Friday to confirm her appointment for Tuesday, she reports. So, Tuesday I arrive at her house early in the morning. I prepare her breakfast as I do every day, I get things set up for her shower...don't ask. She has her shower, slathers up with lotion, preens, powders, pampers, perfumes. We load up in the car, drive all the way across town, make it to the Doctor's office without a minute to spare, head in to the receptionist's desk who sits with her mouth hanging open searching and searching but Mom has NO appointment scheduled. Her appointment, it appears, is for Thursday and not Tuesday at all. I don't know whether she misunderstood or if they really told her Tuesday and called her to confirm Friday like she said for Tuesday or Thursday but she's not senile, at least not yet. ;) Anyway, we got some fast food chicken, came to my house had chicken fast food dinners and I took her home.

Fast forward to Thursday. :/

This morning I took her some Hardee's biscuits and gravy, she's on a Hardee's biscuit and gravy kick...she gets on these food kicks where she craves a certain thing all the time until she gets completely sick of it and never eats it again, recently it's been Hardee's biscuits and gravy, Butter Brickle ice cream and apple sauce, she has left Gordman's Beer Battered fish fillets, apple juice and Orange Dream ice cream in her wake, but I digress.... So, I get her breakfast ready and she eats, she decides she'll just wash up today and that I should go on home for a while, so I tell her I'll be back at 2:30 to take her to the Doctor. Sigh.

While I was gone she lost one of her eyelashes (she uses false eyelashes...again, don't ask) and the first thing she says to me when I come through the door is "come and find my eyelash, I looked for my eyelash for an hour and couldn't find it." I found it in about five minutes but Mother is NOT ready to go to the Doctor's office.

At the time she was supposed to BE there she called the office to tell them she was running late. She was informed that if she was more than 15 minutes late that the Doctor couldn't see her and they'd need to reschedule. So, we've preened, powdered, pampered and perfumed for nothing...what does she say? "Will you take me to Wal-Mart, if you don't have anything else to do?" Loooooooooooong pause....I'm thinking "if I take you to Wal-Mart this afternoon you will NOT have a pleasant shopping experience." Anyway, the good news is WE GET TO DO IT AGAIN TOMORROW! For the THIRD time this week...followed by a trip to Wal-Mart. Yeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaw!

Claire McCaskill's Double Speak

I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence. I imagine that most Missourians realize that Claire McCaskill is pro-choice but I felt the need to point something out because she hit on a pet peeve of mine in one of her statements tonight.

Anytime I hear a person say "I, personally, oppose abortion," it is a red flag for me.

Tonight in the KY3 debate between Claire McCaskill and Senator Jim Talent she made that statement. What she means is she wouldn't have an abortion herself but she wouldn't presume to make that decision for any other woman. Claire McCaskill is pro-abortion not pro-life and when I hear someone make that statement without clarifying that they mean that they wouldn't have an abortion themselves but support abortion rights it leaves me to believe that they are trying to fool unwitting people into thinking they are pro-life. It is double speak. The fact is Claire McCaskill is pro-"choice" not pro-life:


AP Wire 09/25/2006 McCaskill on abortion:

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I believe the decision to have an abortion is up to the woman in conjunction with her family, doctor and whatever spiritual guidance she seeks, not in the hands of the government."

She is listed as an Endorsed Candidate at NARAL Pro-Choice America and is a featured candidate at EMILY's List which, at its website, describes itself as:

"...the nation's largest grassroots political network, is dedicated to taking back our country from the radical right wing by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office."

Just don't be fooled by her double speak.

Thanks, Vincent David Jericho

Okay, I have to say something here because I want to clarify my position on the topic of local radio talk show host Vincent David Jericho.

Last night and today I've been having a little dialog with John Stone of Curbstone Critic under the blog entry VD(J) is the Antichrist. I'll take a moment to note that I have been conservatively critical of Mr. Jericho myself on more than one occasion, see comment here: Hollow Men at Jericho's Journal.

Anyway, last night after I posted a comment at Curbstone Critic I got to thinking about how I have been effected by allowing who I am to be known among the local bloggers in town and by a publisher of a community newspaper. Though I have tried to fight the effect, it has had one nonetheless. It has made me, to some extent, feel stifled, feel as though I cannot speak my mind as openly as I once did because I have lost the anonymity I had at first. It has caused me to second guess some of the things I have written lately. It has made a difference on the quantity of posts I have been willing to post at my own blog. This got me to thinking about some things that I appreciate and respect about Vincent David Jericho and I don't think it is enough to simply criticize people for what they do that I disagree with, I also believe it is important that, in fairness, I praise the good attributes of people as well and so that is why I am writing this today.

John Stone isn't the only local blogger to bash Vincent David Jericho see: 417 Pundit: Immigrant Talker Should Be Extradited. It is rumored that 417 Pundit is DocLarry of Lost Chord but has not been confirmed. At any rate, anytime Jericho is mentioned in a blog the comments fly, usually accompanied with charges that anonymous commentators are VDJ and he isn't brave enough to attach his own link to his replies. This raises a question in my mind...if Vincent David Jericho is willing to expose himself to Springfield and the larger region by hosting a talk radio show on Newstalk KSGF every morning from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. then why the heck would he not sign his own comments when commenting at blog sites? That doesn't make much sense to me, and we need to keep in mind that Jericho has as many, or more, fans than he does haters.

And that brings me back to my main point. It takes a strong person to be willing to go on the radio five mornings a week and represent KSGF, himself, Conservative Christians and Conservative Republicans in numerous ways all over the region. It takes a strong personality and a certain amount of bravery to bare his soul and private personal thoughts about divisive issues in Springfield and the Nation. He has taken on some pretty powerful people in this City. He has been willing to bare his heart and soul and in doing so he has also opened himself up to criticism. I respect that. I also respect the fact that he has called attention to many worthwhile causes, the illegal immigration debate, what the stem cell research initiative really means to Missouri and the FairTax bill HR 25/S25 among them. He has taken it on the chin for his outspoken views about what Christians should be doing, what Conservatives should be doing. He has stood in the face of extremist anti-war activists and shown their propaganda for what it is, and he has likely received some of the most hate filled private emails that any of us could imagine, yet he has continued to stand by his convictions and be a voice for legitimate viewpoints and concerns here in our City.

I have listened as he has gotten into tiffs with some of his fans when he has given a forum to people with whom his fans disagree but he has done so fairly and in doing so he has exposed the mentality of people who needed to be exposed.

Is he extreme at times? Certainly. How much of his over the top opinions are exaggerated to make a point? I couldn't say.

To be honest, I don't listen to his program as often as I'd like to because it doesn't fit into my schedule very well and I don't have the patience to down load ipod segments like some of his critics do, but as I struggle with my own writing because I am aware that I am not as anonymous as I used to be it has made me think more about what he is exposed to every day.

It's important that we remember that behind the microphone is NOT a cartoon character awaiting his pie in the face, he is a real man with real convictions who, just like the rest of us, does his best to make a difference. Over all, I agree with him more often than not. I don't expect he will be perfect any more than I expect I will be perfect, even though I try my best to be consistent. I'd say he tries his best to be consistent as well and as a public figure, of course he is fair game for criticism. I just got to thinking he should be fair game for praise as well, a little pat on the shoulder for doing his best. Thanks, VDJ!

Un-unanimous Agreement

As the news breaks of potential voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN in this STLtoday article, "Suspect voter registration cards found in St. Louis,"it is ironic thatUSATODAY.com published this article: Report refutes fraud at poll sites today:

"At a time when many states are instituting new requirements for voter registration and identification, a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud those measures seek to stop.

USA TODAY obtained the report from the commission four months after it was delivered by two consultants hired to write it. The commission has not distributed it publicly."

Reading on I discovered this little tidbit from that same USATODAY.com story:

"The bipartisan report by two consultants to the election commission casts doubt on the problem those laws are intended to address. "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters," the report says."

Okay, this is some fine creative writing but, as the guru of The Rhetorica Network might say, it sets up a straw man fallacy. Read the paragraph above carefully, note that there is "widespread but NOT unanimous agreement," what does that mean? How can you have agreement and yet it not be unanimous? Un-unanimous agreement isn't really agreement at all, and yet the writer goes on as if to say this "widespread" DISAGREEMENT is some sort of proof that there is "little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed...." Huh?

Now, let's read on:

"Conservatives dispute the research and conclusions. Thor Hearne, counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights, notes that the Justice Department has sued Missouri for having ineligible voters registered, while dead people have turned up on the registration rolls in Michigan. "It is just wrong to say that this isn't a problem," he says.

That's one reason the commission decided not to officially release the report. "There was a division of opinion here," Chairman Paul DeGregorio says. "We've seen places where fraud does occur."

I wonder if Thor Hearne was counted among those minions in the "widespread but NOT unanimous agreement" department?

Now, another straw man fallacy, in the very next paragraph:

"The consultants found little evidence of that. Barry Weinberg, former deputy chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil rights division, reviewed their work. "Fraud at the polling place is generally difficult to pull off," he says. "It takes a lot of planning and a lot of coordination.""

The USA Today writer sets up another straw man fallacy by pointing out that "the consultants found little evidence of that (voter fraud)" and then quotes Barry Weinberg, an indisputably credible reviewer of their work, as if to support their conclusion when he does not support it at all, at least not in the content of this quote. In fact, he has stated that fraud is "difficult to pull off...takes a lot of planning and...coordination" but does NOT say that there is little evidence to suggest voter fraud exists.

The media wonders why Americans believe that certain things are true when they are not true. Hmmm...this particular writer issued his report in such a slanted manner as to suggest that this report is more credible than it really is, will he later have the gall to suggest that the American people are not following current or political issues when in fact, as he has so clearly exampled, many journalists today make every effort to intentionally confuse the very issues that they claim voters do not understand.

Another instance: repeatedly I have heard liberals claim that the Bush administration said Saddam Hussein was tied to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but when asked for quotes to support this claim they cannot provide them. With reporters promoting that straw man fallacy is it any wonder so many Americans are confused?

Reporters are reporting what they think others have implied rather than what others have actually said. Then they scratch their heads and wonder why so many Americans believe them. Sick.

The Democrat Plan to Win in November: "Conservative, Stay Home!"

Some Democrats are preaching to us that there's a GOP "civil war" commencing. The Republican Party is divided! ::gasp!:: Unlike the united Democrat Party, mind you.

Some grassroots Democrats propose that we should dismiss their arguments that going to war in Iraq preemptively was wrong because Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and was no threat to the U.S., that our attention should have remained exclusively in Afghanistan and firmly on Osama bin Laden. Yes, ignore those talking points they've been spouting for three or four years now and take immediate "cowboy" action against North Korea. Yes, let's just jump right out there and bomb the heck out of North Korea so that two years from now those same Democrats can chime in some more on the "incompetent boob, Bush" bandwagon and explain why this action was the wrong action and the "buck stops at Bush."

Meanwhile, The Smirking Chimp, you know the "All New! Now 150% More Fair and Balanced" Smirking Chimp, writer Margie Burns, brings us this little tidbit:

Tucker Carlson says it aloud. The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals:

"...for my money, the real jaw dropper this morning was Tucker Carlson finally saying publicly what millions of us have known for years: “The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals.”

The commentary centered around the Mark Foley scandal and attendant ironies, that a member of Congress who for years ostentatiously paraded his concern for children and for youth has solicited, also for years, the sexual attentions of teenagers, and not just any teenagers, but teenaged pages specifically under the protection of Congress. Furthermore, all signs indicate that the entire top GOP leadership of Congress, even while campaigning aggressively in some bogus morality posture, either covered up for Foley or at best deliberately avoided knowing enough of his activities to do anything about them.

To call this hypocrisy is just an insult to hypocrites...."

"... Following up the statements that “The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals,” and “Everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals,” he continued, “and “everybody knows that. The evangelicals are beginning to figure it out.”...

"...As for the public pronouncements of their party, and the most prominent of their professional religious spokesmen, they roll their eyes. I have seen them do it. You do not get more eyerolling about the Reverend Mr. Pat Robertson or about the unreverend Ralph Reed anywhere than in the nearest lunch of Republican women at the local country club, and the only people who seem not to know it are the people whose faithful votes keep the corporate hogs in office."

What is missing from Ms. Burns opinion piece is the little discussed "Progressive" Christian movement, which seeks to influence government in directions they feel should be more palatable to Christians, you know, with more of a liberal slant: give peace a chance, feed the poor and hungry, tackle environmental issues and leave the virile gay activists alone, stop defending the unborn's right to life and get on with issues that really matter...these same "Progressive" Christians who bemoan that "Conservative" Christians are seeking to set up a Christian theocracy while excusing their own activism, that bunch of "Progressive" Christians...no hypocrisy there...no cries of "this hypocrisy is just an insult to hypocrites...." As Ms. Burns pointed out, there is "eyerolling" going on among Republican circles regarding certain spokespersons for the "evangelicals," where is the eyerolling for "Progressive" Christian spokespersons to be found? Good luck, let me know if you find anything but undying, love-filled, googly eyes for Jim Wallis and Jimmy Carter among the "Progressive" Christian movement.

To what rancid pot sticking soup does all this DESTRUCTIVE criticism boil down? Why, the fact that other than a "cut and run" answer to our predicament in Iraq, higher taxes, more taxes on the "rich," and more social programs to balance the wealth of Americans more fairly between the rich and the "least of us,"the Democrats still have no visible plan and no answer for addressing the complex issues of the day.

In fact, when seeking answers from these grassroots Democrats those seeking them receive more of the same..."it isn't our job to provide solutions, why, the Republicans are in charge! The only job we have is to dissent from their foul policies!"

Don't believe me that the Democrats have nothing to offer? Visit The Democratic Party website, where you will find such charming headlines as:

Inaction: Timeline of Denial

Iraq: Torture site may be linked to security forces

Abramoff Republican Culture Of Corruption Leads All The Way To The White House

Iraq: Today in Iraq: Powell Tried to Warn Bush on Iraq, Book Says

Foley: Why Did GOP Leaders Sit On Foley Emails?

The Fear and Smear Tour: DNC on President Bush's Political Fear and Smear Attacks

The Bush Administration's Failed North Korea Policy and how the GOP Implodes Over Foley Scandal

The Democrat Party's Agenda? On security:

"Democrats have a plan that is comprehensive-- from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq and freeing America of its dependence on foreign oil--and it will finally prepare America for the security needs of the 21st Century. And we honor the sacrifices our troops, their families and veterans by making sure we take care of them when they come home."

Gee, thanks. Care to share the plan or as in the past, is it supposed to be enough to announce that you have one without elaborating how you plan to accomplish the objectives of the plan you have but refuse to share?

Regarding Iraq?:

That's interesting, last time I visited they had a few ideas on how to handle Iraq, such as "redeploying" our troops out of Iraq before the end of 2006. Today I find no link for their plans on how to win the war in Iraq at all.

I only point all this information out to remind us all that the only hope that Democrats have to win either the House or the Senate is if they can convince Republican voters to either vote for them or convince us that our party is filled with sexual predatory pedophiles in an effort to dissuade us from voting at all.

When will Conservatives wake up? This is not about the entire Republican party being more corrupt than Democrats and it isn't about "Conservative" Christians being hypocritical, it should be about who, at least, has a plan and is willing to discuss options as opposed to who is so cognizant of the fact that the American people would not support their plan that they will not even share it with the voters. Just as in shopping for a bargain you get what you pay for, when it comes to elections you get who you vote for. Make sure you make the right choice based on fact and not smear job propaganda spread by those who either can't or won't even tell you their plan for America.

'Nuff Said

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Mark Steyn :: Page scandal makes America look silly

Just a Little Update on KOLR 10's Town Hall Meeting on the War on Terror

In my recent post on KOLR 10's Town Hall Meeting on the War on Terror I provided a link to KOLR 10, who had said that they would be continuing the discussion.

I also sent them a link to my blog entry. I did receive an email acknowledgement from Ms. Polly VanDoren-Orr of KOLR 10 thanking me for my insight. I was, however, somewhat disappointed when I watched their coverage of the emails received on the next day's news broadcasts. They chose one paragraph emails from two viewpoints, either praising the Town Hall Meeting or bashing it as one sided. So much for continuing the discussion. The next day when I emailed that address again my mail could not be delivered, so I suppose they really had no intention of "continuing the discussion," after all. They seemed to only be interested in whether their viewers either approved or disapproved of their Town Hall Meeting.

Oh, well.

Anyway, I thought I should update that entry since, apparently, that email link no longer exists and as far as KOLR 10 goes they seem to have ended the discussion with a superficial reading of fairly superficial emails which critiqued them rather than continued the discussion.

Jest fer Laffs

Heh, heh.

I got an email from the owner of that far lefty group I mentioned in The Controversy isn't about "The Path to 9/11," it's about Freedom of Speech, "FREEDOM'S FORUM," and in case you don't remember they banned me and another conservative for life because they felt that the group of more than 200 far lefty members was out of balance due to the influx of THREE (:0) conservative Republicans. This is the group that claims:

This is the place where all ideas,pro or con can be expressed without the use of personal attacks on judgment, intelligence, or motive. We all agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Actually, the owner sent an invitation to a very close friend of mine who in turn forwarded it to me, and the owner had a new introduction, sounded really exciting!

XXXXXX has invited you to join the FREEDOMSFORUM group!

CHECK OUT OUR GROUP. WE ARE A COMMUNITY OF OVER TWO HUNDRED PEOPLE WHO ARE SEEKING THE TRUTH, WHEREVER IT MAY LEAD. WE DO NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN LIBERALS, CONSERVATIVES, RADICALS, OR ANARCHISTS, FOR LABELS ONLY PROPAGATE THE PROPOGANDA OF THE SO CALLED ELITE. ALL ARE WELCOME TO POST, ALL ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS.

In a private exchange the owner said to another friend of mine:

IN FACT IF YOUR A FRIEND OF (insert my screen name here), CONSIDER YOURSELF UNINVITED.
HAVE A NICE DAY.

Another unwelcome conservative. Another unwelcome poster. Another person apparently unentitled to his own opinion...go figger. Far lefties ur so purdictible, thay jest cain't hep provin' muh poynt. ;)

Was that YOUR fork in my ear?

Okay, so everybody else bitches and complains on their blogs, why can't I?

I generally reserve my bitching for my husband who seems to enjoy it because it affords him the excuse to bitch and complain back at me and since we usually end up laughing at each other and eventually at ourselves over how ridiculous we're acting it lets off a lot of pressure and we're no worse for the wear. I sure do like my husband, he's a lot of fun to irritate and he admittedly feels the same way about me...isn't that the sign of a good marriage? :(I)

But, dang it! I was thinking I had a job writing some articles for a local community paper, but apparently and for some reason which isn't clear to me, the person I thought I'd hit it off with so well isn't calling, isn't emailing, isn't communicating with me at all so I'm thinking that ain't happenin' now. Oh, bother.

This has done a little bit of damage to my own self confidence regarding my ability to write.

In the meantime I'm running back and forth to Mother's, making special trips to special stores to buy her whatever flavor of ice cream she has chosen as her personal flavor of the month and keeping a highly flexible schedule which IS required by that little *queen bee* who has a sweeter face than that Welch's Grape Juice girl who says words way beyond her little four year old comprehensive skills.

I try to remember life is messy. I try to remember that other people are juggling things just like I am, they may be different things but just as time consuming and frustrating to the things they'd like to be spending time on and I try to remember that it's the people we love in life that are most important.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see if I can find something to irritate my husband about so we'll find ourselves laughing in a little while...or maybe a nap, since we were both up till 1:00 in the morning playing a video of the KOLR 10 Town Hall meeting backwards and forwards 214 times...or maybe I'll load the dishwasher, clean the toilet and vacuum the house....

...We're having fried catfish and baked potatoes for dinner, if my husband behaves himself. ;)

KOLR 10's Town Hall Meeting on the War on Terror

I just watched KOLR 10 host their town hall meeting about the War on Terror ( News ) with Dr. Ibrahim, ex-CIA analyst McDon....oops, I mean McGovern, Retired Army Col. Robinette and what was...Fletcher? I think? The retired Marine whose son is serving in Iraq. It was a very interesting discussion. Dr. Ibrahim, gave the most food for thought in my humble opinion.

I couldn't help but note that Mr. McGovern would not answer the question posed regarding whether he was anti-Zionist directly...saying "I am pro-justice...." very telling that he would not answer the question as posed.

Dr. Ibrahim said something interesting in that Americans need to understand that Arabs view Palestinians as "very critically important" but would also point out that it is every bit as important for Arabs to understand that Israel is "very critically important" to a majority of Americans.

Discussions such as this are good and I'm glad to see them going on, but clearly McGovern does nothing to end the polarization over the war in Iraq. The smug...er...man obviously thrives on it...calling our intelligence community "cowardly folks in the intelligence community " and attributing that sentiment to the head of the House Intelligence Committee because he dared to hire his own person to do an assessment of National intelligence in a "little charade," when McGovern pulled that description out of thin air. No one but McGovern has called our intelligence community "cowardly folks in the intelligence community."

Then there was the straw man question someone posed which suggested that some people believe that "if you don't support our President you are anti-American," Who has ever really said that? That is what lefties think we mean when we disapprove their destructive criticism.

I know I am not the only one who is tired of discussing straw men and ready to get down to the business of meeting the goals we need to meet in Iraq and get our military out of that country.

What we need is better ideas, better plans, better results. Yes, there is a right to dissent in America, there are young men fighting for that right as I have repeatedly written. But with that right to dissent comes a responsibility, as well. It is simply not enough to shout "No blood for oil!" or "Bush is a liar!" Too many on the far left have the impression that they can shout talking points without any responsibility for offering solutions.

Perhaps it would be a good starting point for all of us to remember that every American wants our troops home safely at the earliest possible date and go from there.

Much of the solution is reliant on moderate Muslims taking on more responsibility themselves as Dr. Ibrahim suggested. Education should be a more important aspect of reaching our goals but, with that in mind consider all the schools that are being built, all the supplies being supplied to young Iraqi boys and girls...are they being taught to hate America? Are they being taught a love of democracy? A love of freedom? Is it inherent that all people seek freedom? I'd like to hear Dr. Ibrahim's reply to those questions.

This dialog is going on here and all across America. There are people who are getting their jollies from rhetorically jabbing their debate opponent(s) in the eye instead of listening to what their opponents have to say. That is unfortunate, we are not playing a game here though there are people who apparently think we are. In my opinion they are the ones who are helping to polarize our country and one can only ask why they seek to polarize and divide us, what is their motive? Dr. Ibrahim said that hatred is spawned out of ignorance...food for thought, indeed.

I'll be sending a link to this to KOLR 10. They are taking further emails at townhall@kolr10.com for anyone interested.

How About Some Disjointed Thoughts?

Thought I'd pop in and type out a few words. I don't even really know where it's going to lead. I've got loads of things on my mind.

My brother, sister-in-law and nephew came and spent the day and all evening with us yesterday. We celebrated my mother's 71st birthday. Her birthday isn't actually until Wednesday but we cheated a little. I decorated a very laughable birthday cake but after putting the candles in it it didn't look all that bad. It tasted great with the help of a little Blue Bunny on top! ;)

I had a really interesting discussion about religion with my brother. Something we hadn't talked about in a very long time. The last time we talked about it we got in a bit of a tiff (it might have just been me) but we both really enjoyed the discussion last night and I think it reminded us of how much we USED to enjoy talking. I hope we can continue the discussion.

The Libertarian Guy (tm) had a funny post that I read and shared with my brother, Insanity on a worldwide scale. He is running for the 134th district House seat in Missouri, read more about his platform here: Rodgers for 134th District, personally, I think he's far too cool to be a representative, I doubt the majority of his constituents could be represented by such a cool dude (and excuse my terminology, I ain't very cool, myself) considering they simply cannot measure up to him on the cool scale. ;)

Dan and Jeanne commented on Irreconcilable Differences, recommending that I read Wes Wilson's White Horse Journal. When reading Dan and Jeanne's blog I discovered they mentioned that "Wes" is Dan's brother-in-law, I don't know if this is Wes Wilson or just coincidental but upon reading Wes' entry at White Horse Journal, Justice for the Middle East, where he suggests:

"The world sees that it is only America that funds and arms Israel, so when Israel makes a blunder we too are blamed - hence the World Trade Center bombings and the outflow in the billions for homeland security protection plan contracts. Consequently we need to insist on supporting only our own mainstay virtues of American Democracy in all our dealings concerning Israel and the rest of occupied Palestine. This means that we must make clear that we Americans are not Zionists - and that every democracy that we Americans help build or fund with our own hard earned tax dollars and potent military hardware must be 100% secular - like we are - and that each citizen-inhabitant must be treated equally before the law. That is, there can be no exclusive theocracy or nepotistic tribalism allowed or even tolerated if any American tax dollars or armaments are going to be used to fund, support, or defend it. This will mean that instead of the "two country" policy 'solution' - which is not a solution and never will be (e.g. Hamas) - must be abandoned in favor of a "one country solution" like the one we have fought for and now launched at great cost in Iraq - or else all our support will stop. When and if this is adopted by our government as its new policy for Israel-Palestine it will mean that eventually the voting population of Israel-Palestine will become more and more Palestinian. This will mean that the compromises favoring 'justice for all' that are not being addressed now - will surely be addressed as the Palestinian votes add up within this new Democratic country - by vote, not by force - which is of course the only way a true democracy should work.

When this policy is in place - like we are attempting in Iraq - each citizen of Israel-Palestine will get one vote - whether Israeli or Palestinian, Jew, agnostic, Christian or Muslim. When such a broad and honorable way of dealing with the entire "Middle East Crisis" becomes widely known as the official American foreign policy - then we will be seen by all parties to be treating all people involved equally and fairly - and terror against Americans worldwide will subside dramatically."

I suppose Dan and Jeanne think this is an impressive idea. I am being generous when I say that I think it is unfeasible and impossible. To suggest that we do away with Israel as a country, in favor of a new country which would incompass Israel and Palestine together completely ignores the basic fact that Palestinans have been used as pawns by more malevolent entities, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. These TERRORISTS control the Palestinians' actions and reactions in much the same way Islam's Imams recently controlled the Muslim reaction to the Pope's comments about Mohammed. The Palestinians are taught by radical fascist terrorists to hate Israel, to hate the U.S. and to act out in violent ways against them.

Mr. Wilson seems to think if we simply tell the Palestinians that we aren't Zionists and promote the misnomer idea that we can all get along that eventually they'll stop attacking us? That "terror against Americans worldwide will subside dramatically?" All we need to do is talk to them, make Israel (?) one country which includes Palestinians and the world will live in peace...Kumbaya muh Lord, kumbaya...

Okay, so it IS a novel and new idea but I'd suggest that there could be a reason no one else is espousing it? :::hint, hint:::

I'm calling a man about a job tomorrow. I think it will be flexible enough to allow me to care for my Ma and do something I've dreamed of doing my whole life...I'll let you know how that turns out. :)

I nearly FAINTED when I heard Bill Clinton barely fall short of having a mental breakdown on Fox News Sunday with Mike Wallace this morning!!!!!!! Ahahahahaha! It is a vast right wing conspiracy, after all! I'm lovin' it! And speaking of that catch phrase I'm so broke I can't even afford a McDonald's cheeseburger.*

*Hint, hint to that guy I'm calling about a job tomorrow. ;)

Dang, I've missed having the time to write here. I know it's disjointed, but you have NO idea why...heh, heh.

Okay, Here's What's Going On....

I had to call an ambulance to come and pick my Mother up on Sunday morning. She was staying at my house at the time. I am hearing that she will be able to go home tomorrow. I do not know what this is going to mean in terms of how much time I will have available to be online and/or working on the blog.

I covet any and all prayers for my Mother, for me and our family, and I thank you in advance for them.

I hope to be contributing more soon.

Irreconcilable Differences

According to Glenn T. Stanton, as quoted at smartmarriages.com, the number of adults who have been divorced quadrupled from over 4 million in 1970 to over 17 million in 1994. It is likely that more than a few of those adults cited "irreconcilable differences" as a justification for their divorces.

Today America is polarized, there are clearly some irreconcilable differences between certain political pundits. What is a citizen to do when he or she would like to divorce themselves from the political antics and power plays by one party against the other?

I believe that Republicans, who clearly are more willing to fight for our security and safety in these states should be awarded the home, the car and custody of the kids. I plan to explain why I have come to this conclusion.

I'd wager all of us have heard of a jealous wife who believes her faithful husband is guilty of having an affair, no amount of pleading and explaining will cause that wife to believe her husband. He can give her the details of his day, he can call her throughout the day but this jealous wife is convinced that sometime in between the dry cleaners and the office, or the office and the house he stopped at a sleazy hotel along the way and met an imaginary mistress who is twice as beautiful as she, twice as young and much better in bed.

Eventually the husband will either have an affair because his wife expects it and all her dreams (or nightmares) will come true or their marriage will simply end in divorce because she continues to believe the worst of him, regardless of what he says or does. In essence she lies about him, she lies about him to all her friends, her family, oftentimes even her church family, all the while convinced he lied to her when he never lied at all.

So is the love/hate affair/marriage of George W. Bush with the jealous Democrat party. So does the Democrat party lie about him, wrongly convinced that he first lied to them and there seems to be nothing that he or any Republican could ever say to convince them otherwise. I suggest we simply put this behind us, grant the Democrats the divorce that they make inevitable and move on. We'll cite irreconcilable differences and we'll be expecting child support and health insurance. If the government needs to garnish their wages or raise taxes on the Democrats to meet the costly demands of these righteous judgments, that suits me just fine. Democrats like higher taxes anyway, and everyone knows with their bleeding hearts they should be happy to provide for our needs.

There is a way out of this inevitable divorce between the citizens of our great nation. We can use the techniques utilized by a marriage councilor. We can acknowledge that we hear one another. We can stop assuming things about each other and we can seek to mend our broken hearts, the broken trust of our nation.

I cannot speak for Democrats and I don't claim to be able to speak for all Republicans, but here is the beginning of what I hope will open a dialog between us. Let me warn you that much like that angry husband who has been accused of cheating for ten years and is ready to scream in the face of the wife, I am at my wit's end. If I appear to be angry at the Democrats, my "other half," it is because I am angry, I'll not pretend otherwise. I am throwing down the gauntlet. I am telling the jealous wife that if she doesn't stop with her insane hallucinations that there will be no reconciliation.

Here is what you must do to appease your angry husband, and I acknowledge that you are as frustrated with your husband as your husband is with you:

1). You must lose your defeatist attitude.

2). We have heard your message that you are unhappy that we went to war in Iraq. Well, some mothers are unhappy when their child is diagnosed with an illness but it doesn't mean she can or will disown her child. Neither can you disown your country, or the war we are engaged in, in Iraq.

3). We have heard you say that we are losing the war in Iraq. We do not want to lose our hope for victory there, we are optimists. We believe America can win the war in Iraq and the broader war on terrorism but we need your help. When your son got in trouble the other day you expected your husband to stand behind you as you meted out punishment, whether it was to ground him, to take away his video game, to remove the television from his room, whatever it was you delegated as punishment, you had the right to expect that your husband would support you even if he disagreed with your punishment, even if he questioned you. He could question you in private but before your son you rightfully expected him to "have your back." So it is with us, we can rightfully expect that even if you don't like the war in Iraq you'll still have our back. Disagree with us in private, not before the international community. Don't air our dirty laundry in public!

4). We have heard you when you complain Bush hasn't done enough to secure our nation at home and many of us agree with you. We want our borders secure. We want to see less pork barrel spending in Congress, we want to see "conservatives" act conservative for a change. We want to see better security at the airports. What are your ideas? You criticize but you don't give us alternatives. I've even had some of you complain you just simply don't have to offer an alternative, that it isn't your responsibility, that you aren't the "party" in control of this nation.

Excuse me? Someone elected Democrat leaders in Washington and while you are busy excoriating the Republican leadership for doing all the wrong things and making all the wrong decisions they happened to have been elected by you and have a responsibility not only to you but to all of us, to our nation. Why would you not expect them to give your viewpoints a voice!? You cannot actually be proud of them, can you!?

You claim you have the right to dissent, the right to be heard, the right to offer criticism but with criticism comes a certain amount of responsibility. Not simply responsibility to those in your own state or community, but to your nation. You may live in Missouri, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, I don't care where you live or where your representatives came from, they owe it to you and to your nation to serve them well, to give 100 percent to our country. Together, our representatives and Senators collectively make up the government of the United States of America and as their constituents we are reliant on them to give voice to good alternatives and solutions rather than simply disagree with the actions and policies that are being followed.

Yes, your leaders have a responsibility to put forth a reasoned alternative approach to be discussed, it is a very important part of constructive criticism. Without it you and your leaders, as your representatives, are destructively criticizing our country and undermining the war against Islamic fascism. That, of necessity aids the enemy of our nation. It is simply a fact and cannot be denied. There is nothing wrong with dissent, there is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, there is everything wrong with destructive criticism and you and your leaders are unwilling to even aid their own country by offering an alternative policy, instead leveling politicized rhetoric in a political power play which has absolutely nothing to do with the best interests of America and everything to do with an upcoming political election. To be honest with you I feel no particular tie to the Republican party, though I am a registered Republican. I plead with you, give us some good ideas for how to achieve victory in the war in Iraq and the broader war against terrorism. You owe us that much if you really want to reconcile our differences.

Democrats, you have a choice, if you do not like the way you are perceived then you can step up to the plate, by not offering a solution and by only offering criticism what you do offer speaks for itself. If you do not like being called or known as "un-American" "traitors" stop with the destructive criticism and offer a viable alternative plan to win the war in Iraq and the broader war on terrorism.

Your husband seeks reconciliation. What can you offer? Are you so convinced that your lie is the truth and our truth is a lie that we cannot patch things up? Can we move beyond irreconcilable differences and discuss solutions yet?

If we cannot, I see no recourse but to start the divorce proceedings. I have had the same argument with you for the last five years. I have explained myself over and over again to you. I am not having an affair. I only want what is best for our marriage, our country. I will not be incessantly replying to the same arguments you have offered me the last five years for the next five years. You claim you have a right to be heard, well so do I!!!

Do you have anything left to offer this "marriage?" If you have nothing left to offer your country, perhaps it's time for a divorce. I forgot to mention earlier, we will be claiming you as dependents on our income tax returns.

The Fifth Anniversary of 9/11

I remember 9/11/01. We all do. We all have stories of where we were, what we were doing...I couldn't begin to describe to anyone how I felt...there simply were no words as I sat dumbfounded and speechless when the second plane flew into the second tower.

I won't try to sound mushy or somber, emotional or stoic. It is enough to know that the veil was taken off our eyes that day. It is enough to know that for those who lived through that day and watched those reports...and later the invasion of Iraq, our lives will never be the same again and our perspectives will never be what they were before those days.

God bless America.

Democrat Political Power Trumps Free Speech

It seems that Variety.com is attempting to draw a comparison between The Reagan movie that CBS was going to air and the recent brouhaha over "The Path to 9/11," in Variety.com - Pols pound 'Path...' :

"The Path to 9/11" is looking a lot like "The Reagans, Part II...."

...But much in the same way right-wing groups mobilized to attack CBS' "The Reagans" a few years ago, Democratic partisans were doing everything they could to discredit ABC's "The Path to 9/11."

...and Philly.com in ABC's 9/11 Movie :

"It's the same lame argument that conservatives raised in high dudgeon in 2003 over CBS's unflattering miniseries about Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Unfortunately, in that case, CBS and its commercial sponsors did cower in the face of an orchestrated conservative campaign. The network dumped the miniseries onto cable channel Showtime, where it was seen by a much smaller audience. (But it did at least see the light of day, and the republic is still standing.)"

There is however, a major difference between what happened regarding the Reagan film and what is happening today regarding "The Path to 9/11."

As noted in 'Reagans' filmmakers: CBS ruined movie - Nov. 25, 2003 from CNN.com it was the fans of Reagan who caused CBS to decide not to air the movie on network television:

"...CBS' decision not to air "The Reagans" came after weeks of complaints by fans of the former president that it would distort his legacy...."

Or was it? BBC on the Internet reported CBS denies folding over Reagans:

"Mr Moonves stated that the decision to pull the drama was his alone. He added that he was not influenced by the Republican outcry over the mini-series or pressure from Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone or president Mel Karmazin.

"Unfortunately, in this instance, some of the criticisms, although coming from obviously one political perspective, I felt were somewhat well-founded," Mr. Moonves said."

Am I the only one who sees the huge difference between fans uniting to point out the disrespect shown to the Reagan family and members of a party's leadership making veiled threats to ABC in reminding them more than once that they will be in a position of needing their broadcast license renewed at some point in the future? This is not a good comparison at all. Show me where leaders in the Republican party issued letters to CBS and offered veiled threats about their broadcast license renewal, show me comparable outcry among the LEADERS of the Republican party calling for this movie to be canceled if "changes are not made."

After all these years of Bush bashing is the Democrat leadership so defensive that they'll try to censor a broadcast network rather than take a little of the blame upon themselves for the tragedy of 9/11/01? I believe we have our answer.

This is all about politics and politics should not rule over the freedom of press, speech, expression and dissent rights of Americans. Democrats have a nasty habit of letting political power trump all.