Question: How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans And Southern Republicans?
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock 40 cal., and you are an expert shot? You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Southern Republican's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Monday, September 26, 2005
Sheehan Rides Again
This morning's news talked of 200 protesters in Nashville this weekend demonstrating in the name of Cindy Sheehan against the war in Iraq. Interestingly, a soundbite from one of the protesters mentioned how they were not "just protesting for peace in the middle east, but were also protesting for peace for those in poverty, those affected by the aftermath of the hurricanes." It seems we need more than just war sympathy to pull out protesters these days, needing to pull from empathy for those impoverished and scattered souls who have been displaced in the wake of the devastation of the gulf coast region. But why?
Well, it appears Sheehan's name has fallen out of it's prominent spot in the news by the hurricanes. Here is a piece from an op-ed in the LA Times in case you are not familiar with the typical media portrayal of Sheehan's vigil: "The Times uncritically reported Sheehan's claim that the president had behaved callously in a June 2004 meeting with her and her husband, refusing to look at pictures of Casey or listen to stories about him. The Times claimed without qualification that Sheehan "came away from that meeting dissatisfied and angry."
However, what has not been reported is that Sheehan has changed her story since she initially met with President Bush in 2004. This is also from the same op-ed piece: "According to an interview with her hometown paper, the Vacaville Reporter, Sheehan had said that although she was upset about the war, she decided not to confront the president — who clearly left a favorable impression: "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis…. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."Of that trip, Sheehan said: "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."
What we have here is a major discrepancy in her statements, clearly showing she has flip-flopped on her reasoning from after her initial meeting with the president until recently. Yet she still wants to meet with Bush again, lambasting him in the press for not granting a return visit. But I ask, what good can come from an audience to reason with someone who cannot reason herself?
Now that we know how she has changed her reasoning, consider this information, from Bill Hobbs Online (billhobbs.com) on August 22, 2005, which shows just how crazy those who are bandwagoning behind Sheehan are: "One fact you probably haven't heard about Sheehan's son Casey, whose death in Iraq sparked the protest: He re-enlisted after the war started. And he volunteered for the rescue mission in which he was killed. In every possibly way, Casey Sheehan volunteered..."
Now, I hope I never have to experience the loss of a son, but it seems Sheehan is selfishly campaigning on a principle that her lost son never would have stood for. He was the true American Hero, unselfishly giving his life for what was a rescue mission, personifying the principles of courage and loyalty, exactly opposite of that in which she currently protests.
Does that show the shallowness of the belief system in those 200 out protesting this past weekend in Nashville? Or does it show the collective wisdom of the hundreds of thousands that also reside in the area who did not turn out for the protest?
Maybe both.
Well, it appears Sheehan's name has fallen out of it's prominent spot in the news by the hurricanes. Here is a piece from an op-ed in the LA Times in case you are not familiar with the typical media portrayal of Sheehan's vigil: "The Times uncritically reported Sheehan's claim that the president had behaved callously in a June 2004 meeting with her and her husband, refusing to look at pictures of Casey or listen to stories about him. The Times claimed without qualification that Sheehan "came away from that meeting dissatisfied and angry."
However, what has not been reported is that Sheehan has changed her story since she initially met with President Bush in 2004. This is also from the same op-ed piece: "According to an interview with her hometown paper, the Vacaville Reporter, Sheehan had said that although she was upset about the war, she decided not to confront the president — who clearly left a favorable impression: "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis…. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."Of that trip, Sheehan said: "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."
What we have here is a major discrepancy in her statements, clearly showing she has flip-flopped on her reasoning from after her initial meeting with the president until recently. Yet she still wants to meet with Bush again, lambasting him in the press for not granting a return visit. But I ask, what good can come from an audience to reason with someone who cannot reason herself?
Now that we know how she has changed her reasoning, consider this information, from Bill Hobbs Online (billhobbs.com) on August 22, 2005, which shows just how crazy those who are bandwagoning behind Sheehan are: "One fact you probably haven't heard about Sheehan's son Casey, whose death in Iraq sparked the protest: He re-enlisted after the war started. And he volunteered for the rescue mission in which he was killed. In every possibly way, Casey Sheehan volunteered..."
Now, I hope I never have to experience the loss of a son, but it seems Sheehan is selfishly campaigning on a principle that her lost son never would have stood for. He was the true American Hero, unselfishly giving his life for what was a rescue mission, personifying the principles of courage and loyalty, exactly opposite of that in which she currently protests.
Does that show the shallowness of the belief system in those 200 out protesting this past weekend in Nashville? Or does it show the collective wisdom of the hundreds of thousands that also reside in the area who did not turn out for the protest?
Maybe both.
Monday, September 12, 2005
BLAME BUSH!
Wow- how the media and others in the blogosphere have raged on and on how the problem with the response to Hurricane Katrina lies at the feet of the current president, with even the astute rapper Kanye West saying on national TV that "Bush hates black people." Well, you can read my previous post to hear my points about the racism spin to this disaster, so I won't go into more detail on that. However, there needs to be some points made on who is to blame:
1. There was a period of time that elapsed from the end of the hurricane to the time the flooding began. Want a pictorial view of this? Go to http://www.kodakgallery.com/Slideshow.jsp?mode=fromshare&Uc=r9nmta5.b147fdut&Uy=hbb8p1&Ux=1 Be prepared to sit for a while as there are more than 100 pictures with commentary describing what is happening and when, giving the viewer an understanding of the timeline of events. Since there was a period of time, it appeared that New Orleans was going to survive relatively unscathed- yes, there was damage to structures and trees and such, but there was NO FLOODING. There was no reason to get excited about any rescue operation because there was no need for one! Sure, there was no power, but people in Mississippi had no power for over a week and lo and behold they are still alive. The problem came when the levees broke.
2. Suddenly you had a different situation arise than was previously anticipated. The evacuation and subsequent housing of those that couldn't evacuate to the Superdome were meant for protection from the Hurricane itself, not from onrushing floodwater from broken levees. In fact, the initial floodwater levels in New Orleans after the passing of the storm were less than what was expected in the city. This presented something the city was not prepared for, and the city knew it. In fact, they had tried for years to get upgrades done to the levees, but government bureaucracy at the local, state, and federal level has kept this from happening, quite possibly with the procrastinator attitude of "we'll deal with it tomorrow". Well, the problem made itself evident as "tomorrow" became today.
These problems were present long before Bush was elected, he was just the unlucky one sitting in the Oval Office when it came time to pay the piper for the sins of his presidential predecessors as well as those local and state officials that also did nothing. If the levees had not broken, this certainly would not have been the crisis it is today and we would be moving onto the latest and greatest sensationalized story the media could promote, and the ticking time bomb of the levees would still be sitting there counting down and waiting for the next hurricane to blow through. The man has been the sitting president for 2 of the greatest disasters on American soil in the last 50 years, and they are all his fault? I don't think so.
1. There was a period of time that elapsed from the end of the hurricane to the time the flooding began. Want a pictorial view of this? Go to http://www.kodakgallery.com/Slideshow.jsp?mode=fromshare&Uc=r9nmta5.b147fdut&Uy=hbb8p1&Ux=1 Be prepared to sit for a while as there are more than 100 pictures with commentary describing what is happening and when, giving the viewer an understanding of the timeline of events. Since there was a period of time, it appeared that New Orleans was going to survive relatively unscathed- yes, there was damage to structures and trees and such, but there was NO FLOODING. There was no reason to get excited about any rescue operation because there was no need for one! Sure, there was no power, but people in Mississippi had no power for over a week and lo and behold they are still alive. The problem came when the levees broke.
2. Suddenly you had a different situation arise than was previously anticipated. The evacuation and subsequent housing of those that couldn't evacuate to the Superdome were meant for protection from the Hurricane itself, not from onrushing floodwater from broken levees. In fact, the initial floodwater levels in New Orleans after the passing of the storm were less than what was expected in the city. This presented something the city was not prepared for, and the city knew it. In fact, they had tried for years to get upgrades done to the levees, but government bureaucracy at the local, state, and federal level has kept this from happening, quite possibly with the procrastinator attitude of "we'll deal with it tomorrow". Well, the problem made itself evident as "tomorrow" became today.
These problems were present long before Bush was elected, he was just the unlucky one sitting in the Oval Office when it came time to pay the piper for the sins of his presidential predecessors as well as those local and state officials that also did nothing. If the levees had not broken, this certainly would not have been the crisis it is today and we would be moving onto the latest and greatest sensationalized story the media could promote, and the ticking time bomb of the levees would still be sitting there counting down and waiting for the next hurricane to blow through. The man has been the sitting president for 2 of the greatest disasters on American soil in the last 50 years, and they are all his fault? I don't think so.
Friday, September 02, 2005
True Sadness
Living here in the South it has become apparent to me that racism is not necessarily dead, yet. Talking with people about the aftereffects of hurricane Katrina on New Orleans and the horrible human tragedy that continues to unfold, I have heard many references to "those people" and "returning to their jungle roots." Yes, it is a fact that the majority of those on television are African-American in origin. And because of this, they are most likely the ones toting guns and shooting at helicopters and the police and raping one another. But lets take a step back and eliminate race altogether. Is there something else that could be a common denominator here besides race?
Most who stayed fall into 2 categories- those who were too stubborn to leave or those who had no means or were to frail to leave. This first group is most likely smaller and now and probably very sorry for their decision to stay, and are stuck in a hard place. The second group accounts for more of those who are now causing the trouble, mostly. Surely, those that are too frail are now almost certainly not living any more with the onset of disease and heat slowly picking them off one by one. However, those remaining in this group have a lot of the same characteristics- low education, low socio-economic status, and yes, race. But remember, we are throwing that last characteristic out right now.
So where would you find those in America's society that function with lives based on low-education and low SES? They are typically in high concentration, low quality housing and living from paycheck to paycheck, sometimes working multiple jobs to make ends meet. Most don't own a car, and rely solely on public transportation for what trips they do make. That means, in the case of New Orleans, we had a lot of poor, poorly educated people in a very confined space without the ability to leave in the path of the oncoming hurricane. They were confined in what was supposed to be a safe haven- the Superdome- to weather the storm, and that failed. You add in the breaking of levees and the onrush of rising water, and now you have a lot of poor, poorly educated people worried about their lives. That translates easily into the fight or flight mechanism of emotions, with anger at others (those in authority) who supposedly moved them into a safe location, easily trumping the notion that they did have some control over their circumstances, only that responsibility came many years before when they dropped out of school, either by their choice or by other circumstances. So, it must be the government's fault right? Especially in today's me-first society.
Now, a parallel must be drawn with this population. What if this had happened in Phoenix, where I am originally from? Would the same effect have occurred? Certainly you have a lot of poor, poorly educated people living in high concentration housing in a rather small geographic space. Had they been evacuated to the Bank One Ballpark downtown, only to see a hurricane destroy what they had thought to be safe, would they be creating a mob scene, trying to escape and fearing for their lives? You bet they would. Except they would be mostly Hispanic in origin.
See, it has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with SES and educational level. We need to worry less about skin color- that includes those who live in colored skin- and start looking at the sociological reasons that Hispanics in Phoenix or African-Americans in New Orleans or Gypsies in EU are living with these circumstances and rectify that sociological barrier. Instead of throwing money at people through welfare and any other federal program, we need to instead instill a shift in thinking such that both education and work are valued by these different cultures (yes cultures, not races, because this is a fiber in the cultural identity that needs to change) such that they can remove themselves from this lifestyle that is slowly but surely perpetuating itself with each iteration of generations.
Most who stayed fall into 2 categories- those who were too stubborn to leave or those who had no means or were to frail to leave. This first group is most likely smaller and now and probably very sorry for their decision to stay, and are stuck in a hard place. The second group accounts for more of those who are now causing the trouble, mostly. Surely, those that are too frail are now almost certainly not living any more with the onset of disease and heat slowly picking them off one by one. However, those remaining in this group have a lot of the same characteristics- low education, low socio-economic status, and yes, race. But remember, we are throwing that last characteristic out right now.
So where would you find those in America's society that function with lives based on low-education and low SES? They are typically in high concentration, low quality housing and living from paycheck to paycheck, sometimes working multiple jobs to make ends meet. Most don't own a car, and rely solely on public transportation for what trips they do make. That means, in the case of New Orleans, we had a lot of poor, poorly educated people in a very confined space without the ability to leave in the path of the oncoming hurricane. They were confined in what was supposed to be a safe haven- the Superdome- to weather the storm, and that failed. You add in the breaking of levees and the onrush of rising water, and now you have a lot of poor, poorly educated people worried about their lives. That translates easily into the fight or flight mechanism of emotions, with anger at others (those in authority) who supposedly moved them into a safe location, easily trumping the notion that they did have some control over their circumstances, only that responsibility came many years before when they dropped out of school, either by their choice or by other circumstances. So, it must be the government's fault right? Especially in today's me-first society.
Now, a parallel must be drawn with this population. What if this had happened in Phoenix, where I am originally from? Would the same effect have occurred? Certainly you have a lot of poor, poorly educated people living in high concentration housing in a rather small geographic space. Had they been evacuated to the Bank One Ballpark downtown, only to see a hurricane destroy what they had thought to be safe, would they be creating a mob scene, trying to escape and fearing for their lives? You bet they would. Except they would be mostly Hispanic in origin.
See, it has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with SES and educational level. We need to worry less about skin color- that includes those who live in colored skin- and start looking at the sociological reasons that Hispanics in Phoenix or African-Americans in New Orleans or Gypsies in EU are living with these circumstances and rectify that sociological barrier. Instead of throwing money at people through welfare and any other federal program, we need to instead instill a shift in thinking such that both education and work are valued by these different cultures (yes cultures, not races, because this is a fiber in the cultural identity that needs to change) such that they can remove themselves from this lifestyle that is slowly but surely perpetuating itself with each iteration of generations.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Wading through Katrina
Yes, Hurricane Katrina decided to run inland enough to bathe Nashville with flood warnings, severe storm warnings, and a "tropical storm warning", despite the fact that Nashville has never been "tropical". Fortunately, we have seen only mild winds and regular, but not torrential, rain, meaning that everything is wet enough to keep drivers skidding around on the highways and crazy toddlers doing unknown amounts of damage indoors. No damage has been seen by this Motor Moron, but I was re-routed last night after leaving my sister-in-law's place due to a reported downed tree. That started the inevitable repeated line of questioning from my curious 3 year old son, "Why was that tree in the road, daddy?", for the next 5 minutes. Who knew the hardest words to hear in the English language were "But why?".
To those of you who have read the previous posts, a 1204 was posted by me yesterday in Spider Solitaire. I have now tied my father's record!
Also, a great link for ACCURATE Iraq war information from an embedded journalist is www.michaelyon.blogspot.com. The latest post was chillingly real as the leader of the unit he has been following was injured in a gun battle with an insurgent.
To those of you who have read the previous posts, a 1204 was posted by me yesterday in Spider Solitaire. I have now tied my father's record!
Also, a great link for ACCURATE Iraq war information from an embedded journalist is www.michaelyon.blogspot.com. The latest post was chillingly real as the leader of the unit he has been following was injured in a gun battle with an insurgent.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Bring on the Fat People!
This week the state of Tennessee was recognized as having the 5th highest rate of obesity in the US, behind (in order) Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, and Louisiana. See the report here- http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2005/Obesity2005Report.pdf, or the abbreviated report for Tennessee here- http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2005/release.php?StateID=TN. Findings state that 27.6% of Tennessee's population is clinically defined as obese, an increase of 1.6% from the previous year. It also demonstrates that obesity rates are highest in the South and Southeast.
How does this come about? Having moved to Nashville after growing up and living in Arizona for the majority of my life, and practiced in rural communities as a physical therapist for the past 4 years, my observations bring me to 3 conclusions:
1. Those with lower educational levels choose poorer diets and exercise less (or not at all) both from a lack of knowledge and time in their lives. It is easy to run to the nearest Krystal or Hardees and get a fatburger or sausage biscuit with their obscene number of calories after your 8-10-12 hour day than spend the time making or learning how to cook a much healthier meal, and sitting down in front of the TV and resting after what essentially has been a very physical workday.
2. Those with lower socioeconomic status also choose poorer diets and exercise less (or not at all) due to a lack of resources available to them. Again, it is easier to buy high calorie, lower nutrition value food instead of purchasing better food for you that costs more on a limited budget. Plus, getting regular exercise is somewhat limited by financial difficulties encumbered with joining a health club, even with sliding fee scales available to those who qualify. Yes, running/walking on roads or playing basketball in the park is always an option, but it is becoming less safe to do these activities in neighborhoods where the poor typically live, and for many people these are not activities their bodies or their interest level correspond with. In addition, who wants to run when the heat index is 106 degrees with high humidity? Remember, these people are already unhealthy, and the stress of exercise in this climate invites more serious medical conditions to develop.
3. Tradition and personal values implore that the current intake of high fat, high calorie food is what has always been the norm and thus perfectly acceptable. In a culture that values the sausage biscuit each and every morning, fried chicken once a week for dinner, and a Coke every time you get thirsty, it is difficult to change people's perceptions that what they are doing is bad for them. I saw a woman who was obviously on a limited budget take healthier items such as fruit out of her shopping cart instead of hash browns and ice cream as she tried to be able to purchase her groceries in a store.
These factors, while sometimes blindingly obvious to an outside observer in the culture, are completely misunderstood to the above people in their own lives. Or, in those already affected by the diseases of diabetes, heart disease, or low back pain, discarded as something that they are not willing to change or somehow is not related to their current state of health. And because behavior is the hardest thing to change in one's life, this population, already displaying a lack of discipline in controlling their health, will continue to increase here in Tennessee. The silver lining for me, however, is that being a health care practitioner, there will be no shortage of patients! As long as these trends continue, and surely they are again being passed down to the next generation, I have great job security.
How does this come about? Having moved to Nashville after growing up and living in Arizona for the majority of my life, and practiced in rural communities as a physical therapist for the past 4 years, my observations bring me to 3 conclusions:
1. Those with lower educational levels choose poorer diets and exercise less (or not at all) both from a lack of knowledge and time in their lives. It is easy to run to the nearest Krystal or Hardees and get a fatburger or sausage biscuit with their obscene number of calories after your 8-10-12 hour day than spend the time making or learning how to cook a much healthier meal, and sitting down in front of the TV and resting after what essentially has been a very physical workday.
2. Those with lower socioeconomic status also choose poorer diets and exercise less (or not at all) due to a lack of resources available to them. Again, it is easier to buy high calorie, lower nutrition value food instead of purchasing better food for you that costs more on a limited budget. Plus, getting regular exercise is somewhat limited by financial difficulties encumbered with joining a health club, even with sliding fee scales available to those who qualify. Yes, running/walking on roads or playing basketball in the park is always an option, but it is becoming less safe to do these activities in neighborhoods where the poor typically live, and for many people these are not activities their bodies or their interest level correspond with. In addition, who wants to run when the heat index is 106 degrees with high humidity? Remember, these people are already unhealthy, and the stress of exercise in this climate invites more serious medical conditions to develop.
3. Tradition and personal values implore that the current intake of high fat, high calorie food is what has always been the norm and thus perfectly acceptable. In a culture that values the sausage biscuit each and every morning, fried chicken once a week for dinner, and a Coke every time you get thirsty, it is difficult to change people's perceptions that what they are doing is bad for them. I saw a woman who was obviously on a limited budget take healthier items such as fruit out of her shopping cart instead of hash browns and ice cream as she tried to be able to purchase her groceries in a store.
These factors, while sometimes blindingly obvious to an outside observer in the culture, are completely misunderstood to the above people in their own lives. Or, in those already affected by the diseases of diabetes, heart disease, or low back pain, discarded as something that they are not willing to change or somehow is not related to their current state of health. And because behavior is the hardest thing to change in one's life, this population, already displaying a lack of discipline in controlling their health, will continue to increase here in Tennessee. The silver lining for me, however, is that being a health care practitioner, there will be no shortage of patients! As long as these trends continue, and surely they are again being passed down to the next generation, I have great job security.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Just like with Pac-Man, getting that high score is a must!
Have been trying my luck at spider solitaire on the computer in my free time- lately there has been some of that when you are a new start up therapy clinic- and just cannot seem to get past the magical number of 1191. To completely paint the backdrop of my madness, my father got me started on the easy setting of spider solitaire back in March, when he and my mother visited for a little over a week. He informed me that his all-time best was 1204, and that has intrigued this game-playing addict because, as many sons are want to do, I must top my dad in order to feel that I have accomplished something valuable in this life. Prior to finding out that my father was playing, the more difficult "medium" setting had been my choice, with me successfully completing the game at a 50% clip according to the statistics function in the game's drop down menu. But the news from my dad forced me to go at the "easy" setting, and while I rarely lose one of the games, I have yet to figure out the pattern of minimal moves that would allow the best scoring opportunity. As I said, am stuck at 1191 as my best score. Damn!
But more interesting, I am intrigued by the fact that I am feeling inferior to my father by not outscoring him in essentially is a meaningless computer game! Is it the fact that this is somewhat technology based and being a good Gen-X'er I invariably feel superior to my parents as I have spent more time with a computer than they have and thus think that I should be able to easily outperform them in all things technological? Is is that I feel the simple rush of desire of a child to outdo their parents stemming from those many times they let me win at "Candyland", wanting validation that I can do it on my own merit? Is it the challenge mentally to see a pattern in the game itself, and to master that mental pattern? Am not sure, but let the games continue!
But more interesting, I am intrigued by the fact that I am feeling inferior to my father by not outscoring him in essentially is a meaningless computer game! Is it the fact that this is somewhat technology based and being a good Gen-X'er I invariably feel superior to my parents as I have spent more time with a computer than they have and thus think that I should be able to easily outperform them in all things technological? Is is that I feel the simple rush of desire of a child to outdo their parents stemming from those many times they let me win at "Candyland", wanting validation that I can do it on my own merit? Is it the challenge mentally to see a pattern in the game itself, and to master that mental pattern? Am not sure, but let the games continue!
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Hugo Chavez & California
Two news stories interested me today...first, the "firestorm" started by Pat Robertson's comments about the US's need to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, after Chavez made some comments suggesting that the US was already in the process of developing these plans. Supposedly, it is an "international event" when a talking head such as Robertson makes the above opinions- of which the US has quickly distanced itself via the Secretary of State's office and Donald Rumsfeld's comments both stating for the record that this would be "illegal" and of course not the position of the US Government with respect to relations with another sovereign country. In a country such as ours a person's opinions are their own, valid, correct, or utterly insane and asinine. We are allowed to think what we want, and if the media is willing to put a microphone in front of every lunatic out there eventually the law of averages will state that something outrageous will be orated. But why should the government have to make a statement? Since when was Pat Robertson in a position to make official policy for the US government?
However, the Venezuelan ambassadors were also quick to go to the media, making a public outcry that the government apologize for Robertson's statements. President Chavez and Venezualan Ambassadors, you appreciate the right to denegrate the US in your country and speak badly about our leader, now you know what it is like to be on the other side. Don't cry foul when someone, even someone as unofficial as Pat Robertson and essentially a talking head only, plays the same game. As Will Hunting put it so succinctly in "Good Will Hunting", "How you like them apples?"
Also, it was reported that the Supreme Court of California upheld a lesbian's claim that her former partner, with whom she had jointly became artificially inseminated and bore twins to her partners single child, was responsbile for child support after the partner broke off the relationship and left with her own child. As this woman was the "breadwinner" of the family unit, as is the case with most "traditional" heterosexual unions, she was responsible for child support as they both entered into the parenting process jointly when they were together. Now, while I support the idea of civil unions instead of granting homosexuals "marriage" based on the traditional status of the term "marriage", homosexuals must also see that with rights come responsibility. Responsibility that we heterosexuals have dealt with for some time. As with President Chavez above, if you want to play the game, you have to accept the consequences that come with playing the game and not run away crying when, inevitably, something does not go the way you want it.
Maybe these scenarios continue to display the me-first selfishness and egocentrism that has become such a hallmark on society today- "if it upsets me, then it must be wrong." Well, welcome to the world as it is, you wanted in, now deal with it and shut up like everyone else.
However, the Venezuelan ambassadors were also quick to go to the media, making a public outcry that the government apologize for Robertson's statements. President Chavez and Venezualan Ambassadors, you appreciate the right to denegrate the US in your country and speak badly about our leader, now you know what it is like to be on the other side. Don't cry foul when someone, even someone as unofficial as Pat Robertson and essentially a talking head only, plays the same game. As Will Hunting put it so succinctly in "Good Will Hunting", "How you like them apples?"
Also, it was reported that the Supreme Court of California upheld a lesbian's claim that her former partner, with whom she had jointly became artificially inseminated and bore twins to her partners single child, was responsbile for child support after the partner broke off the relationship and left with her own child. As this woman was the "breadwinner" of the family unit, as is the case with most "traditional" heterosexual unions, she was responsible for child support as they both entered into the parenting process jointly when they were together. Now, while I support the idea of civil unions instead of granting homosexuals "marriage" based on the traditional status of the term "marriage", homosexuals must also see that with rights come responsibility. Responsibility that we heterosexuals have dealt with for some time. As with President Chavez above, if you want to play the game, you have to accept the consequences that come with playing the game and not run away crying when, inevitably, something does not go the way you want it.
Maybe these scenarios continue to display the me-first selfishness and egocentrism that has become such a hallmark on society today- "if it upsets me, then it must be wrong." Well, welcome to the world as it is, you wanted in, now deal with it and shut up like everyone else.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Opening Day
Wow, just getting started on this blog gig, and wondering how serious I will be with posting. You know, I have never even kept a diary and only used a journal for a couple of entries, so my expectations are quite low. That said, it seems that every time I keep my expectations low the outcome of my circumstances seems beyond anything that could have been imagined. Should be interesting to see what happens with this, stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)