Washington's Farewell

Looking for Finntann

2009-01-03T00:12:00.002-07:00

If you are looking for the political and social commentary formerly found here...

try here: http://warskill.blogspot.com/

For non-political commentary and miscellaneous ramblings,
go here: http://9200ft.blogspot.com/

Meet the new war, same as the old war

2008-08-14T20:12:00.003-06:00

Or should that be 'meet the new war, same as the cold war', for once again the Russian Bear is blustering about Eastern Europe. In the truth is stranger than fiction category, the United States has taken a hard line stance against Russian aggression along with it's new found allies, and former Warsaw Pact countries, Poland, Ukraine, The Czech Republic and the Baltic States. The United Kingdom, already annoyed with Russia over the poisoning of Andrei Litvinenko, is rather edgy. While the rest of Europe, with strange dark spots on the crotch of their pants, runs to and fro, kissing the Bear's 'Gas'... afraid of the Russians cutting off their supply.

It seems our 'western' European allies are back in their thirties appeasement mode, while our 'eastern' European allies all too well know the price of freedom. Meanwhile we get to watch pretty girls swimming and doing gymnastics on the majority of our media outlets. One can only wonder what madness is this?

The West missed, or intentionally let slip, many opportunities to bring Russia into the fold, payback for years of transgressions real and imagined. As the CS monitor put it "The sky grows dark with chickens coming home to roost". Don't get me wrong, Russia must be told clearly, and point blank that the sovereignty of it's neighbors must be respected. Now more then ever, the West must stand united, unless we want to return to the days of yore. We had a more democratic Russia not so long ago, a Russia working to transform itself into a modern western industrial society and suffering severe economic consequences as a result while we stood by gleefully smirking with our we won, you lost attitude.

Today we are stuck with a Russia moving down an authoritarian path, restricting free speech and the media. Yet like Germany in the 1930's it is a Russia, which due to it's hydrocarbon wealth appears to its people to be prospering as a result of Putin's power grab. He, and his little foray into Georgia has the widespread support of the Russian people. No one likes to be shamed and laughed at, and following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we, the West, treated Russia like a joke. Now, we pay the consequences.

It is the West's difficult path now to show Russia that this kind of behavior is intolerable, yet we must at the same time accord them the respect they deserve. NATO's expansion to the east, while undoubtedly the right thing to do, is unarguably threatening to the Russian state, the Russians, after their treatment at the end of the cold war have no reason to trust us. We have, in this current difficulty, an opportunity to move in a different direction. The question that remains is what direction will that be? Another five decade standoff? Or an honestly different tact.

South Ossetia is indisputably part of the nation of Georgia, the Russian 'peacekeepers' indisputably sided with the separatists. Russia cannot act as an honest broker with the Georgians, nor can the Georgians be trusted to act civilly with the Ossetians. A joint Russian-NATO effort, odd as it may sound, might do wonders. The Russians don't trust the Georgians, the West doesn't trust the Ossetians... the question is can the Russians and NATO put aside their posturing and work together for the common good. No one, I would suspect, wants a return to the cold war.

I spent the first nine years of my military career, prior to the collapse of the Berlin wall, working missile warning radars, keeping an eye on the Russian bear. Take it from an old cold warrior, there has got to be a better way.

~Finntann~

An Enigma

2008-07-28T18:26:00.003-06:00

Stumbled across a link via MSNBC to a post on Huffington: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/commanding-in-chief_b_114069.html

The article got me curious about the author who I began to research.

Stan Goff is a Vietnam era Army veteran with 22 years of service (70-73 and 77-96), who has a Special Forces background, was an enlisted instructor at West Point.

Separating from the Army, he studied Marxism, became a (now ex) Communist Party USA member, associated with the leftist National Popular Party in Haiti, is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and is involved with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (all this from Wiki).

He attributes his 'Left' turn to the time he spent in Latin America (with the Army, presumably)

A simple Google search will provide a lot of information, starting with:

http://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/pgs/portraits/Stan_Goff.html

If you are curious enough, his own websites give a more than adequate perspective on his politics:

http://www.insurgentamerican.net/

http://home.igc.org/~sherrynstan/

http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/

He is well credentialed, educated, and his pieces are well written. He is the author of several books (Full Spectrum Disorder, Hideous Dream, Sex and War) and some more of his posts can be found on Huffington: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/

I can't say I agree with his politics, or his analysis of, well, pretty much anything. I, coming from a similar background; conservative family, 24 year veteran, find his extremely radical shift to the left to be practically incomprehensible . I can't say in all my years of service I have ever met anyone as far left or as radical as Stan Goff. Having read quite a few of his posts and watched a couple of videos, he makes some good points, many (in my opinion) bad, yet he makes them from a political position I find untenable and somewhat disconcerting, all in all, an enigma.

~Finntann~

2008: The European Campaign?

2008-07-26T11:30:00.004-06:00

BERLIN (Reuters) - Barack Obama's presidential candidacy is winning over hearts and minds in Europe, where his race, youth and promise of change are raising hopes for an America the world can like again.

So OB... I seem to be missing the point. What? I should vote for you because the citizens of a foreign state like you? A whirlwind tour of the Mideast and Europe provide you with 'diplomatic and international' credentials?

"...in Europe he has emerged as a favorite of the people": Woot! Obama for president of Europe, that I can deal with.

"Germans are in love with Obama," "A string of British pro-Obama groups have sprung up on social networking site Facebook", "the French now prefer Obama over Clinton",

As the 'Demagogic' party candidate panders to the European masses, one is left wondering where America fits into the equation. For undoubtedly while some of our interests are aligned with Europe, others are not and an American president must put America's interests first and foremost. European popularity is no measure of qualification for competency to be our chief executive here at home.

Popularity is one thing, respect is another... the easy girl is always popular, she isn't necessarily respected. A word of advice... the Europeans love you because they believe that you will give them what they want, an America that acts in accordance with their wishes, not her own. An America unwilling to act for herself without first checking if 'it's okay'. America needs to be a leader on the world stage, not a follower!

In an interview with CNN, he insisted he was not trying to interfere with the official US foreign policy: "the principle idea he wanted to communicate in meetings with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, was to make them understand "that we're going to have to have a sustained commitment in Afghanistan". Unfortunately, the principle idea (that I do agree with) is an interference with American foreign policy. You are not yet the representative of the people of this nation and should not be committing it to anything.

That McCain continues to chip away at Obama in the polls, despite the adoring crowds in Berlin and all the free press, should serve as a reminder that the race is on this side of the Atlantic. You should be campaigning here, not there; Not to disparage our European allies, but I for one don't give a damn for what the Europeans think of you.

~Finntann~

In Memoriam: Pfc Joseph Dwyer

2008-07-21T20:54:00.004-06:00

BREATHE, trumpets, breathe

Slow notes of saddest wailing,

Sadly responsive peal, ye muffled drums;

Comrades, with downcast eyes

And banners trailing,

Attend him home,

The youthful warrior comes.

Upon his shield,

Upon his shield returning,

Borne from the field of honor

Where he fell;

Glory and grief, together clasped

In mourning,

His fame, his fate

with sobs exulting tell.

Wrap round his breast

The flag his breast defended,

His country's flag,

In battle's front unrolled:

For it he died;

On earth forever ended

His brave young life

Lives in each sacred fold.

With proud fond tears,

By tinge of shame untainted,

Bear him, and lay him

Gently in his grave:

Above the hero write,

The young, half-sainted,

His country asked his life,

His life he gave!

GEORGE LUNT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25775792/

Don't just toss me a bone!

2008-07-20T13:28:00.004-06:00

As a rational and intelligent person, a registered Republican, and a voter, I am somewhat annoyed at both the party and the candidates 'tossing the electorate a bone' attitude. A visit to John McCain's website will allow prospective voters to peruse the candidates position on many issues, however more often than not, all one gets is a bone.

John McCain Will Help Americans Hurting From High Gasoline And Food Costs. Americans need relief right now from high gas prices. John McCain will act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices

Dear John, (no pun intended! I...think?) I appreciate your concern about the economic impact to my pocketbook by high gasoline and food costs. Your website has made me aware of the fact that you have several 'tangible' plans to benefit me in these challenging times, however your sound-bite statement regarding relief does little to benefit, educate, or enlighten me. I realize that you did not 'grow up' with the Internet, but certainly there must be someone on your staff with some rudimentary skills in this area. Perhaps they could explain to you what a hyperlink is so that you might link an outline of your plan to this rudimentary statement, so that I might better understand exactly what it is you are talking about doing. I certainly feel capable of rationally evaluating your proposal in the context of its socio-economic impact.

Don't get me wrong, there are many specifics on the candidates website; An increase in the personal exemption for dependents from $3500 to $7000 is quite a concrete statement.

But it seems that at times, and on certain subjects, you are being intentionally vague. Immigration reform can mean many things to many different people. Immigration reform can mean making it easier to immigrate or making it harder to immigrate, all dependent upon your point of view. The "importance of a flexible labor market" might make one construe that you are in favor of the former as opposed to the latter. You state that "I will secure the border", what does that mean to you and precisely how do you intend on going about it?

You make the assertion on your health care page that:

John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

So, you plan to use competition to improve quality? How does this work? Is there not enough competition now to achieve that effect? There certainly seems to me that there are enough insurance companies around to achieve that effect. A simple Google search led me to a news article with links to 300 different health insurance companies, and I am sure that this list was not comprehensive. I feel that it would be safe to say that there are probably well over a thousand companies with thousands of policies to choose from. How much competition do we need? Please, explain to me how this whole competition thing works.

Another news article quoted a US Census Bureau figure that 16% of Americans are without health insurance, for at least part of that year (2006). That percentage corresponds to 47 million Americans, a ghastly figure. But... it also stated that 37% of those people made over $50,000 a year. That is roughly 17 million people making a comparable wage to me, who don't have health care. How does it become my responsibility through my tax dollars to subsidize their medical care via the Federal government, when I am responsible enough, with equivalent earnings, to obtain health care for myself and my family. The problem my friend is not the availability of health care, nor for many is it predominately the cost of health care, it is the prioritization of their choices... how many of those people earning over $50,000 a year, without health care, are driving around in an Acura or Lexus? How many have a camper or a boat? Bought more house than they could afford?

You need to start explaining yourself, your plans, and your platform! and stop tossing us bones in the form of soundbites and catchphrases. Why don't we try a new strategy in this election, leave the soundbites to the other party and start talking to Americans in plain and simple language about what you plan to do to better their lives, their country, and the world at large, who knows? Maybe it'll work.

~Finntann~

The Decline of Western 'Civil'-ization

2008-07-19T13:08:00.002-06:00

Decorum; dignified propriety of behavior, speech, dress, etc.

You run across it every day, in every aspect of your life; the rude store clerk; the obnoxious driver; the loud cellphone user; the 'bumper-car' pedestrian; the child running around the restaurant. Manners and etiquette seem to be lost on most of us these days. We push, jostle, and bump each other without a second thought, oblivious to those around us, uncaring, self-centered... it's all about ME!

You have all undoubtedly experienced it:

The lone driver travelling down the left hand lane, "it's mine you know... came with the car", who refuses to move over to the right because it takes too much effort to turn the steering wheel three degrees to the right.

The child in the restaurant, crawling around under your table chasing his brother... and you don't even have kids.

The driver with the largest pickup truck you can buy, hauling the longest trailer you can get, travelling at 42 mph in the left hand lane uphill in a 60 mph zone, because it is his god given right to go 1 mph faster than his clone in the right-hand lane.

The two-women in the store aisle, who absolutely have to catch up on the past 23 years they haven't seen each other, stopped dead still, facing in opposite directions, blocking the aisle... well the other seventeen people who would like to pass can damn well just wait, and who shoot you the stink eye when you say 'excuse me'.

The man on the train (plane, bus, table...) arguing with his wife (girlfriend, significant other) on his cellphone loud enough for all to hear, glaring at those who dare to look in his direction and violate his 'privacy'.

The driver at the light... which turned green 17 seconds ago, text messaging his buddies about where they are going for beers after work, oblivious to the nine cars backed up behind him blowing their horns... it's my world you peons! Who finally goes...three seconds after the light turns red.

The clerk, sitting smugly behind the counter, insisting that you couldn't possibly have submitted the paperwork or else they would have it...obviously!

The person in front of you, who opens the door, glances briefly at you and deeming you unworthy lets it close in your face.

The drivers, who despite three miles of right lane closed signs, refuse to merge and who have to drive all the way up to the barricades before cutting off an eighty year old grandmother too scared to enforce her right of way in order to get in front of 78 other people who obviously aren't as important as they are.

Well, you've all met them, so I don't need to blather on endlessly, but I want to know when this behavior became the social norm. I for one, don't think I have changed much... I'll slow to let people into traffic in front of me (sometimes warranting the finger from the driver behind). I hold doors for people, male or female, because it is the right thing to do... even if I have to wait for them to catch up, and sometimes you get a thank you and sometimes you don't... I even had one person, who obviously didn't say thank you, let the next set of doors close in my face. I say please and thank you, you're welcome, good morning... you know, all the little social niceties your mother taught you (or should have). When, pray tell, did it become all about ME?

There is a guy at work who always makes coffee and brings it into our morning staff meeting, there are probably a half-dozen others who wouldn't pour water in the pot if it was on fire. There are those who will clean up when they are done, those who will clean up after others and those who won't even clean up after themselves. I've worked with folks who would give you the shirt off there backs and others who wouldn't give you the time of day if they had two watches. I have to admit, I am curious about what makes one and what makes the other... I'm not talking about people of disparately different backgrounds either. I'm talking about relatively successful people, in their prime, well educated, seemingly well bred, with diametrically opposed outlooks on life, not to be crude but "who pissed in your Wheaties this morning", often comes to mind.

I'm not trying to make myself out to be saint and I've had a fairly normal life too. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I've had my fair share of difficulties, bad relationships, hard financial times, medical problems. What is the difference between the guy who makes coffee and the guy who lets it burn? Is it the 'not my job' mentality? Is it beneath you to wipe up the coffee you spilled on the counter? I don't care if you are a migrant farm worker or the CEO of a fortune five-hundred company... where does this sense of entitlement come from?

I was laughing the other day during my drive to work at a talk radio show where they were talking about the French, how ill-mannered, rude, and obnoxious they were. With callers relating stories of personal experience, all the while travelling in rush hour traffic as people were cutting each other off, flipping each other off and overall, Americans being exactly what they were saying about the French.

But don't mind me... it's all about YOU!

~Finntann~

George W. Bush Sewage Plant: Panem et circenses

2008-07-18T17:35:00.003-06:00

Can we give California back to Mexico?

There is a ballot initiative afoot in San Francisco to rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the "George W. Bush Sewage Plant".

"In President Bush's case, we think that we will be cleaning up a substantial mess for the next 10 or 20 years," he said. "The sewage treatment facility's job is to clean up a mess, so we think it's a fitting tribute." I think it is a fitting tribute to the city of San Francisco and the State of California, it characterizes everything that is wrong with that city and state.

Regrettably, such juvenile and childish behavior is demeaning to Americans and unworthy of America. It illustrates the worst of American politics, a once noble endeavor reduced to schoolyard name calling, teasing, and immature behavior. If you agree, or even if you disagree, you can let them know at: http://presidentialmemorial.wordpress.com/

I am not a fan of George Bush, yet can offer the man the respect due his office and position, a concept unfortunately lost to many. The principle this country was founded upon, rational intelligent debate in an open and public forum is unfortunately lost to many too. I would support this measure no more than I would support naming 'The Chicken Ranch' the 'William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Oval Office Fun Park'! (For those of you of a more morally pure nature, the Chicken Ranch is a licensed Brothel 60 miles west of Las Vegas). One has to wonder in which direction the pumps at the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant are running... whether they are pumping into or out of the city.

The politics of California: There are many recognized aspects of power; legitimate power (such as a policeman has), referent power (bestowed due to accomplishments), expert power (bestowed due to education or experience), and what we are seeing in California, incentive and coercive power, summarized by Gompers maxim "reward your friends, punish your enemies". Another aspect of power is authority, gained from legitimacy which is gained through the application of power in accordance with acceptable standards or principles. Legitimacy, an aspect of power the people of California seem all to willing to give up. Finally, there is sovereignty, which the people of California are free to exercise, even to their own detriment. Like I said "Panem et circenses"... Bread and Circuses!

Only time will tell whether the people of California are intelligent, rational, mature adults worthy of the freedoms of a participatory democracy or if they are simply whining petulant children calling each other names and bullying each other around the playground.

The vote is yours; use it wisely, for not only will George W. Bush be judged by history, but so shall you. Is this the legacy you wish to pass on? Is this act the act you wish to be remembered by? A not so funny footnote in the pages of history? George Bush will either be vindicated by the passage of time or forgotten, do you remember James Knox Polk? History, and America in general seems not to despise poor leaders but forget them.

~Finntann~

This says it all

2008-07-17T20:02:00.001-06:00

http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin

A Free and Sovereign Nation

2008-07-16T19:04:00.014-06:00

The United Nations' highest court has ordered the United States to halt the planned executions of five Mexicans on death row in Texas while their cases are being reviewed.

On June 24, 1993, José Ernesto Medellín and several other gang members raped a 14-year-old and 16-year-old girl for an hour in Houston, Texas. The rapes were part of a gang initiation. Both girls were killed to prevent them from identifying their assailants. Medellín, who confessed, strangled one of the girls to death with her own shoelaces.

Aside from having withdrew from general International Court of Justice jurisdiction on October 7th, 1985, and from the optional protocol to the Vienna convention on 7 March 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States has also spoken:

"A treaty is not binding domestic law, it said, unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it is "self-executing." "None of the relevant treaties—the Optional Protocol, the U.N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute—were self-executing, and no implementing legislation had been enacted".

One of the judges voting against the United States was Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor, the judge from Mexico... so, how do you say conflict of interest in Spanish?

I have a suggestion for Senor Amor... keep your gang-banging felons on your own side of the border and we won't have any problems like this, you certainly have some cojones ojete.

“Bilateral relations between the United States and Mexico” will “unquestionably” be affected by these cases, Mexico’s brief said... as if the senseless slaughter of our innocent children isn't reason enough. What we ought to do is challenge the Chinese for the 'great wall' title.

In the words of Robert Frost... 'good fences make good neighbors'.

~Finntann~

John McCain: Republicrat or Democan?

2008-07-14T18:50:00.006-06:00

Presumptive Republican U.S. presidential candidate John McCain says his views are closer to Theodore Roosevelt's than to more conservative presidents...more like his views are getting closer to Obama and Hillary.

Shame on you John McCain! Can I have my vote back? Well, I might not be able to get my primary vote back... but don't you think for a minute that you've got my presidential vote secured.

Again and again, in speech after speech, you trump up job loss:

"More than 400,000 people have lost their jobs since December, and the rate of new job creation has fallen sharply." -Denver town hall meeting, Ohio town hall meeting, La Raza Convention...

There are somewhere between eight and eleven million illegal aliens in this country, John... what do you think there impact on American jobs is? 400,000 jobs lost since December? Want to do something constructive? Put them in I.C.E; You can't have immigration reform when you have open borders and eight million illegals running around. The Reagan Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 granted amnesty to approximately three million illegal aliens... now we have eight million. AMNESTY DOESN'T WORK!

"We know as well that tens of thousands of felons -- in custody and at large -- entered our country illegally. Why has it has fallen to sheriffs and other local officials to protect their citizens from these foreign-born felons? Because our federal government failed to protect our borders from their entry, and this serious dereliction of duty must end." -Speech to National Sheriffs Association.

Funny... I don't recall you telling La Raza that!

"Our compassion for laborers who entered this country unlawfully -- our understanding of their struggles, even as we act to secure the border -- speaks well of America. But this respect does not extend to criminals who came here to break our laws and do harm to people."

I got news for you John, those who entered this country unlawfully... are criminals who have broke our laws and do harm to our people. Funny how you seem to make a semantic distinction between "unlawful" and "illegal" when it comes to regarding felons and aliens.

A definition:

Unlawful: 1. Not lawful: Illegal. 2. Not morally right

Illegal: 1. not according to or authorized by law: Unlawful: Illicit.

I am not without compassion, but do not support rewarding lawbreaking behavior. I would support significant increases in the legal immigration quotas for our American brethren... but do not support legalization of those here illegally. The Hispanic vote might be the "key" to "this" election... but DO NOT FORGET THE CONSERVATIVE VOTE IS THE "KEY" to "YOUR" election. Losing the conservative base will lose you the election... think we'll vote for you simply because you're the Republican nominee? Think Again!

Having listened you during the primary and listening to you now, I'm beginning to feel I was sold us a bill of goods. That, or you're selling a bill of goods now! Either way, I don't like it.

I've also seen your 'Colorado' Ads pandering to Hispanic-Americans and Latino-Americans and don't like them either. You want to be like Teddy Roosevelt? Let me leave you with his words:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American."

"This is a nation — not a polyglot boarding house. There is not room in the country for any 50-50 American, nor can there be but one loyalty — to the Stars and Stripes."

"The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to breed a spirit of bitterness and prejudice and dislike between the great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans, then after a while others are certain to band together as English-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance, means down at the bottom an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries and jealousies and hatreds."

"Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards ... We must insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship."

Teddy Roosevelt; my great-grandmothers petard!

~Finntann~

Lunch, and a show too!

2008-07-13T09:48:00.005-06:00

Nearly nude activists protest at KFC.

Fried Chicken and mostly naked women... it doesn't get much better than that.

The facts, according to PETA, are that KFC's suppliers mistreat to the point of torture the chickens that are eventually paired with mashed potatoes and biscuits ..."I just think it is key that people know the facts," said Powell, who became a vegetarian three years ago after researching the treatment of animals in the food chain. "From there they can make their own decision."

That decision, I suppose you are expecting, is to become a vegetarian, no doubt. But, I got news for you, those passing motorists aren't honking in support of the chickens.

A more disturbing facet of PETAs agenda is their targeting of children :

Members of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were outside a Lincoln (Wisconsin) Middle School giving away "Chicken Chumps" trading cards that warned against what they claimed were health hazards associated with chicken meat. The cards had characters such as "Cruel Kyle," "Tubby Tammy" and "Sickly Sally," each meant to illustrate the potential ill effects of eating the domestic fowl. A fourth card, "Feathered Friends," portrayed chickens as family birds that don't want to be eaten.

While I agree with PETAs right to protest, I find questionable there targeting of school children, on or near school property, with a message that is factually questionable. Chris Link, PETA campaign coordinator, said he hoped the information might convince students to become vegetarians. He contends all meat is packed with fat and cholesterol, which can lead to illnesses such as heart disease and obesity. Chickens are given antibiotics to plump them up faster, Link said. Gee, and I thought they were given antibiotics as a disease preventive... so remember, next time your sick, don't hit the antibiotics or you'll get fat.

Can't convince the parents? Start early with the children when they are assumed to be incapable of rational thought, they are after all the next generation of voters. Yet PETAs assumption that targeting children will advance their agenda seems to be backfiring, as students at the Lincoln school held their own counter-protest... It's tasty," said eighth-grader Colin, 14, whose sign read "I Love to Eat Chicken." "We can eat whatever we want, and PETA can think whatever they want," he said. Way to go Colin, seems you have the basic concept of American freedom down pat... Lincoln must be doing a good job with their Civics program.

Last time I checked, chicken (sans skin) was a viable low-fat, low-cholesterol meat with little to no antibiotics residue.

It's not about the chickens folks, it's about the meat! PETA doesn't really want you to stop eating chicken and start eating meat... they want you to join their vegan bandwagon of karmic bliss. An interesting read by the consumer freedom foundation regarding PETAs targeting of children can be found here:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/040817_petakids.pdf

While I am all for the humane treatment of animals, (wild, pets, and livestock), I find PETAs approach and tactics questionable and more disturbing than the mistreatment of chickens. They seem to eschew science and fact, whenever convenient, simply to further their own agenda and their targeting of children is reprehensible. In order to raise awareness for their cause, members of PETA have begun distributing "buckets of blood" to children outside KFC restaurants. By specifically targeting children with these buckets, which include fake bones, bloodied feathers and a rubber chicken, PETA has sunk to an all-time low. They have even sunk to the low of comparing food processing plants to the Nazi gas chambers:

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/petas-death-wish-when-fried-chicken-becomes-auschwitz/

To read PETAs message, go here: http://www.peta.org/

If we are not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?

But on a more serious note, Humans are omnivores... not herbivores.

Bears, dogs, crows, people, and yes EVEN CHICKENS ARE OMNIVORES!

SAVE THE WORMS!!!

~Finntann~

Undifferentiated Schizophrenia: Politics Today

2008-07-09T19:23:00.004-06:00

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) states that to be diagnosed with Schizophrenia two or more of the following symptoms must be present for more than one month:

Delusions, Hallucinations, Disorganized Speech, Thought Disorder (Disorganized and unusual thinking), Grossly disorganized behavior, Catatonic Behavior (Maybe in some cases), Social Dysfunction, Occupational Dysfunction, Impaired Social Cognition, Avolition (A lack of drive, desire, or motivation to pursue meaningful goals), Anhedonia (the inability to experience pleasure).

Damn... sure sounds like congress to me!

Congress has reached an all time low: A 9 percent approval rating. Don't kid yourselves, it's not an approval rating, it's a 91 percent DISAPPROVAL rating.

According to the LA Times 72% of Americans believe members of congress are more interested in furthering there own careers than doing public good.

Here is where the Schizophrenia comes on the strongest: The Democrat controlled congress blames the Republican minority for their approval rating and things will be better when they have a stronger majority. Don't like milk? Here have some more... don't worry it'll grow on you.

I am ROFLMAO at the blog posts like:

"Once the Democratic Party obtains a much larger majority in the next election cycle, they will be in a much better situation to ward-off the failed Republican policies, and bring our country back to greatness, once again."

Or this one:

"Barack will lead the party to victory in Nov. With a greater Dem najority, more legislation will be passed to allow more government control over policy. This desirable shift to the left is what we the people want. The Sierra Club will play a key role in establishing ground rules for decreased pollution through conservation and reduced driving. 55 mph speed limits should be passed on Day One. SUVs and non-commercial trucks should be reduced as much as possible. This is a new era. Animal rights will be respected."

HELLO? ANYBODY IN THERE? WOW...THAT POKE IN THE EYE HURT...DO IT AGAIN, MAYBE IT'LL FEEL BETTER THE 26th TIME. OW! NOPE! AGAIN! OW!

WOO HOO! look at Congress go! National Watermelon Month! (Hmmmmm......watermelon). Potato Month (Hmmmm, potatoes!) Congratulations Iowa Hawkeyes! Way to Wrestle! GO HAWKEYES GO! Recognized Soil as a natural resource (Hmmmmm.... Soil!)

13% of Democrats give congress a good rating, 8% of Republicans, and only 3% of Independents

I have a proposal... let's tie congressional salary to approval ratings!

Currently rank and file members earn $169,300, at a 9% approval rating, that would be $15237 Sounds like some organization owes the American public $67,017, 405

Tomorrow, the Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence Subcommittee meets to discuss Human Intelligence in the Intelligence Community...

HOW BOUT SOME HEARINGS ON HUMAN INTELLIGENCE IN CONGRESS?

Lets take a look at some of the acts of Congress and see if we can figure out why their approval rate is so low:

House Resolution (HR) 437 To name the post office in Rio Grande City TX "Lino Perez Jr."

HCON RES 44: Honoring and Praising the NAACP on it's 98th anniversary

H Res 120: Recognizing the African American Spiritual as a national treasure (And they said congress could never agree on anything, passed 426-0)

H.CON.RES.34 Title: Honoring the life of Percy Lavon Julian

H.RES.59 Title: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week

H.RES.90 Title: Congratulating Lovie Smith of the Chicago Bears and Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts on becoming the first African-American head coaches of National Football League teams to qualify for the Super Bowl

H.RES.58 Title: To honor Muhammad Ali, global humanitarian

H.RES.43 Title: Commending the Boise State University Broncos football team for winning the 2007 Fiesta Bowl

H.R.759 Title: To redesignate the Ellis Island Library "The Bob Hope Library"

H.RES.89 Title: a day should be established as Dutch-American Friendship Day

H.CON.RES.112 Title: Supporting the goals and ideas of a National Child Care Worthy Wage Day

H.RES.233 Title: Recognizing over 200 years of sovereignty of the Principality of Liechtenstein

H.RES.467 Title: Condemning the decision by the leadership of the University and College Union of the United Kingdom to support a boycott of Israeli academia.

Flake of Arizona Amendment: I got news for you, you're all flakes!

This is just a smattering of some of the silly things accomplished. Not to demean the accomplishments of any of the aforementioned people, groups, etc... BUT IS THIS WHAT WE ARE PAYING 169K A YEAR FOR?

Can't naming post offices be delegated down to some GS-5 somewhere?

Did we send you to Washington to congratulate football teams?

QUIT WASTING OUR TIME AND MONEY

and you wonder why you have only a 9% approval rating

Okay, National Defense Budget GOOD.... Recognizing Liechtenstein BAD. You should have learned to recognize Liechtenstein in 9th grade geography class!

You could write a book on this: Stupid Congress Tricks!

~Finntann~

McCain or McLeft?

2008-07-08T19:12:00.007-06:00

John McCain is at serious risk of alienating the conservative base of the Republican Party if he has not already done so.

Both John McCain and Barrack Obama pitched comprehensive immigration reform to the "League of United Latin American Citizens"

Might I inquire as to which Latin American country they are campaigning for President of?

According to the Associated Press: It's a poignant message for the audience, an organization that advocates social and economic policies benefiting Hispanics.

What ever happened to social and economic policies benefiting Americans?

Both candidates are also slated to address the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) later this month.

NCLR unabashedly defends its contributions to a chapter of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA) stating that while they 'disavow' their separatist rhetoric, they will continue to support programs that help Hispanics enter and finish college. Check out both websites:

http://www.nclr.org/section/separatist/
http://www.nationalmecha.org/about.html

Do tell me, precisely what does "MEChA was founded on the principles of self-determination for the liberation of our people" mean in the context of Hispanics in America?

How about: "the affirmation that we are Indigenous people to this land by placing our movement in Aztlan, the homeland of all peoples from Anahuak."

Google "Aztlan" if you really want a shock!!!

NCLR's statement is the equivalent of a German-American organization vowing to continue to support a chapter of the Nazi party, despite their political philosophy, because they help German-Americans enter and finish college.

I'm having trouble figuring out which candidate is the far-left liberal candidate! If Barack Obama continues to move towards the center and John McCain towards the left, we might eventually have to swap candidates between the parties.

JOHN McCAIN WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

I urge all readers, Democrat or Republican, to voice your opinions on this issue to their respective candidate. I for one, as an American, in vehement disagreement with the philosophy of NCLR and MEChA, am appalled at this shameless pandering for votes.

I am beginning to wonder if (hope?) a viable independent candidate will emerge.

Alan Keyes is even beginning to look viable. http://www.alankeyes.com

http://www.selfgovernment.us/aip/

Questioning the wisdom of a two-party system.

~Finntann~

G8 - Aid: Might as well burn the money.

2008-07-07T21:45:00.006-06:00

World Bank president Robert Zoellick calls for bio-fuel reforms, blaming the US and EU on rising food prices. Mr Zoellick also called on the G8 to increase aid and reduce tariffs. Campaigners want aid to Africa doubled by 2010, and the EU is pledging 1.6 Billion (US) in subsidies.

While it is difficult not to feel compassion towards the hungry, the question is really will more money make a difference. It seems logical, more money equals more food, but in the corrupt world of third world politics this is not necessarily the case.

The Africa Progress Panel (Kofi Anann, Bob Geldof, and Bono) want more aid, with the admirable goal of "eradicating extreme hunger and poverty", halving the number of those suffering by 2015. The problem with this admirable goal is that money is not the problem, governments are the problem.

World food production has exceeded population growth by 50% over the past 40 years, while 1/3 of African children suffer from malnutrition. In the nineties malnutrition in east Asia fell by 60%, in Latin America 50%... while in Africa it increased by 20%. Leading many to the logical conclusion that Africa needs more aid, when in reality it needs better government.

The World Bank calls for the G8 to reduce tariffs, while in sub-Saharan Africa agricultural tariffs sit at 33.6%, the highest of any region in the world. Taxes and tariffs make fertilizer six times more expensive in Africa than anywhere else. The UN itself estimates that 20% of African budgets go towards "military hardware and other unnecessary luxuries".

Interesting term "unnecessary luxuries". Congo President Denis Sassou-Nguesso is a vocal advocate for increased aid and debt cancellation while racking up $300,000 hotel bills and blowing another $7,000,000 for luxury homes in Paris for his wife and son. After 2.3 trillion in aid to African nations since the sixties, Africa is much worse off than Asian countries that got little or no aid.

Imagine if you would, giving a neighbor fallen on hard times $1000 for groceries, what would be your response upon finding out that they were still hungry and had spent most of the money on something else? Would you give more money?

The Carnegie-Mellon Gailliot Center for Public Policy study looked at corruption in African nations Based on World Bank governance indicator ratings, the best were rated at
'below average', the worst as 'very bad'. This rating is based on a mean score, the Transparency indicator rating (based on the worst country having a score of 1.3) changes the assessment to simply 'bad' and 'very bad'.

The report is an interesting read: http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/12-09-05galliotcorruption.pdf

There idea? Give performance based grants, not money. Meet certain political and economic requirements...get aid, fail to comply, well, you don't, might seem kind of harsh but what other choice is there really?

"Performance based grants block the spoils system in the developing world that, for years, has annexed aid money for personal gain and entrenched political power".

"Rich donors cannot be more desperate to give than the regimes of needy nations are desperate to receive."

Are you giving money to assuage your guilt? Or are you giving money to help people to fix the circumstance that they find themselves trapped in? Free money is not the answer.

~Finntann~

Cowards in Canada

2008-07-05T12:04:00.006-06:00

Cowards in Canada; American deserters seeking refuge north of the border were recently given a reprieve when Canadian justice Robert Barnes recently ruled that the Immigration and Refugee Board was wrong when it decided that an American deserter couldn't claim refugee status in Canada because the military transgressions he was evading weren't severe enough to be war crimes or crimes against humanity. The largest stumbling block yet to be overcome is proving that they would face undue hardship if returned to the United States.

Cowards? Some of you might take offense at applying this appellation to those who claim refuge based on principle or conscientious objector status. Yet the question remains, what are they fleeing? The American military is an all volunteer force and has been for many years and makes little effort to catch deserters aside from establishing a deserter warrant in the national criminal database.

Cowards! I call them cowards not because of their refusal to serve or fight in Iraq, I call them cowards because they lack the principals to stand up for their beliefs, choosing to flee rather than to fight for them. One need look no further than Gandhi to see the respectable principal of non-violent civil disobedience. What are they fleeing? Do they really believe that they will be drawn and quartered in the public square when no American deserter of the Iraq war has received more than eighteen months as punishment?

A Florida National Guard deserter, Camilo Mejia, received one year in jail, a bad conduct discharge, and a reduction in pay by two-thirds to $795 a month. I wonder how much time he had left on his enlistment contract, more than a year?. Rick Clousing of the 82nd Airborne deserted in 2005, leaving a note in his barracks explaining his actions, he fully expected the police to be waiting with handcuffs when he returned home... no one was there. He turned himself in in Seattle, hoping to make an anti-war statement and be hauled off in chains; He was given a bus ticket to Fort Bragg and told to report on his own. "I really though I would be more of a priority" said Clousing. Sorry, Rick, we really don't care! He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of absent without leave (he returned of his own accord...desertion requires the intent not to return) was given a bad conduct discharge and 3 months confinement. Most deserters are simply discharged in non-criminal proceedings under "other than honorable" conditions.

Other than honorable: That is an apt description for the actions of these people, they are not heroes (other than of the anti-war movement), nor are they despicable fiends. Is Ryan Johnson the best that the anti-war movement has to offer? Johnson was tired of living in the agricultural wasteland of Visalia, California, tired of dead-end jobs, the military was a chance at a college education. "I enlisted as supply because there was a war going on, and at the time of my enlistment they said, ‘this is a job where [you would] be working in a warehouse,’ and I had no interest in participating in direct combat." Hello moron! You joined the freaking ARMY, not the peace corp. Have you ever cracked a dictionary? Try looking up "Army". Take Cory Glass for example "I joined the National Guard in 2002 believing it was a humanitarian organization". What? The little guy on their emblem holding a rifle wasn't a clue?

Other than intelligent: There is no way, unless you spent your formative years chained to the basement wall, that anyone can put forth the argument that they had no idea that the basic mission of any military organization involved the application of violence in the furtherance of political ends. The vast quantity of information out there in movies, TV shows, video games, novels (okay, maybe they don't read), hell, even comic books, is overwhelming. What? You managed to grow up never having seen a single episode of M*A*S*H ? Never played "Call of Duty"?

Fraud: We shouldn't be prosecuting these idiots for desertion, we ought to be prosecuting them for contract fraud. Since they all seem to have joined the military for it's benefits never intending to fulfill their end of the contract. What? Did you think it was some kind of lottery? Hey maybe I'll get lucky and get that $30000 for college and we won't go to war and I won't get shot. Maybe we ought to print the odds at the bottom of the enlistment contract: Odds of getting killed in the US Military over the past five years of operation in Iraq 1:3646 (This is a really crude estimate based on number of people on active and reserve/guard service and the average number of US KIA's in Iraq per year between 2003 and 2007). These are mercenaries of the worst sort... joining the military for the money as opposed to the principal.

Cowards! I would have significantly more respect for you had you simply sat on the ground at the entrance your post and refused to get up. Was your unit going to carry you into combat? I think not. You fled to Canada not out of principal, being opposed to the war, you fled to Canada because you were unwilling to accept the repercussions of your refusal to comply with the terms of your contract. You are a coward because you were afraid to face the opinions of your supposed comrades in arms. You are a coward because while you claim in principle to oppose the war, you are afraid to accept the consequences for refusal to obey orders you believed to be wrong. You are a coward because instead of staying and standing up for what you claim you believe in, you chose instead to flee, to accept being used as a propaganda tool against your country, and you are no more than that; a tool. You are a coward because you would sacrifice your principals for your comfort... unwilling to sacrifice the time or suffer the personal embarrassment of sticking around. Where would India be today if Gandhi had simply fled to the U.S and requested asylum? I have much more respect for Camilo Mejia and Rick Clousing than I have for you.

Where would America and the world be today if Patrick Henry, John Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and all the other 'Patriots' had simply fled to Spanish or French territory and simply requested asylum.

Where would America be if Martin Luther King had fled to Canada and requested asylum based on racial discrimination and the threat of death?

What I can't figure out, outside of the possible propaganda benefits to the Canadian left, is why the Canadians would even want you.

Canada, give them asylum... Please! Because honestly, I'd rather they be called Canadians than Americans (nothing personal).

~Finntann~

The Rough Draft: Declaration of Independence

2008-07-04T11:51:00.014-06:00

There are two versions of the Declaration of Independence, the official version and what is known as "the rough draft". Below, you will find a rough draft version with deleted text in red italics and changed/inserted text in bold green. None of the changes significantly changed the meaning of the original draft, with the exception of a paragraph completely deleted (the paragraph in yellow bold font) voicing somewhat of an anti-slavery position. Overall the original draft was shortened by several paragraphs.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among powers of the earth the equal and independent , separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among which these are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;. — That to secure these ends rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;. — That whenever any form of government shall becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them to arbitrary power under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for future security. Such has been the patient sufferings of the these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge alter their former systems of government. The history of his present majesty the present King of Great Britain is a history of unremitting repeated injuries and usurpations, among which no one fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, all of which have all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.
He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good:

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has neglected utterly to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representatives houses repeatedly and continually, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people:

He has refused for a long space of time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without and convulsions within:

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization for foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither; and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands:

He has suffered obstructed the administration of justice totally to cease in some of these colonies, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers:

He has made our judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and amount of their salaries:

He has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance:

He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies and ships of war without the Consent of our legislatures.:

He has affected to render the military, independent of and superior to the civil power:

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their pretended acts of legislation, :

for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

For protecting them by a mock-trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:

He has abdicated government here, withdrawing his governors, and by declaring us out of his allegiance and protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns and destroyed the lives of our people:

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilize nation:

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands

He has excited domestic insurrections among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions of existence:

He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture and confiscation of our property:
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidels powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. He has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people who mean to be free. Future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered and fixed in principles of liberty.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend a an unwarrantable jurisdiction over these our states us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expense of our own blood and treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league and amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and we have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, as well as to the ties of our and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which were likely to would inevitably interrupt our correspondence and connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, and when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have by their free election re-established them in power. At this very time too they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and deluge us in blood. These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and to hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We might have been a free and a great people together; but a communication of grandeur and of freedom it seems is below their dignity. Be it so, since they will have it; the road to happiness and to glory is open to all of us too; we will climb it apart from them, and We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our eternal separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We therefore the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled do, appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by authority of the good people of these states colonies, reject and renounce all allegiance and subjection to the kings of Great Britain and all others who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve and break off all political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert solemnly publish and declare , that these united colonies to be are, and of right ought to be free and independent states that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they shall hereafter have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour.

What does it mean to be an American?

2008-07-03T17:39:00.003-06:00

On this Fourth of July, sit back while the burgers are grilling and take a moment to ponder what it means to be a citizen.

Below is a link to an INS sample 100 questions that can be used to administer the citizenship test to potential candidates (Hey, wouldn't it be fun to administer this test to the presidential candidates?). Generally 10 questions are asked, 7 of which must be answered correctly.

I took the whole test and scored a 98, missing "what INS form do you use to apply to become a naturalized citizen" (N-400), and "name the two senators from your state", I missed one, but then again I've only been a resident for seventeen days.

Some of the questions are looking for the INS's 'right answer' as they are opinion type questions such as "What is the most important right?" The INS answer is "The Right to Vote".

Most of the questions are factoids, testing your memory more than your understanding of what it means to be an American, such as how many amendments to the Constitution, or in what year was it written. Which tests your knowledge of history more than it tests your understanding of principles.

http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us/Elections/100QuestionTest.htm

One question that I answered correctly while wondering why it was even on the test was:

Name one purpose of the United Nations

Which is undoubtedly a relevant historical question has nothing to do with being an American.

Strangely enough there is no "official test" It is up to each of the 33 INS district offices and the individual interviewers to decide what a citizen needs to know. Most district offices develop a list of suggested questions (which is where the test above came from), but I suppose, If the interviewer didn't like the candidate, he could always ask: "Who was the Postmaster General under John Tyler Jr." Well, at least it was a cabinet position back then... and it was Charles A. Wickliffe. You can undoubtedly see my point... we leave an awful lot of power in the hands of an anonymous INS bureaucrat.

So, ask yourself... What does it really mean to be an American? Think about what questions you would ask a potential candidate, and why.

Does one need to know the principles upon which our government is founded? Does one need to know the principles of capitalism? Does one even need to know English? Does one need to know history? Or just the basic concepts of our Constitution?

~Finntann~

Why Patriotism, Why Not?

2008-07-02T19:23:00.011-06:00

Well it is almost the Fourth of July and the 'America is the root of all evil' crowd is crawling out of the wood work. Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive and Chris Satullo of the Philadelphia Inquirer blather on that we all ought to hang our heads in shame.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx070208

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080701_Chris_Satullo__A_not-so-glorious_Fourth.html

Personally, I think they ought to heed their own advice.

America is the best thing going. Sure there are other democracies, democracies with better health care, democracies that are greener, perhaps you might even prefer a socialist state. But doing a simple cost/benefit analysis proves out that America is the best bang for your buck.

For those of you who want our government to be your mommy, to take care of you when you are sick, to guarantee you housing and a job. You often point to Europe as your ideal. Let's take a quick look at some simple facts.

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK all have personal tax rates approaching or over 50%, add in the VAT and you get numbers closer to 70%... that's 50% of all you have coming in, and 20% of all you have going out. Socialized medicine and a welfare state still sound great to you?

I've lived in Europe and while it's a great place to visit I wouldn't want to live there... actually, that's not completely true... I wouldn't want to pay taxes there.

I've lived in Asia, and while having a policeman standing on the street corner twenty-four hours a day never bothered me, I'm sure it would make at least a few of you very uncomfortable.

Where else can one enjoy the same freedoms that we enjoy? Dutch Cartoonists in jail, Bridget Bardot convicted and fined for voicing her opinion, Scottish police apologising for puppy pictures...

You may not agree with the policies of our government, but hey! You can voice those opinions without any fear of retribution. Want to tell everyone that the World Trade Center collapse was not the result of airplane collisions but a secret plot by the CIA and shadow government... no one will come knocking at your door at three o'clock in the morning to escort you off to a reeducation camp.

So this Fourth of July, sit back, enjoy your barbecue, watch some fireworks, and give thanks that you either live in the greatest country on earth or that you can express your vitriolic opinion without fear of getting shot in the head and buried behind the barn.

Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan... you are free to practice the religion of your choice with no repercussions, no witch hunts (sorry Wiccans).

Want a gun? want ten? Stock up, be it for hunting or self-defense... hell you can even bury ammunition in your own backyard if you want to.

Sure we have our flaws, but there are no Utopias... compare what you have and what others offer, stay if you like, leave if you like (and if they will take you in)... heck! You're Free! Enjoy it.

Democrat, Republican, Independent... Socialist, Communist, Fascist...if you really want to be. No one is coming after you because of your political affiliation, as long as you operate under the constraints of the law and constitution.

Because, despite all of your incessant whining, you really aren't all that bad off.

Cheers!

~Finntann~

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition

2008-06-26T19:59:00.004-06:00

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The opinion of the Supreme Court may be found here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/16716940.pdf

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the peoples right to "keep and bear arms", or in modern parlance "possess and carry", subject to reasonable restrictions. It found that the District of Columbia's policy that made it unlawful to carry or possess an unlicensed firearm, and it's refusal to then issue licenses, UNREASONABLE.

It found that in the context of the constitution, written in a time and place where the majority owned firearms and carried them not only in the furtherance of their livelihood but in self-defense, that our founding fathers meant what they said... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Certainly the British would have had a much easier time at Lexington and Concord, not to mention Bunker Hill, had the Massachusetts colony implemented the same laws and policies as our modern capitol. After all, was not Lexington and Concord simply the British attempt to seize "unlawful", by their standard, arms?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", is a prefatory clause, not limiting the following clause, but stating a purpose.

The operative clause being: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The court pointing out that in referring to "the people" the constitution refers to it's citizens, not it's army or any other organization. "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" does not imply membership in some sanctioned organization... it being impossible for an individual to assemble without others.

By all means, read the court's opinion... it's a bit lengthy (157 pages in the pdf version) but well worth the read, and one could argue, a civic duty.

What I find most difficult to understand is the dissenting opinion, how taking the constitution into the context of it's times, one could argue that the amendment merely protects the right to be in a militia, is beyond my grasp. Either we've been doing it wrong since day one, given the history of our behavior, or more likely we are ignoring history and context in the attempt to justify our own position in the furtherance of our own agenda.

Interpreting the right as a right to join a (the?) militia would certainly have major implications, would citizens then have the right to join regardless of the current military standards for fitness? What impact would a constitutional right to serve have on the current 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Although for some reason I get the feeling that that would be perfectly okay with those who want to ban gun ownership.

Well at least our rights are secure for the moment.

~Finntann~

Up on the roof

2008-06-23T19:05:00.002-06:00

George Carlin, renowned comic, died yesterday at the age of 71. It's not that I can't believe he died... it's that I can't believe he was 71.

Best known for the Milwaukee Seven, or the Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV and it's associated Supreme Court case, George Carlin was a case study in the exercise of the Freedom of Speech, and sometimes beyond. While I never really held the same beliefs or politics, one can't argue that the man wasn't funny.

From Ed Sullivan to the Tonight Show, from Saturday Night Live to his HBO specials, George always kept us laughing and like any court jester, he was not only funny, he was astute. Quite often his subjects were cutting edge, forcing us not only to laugh, but to think.

So for the founder of Frisbeetarianism; The belief that when one dies, ones soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck.

Here's to you George, you, and your humor, will be missed.

It's the price of gas, stupid!

2008-06-19T19:00:00.006-06:00

State governors promise to block attempts to tap offshore petroleum reserves.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25252119/

"As Governor of California, I will do everything in my power to fight the federal government on this issue and prevent any new offshore drilling," Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain supporter, said Wednesday. “We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil.”

Unfortunately, attempts to run the California state vehicle fleet on Arnold's dusty supply of posing oil have failed, Arnold could offer no other commercially viable alternative. It's real sweet that the 'governah' of the state with the second highest oil consumption, 656,863,000 barrels a year (while producing only 240,206 barrels) is against drilling, and we wonder why gas is $4 a gallon.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_pet_con-energy-oil-consumption
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_pet_pro-energy-oil-production

Fortunately, I have a solution... we lower the price of gas in the other states to $2 a gallon and raise the price of gas in California to $6 (before state taxes are added in of course, and imposing a $4 surcharge to gas purchases for vehicles with CA tags in other states).

Among the states opposed to drilling is also #7 New Jersey consuming 225,683,000 and not even making the list of 31 top producers and #11 North Carolina consuming 178,544,000 and also not making the production list. You know, if we do this right, we could get the price of gas in the rest of the country back down to about $1.50, maybe lower.

"Our $35 billion economy is driven by tourism and the use of the shore," said New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine. Well Jon... what do you think the impact to tourism is with $4 per gallon gas... think your gonna get a lot of beachgoers when it hits $6? New Jersey constantly suffers beach closures due to raw sewage, garbage, and medical waste washups (Earth News) and they're worried about a little petroleum? Might actually cut down on the E. Coli count. I grew up back east and spent a lot of time at the Jersey shore... you could stick a drilling derrick on the end of the steel pier and I doubt anyone would even notice.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for conservation, energy-alternatives, and other eco-friendly things... but unless you're going to start distributing syntholine at $1 a gallon, shut your pie-hole and get with the program, I'm tired of the "I want to have my cake and eat it too" crowd bending the rest of us over.

Unfortunately our economy and oil are tightly intertwined, those of you dissatisfied with the current state of the economy would be foolish to tolerate this behavior, less oil isn't going to help. Sen McCain proposes adding 45 new nuclear reactors to the 104 we already have (which he claims produces 20% of our electrical needs), you got your math wrong John, that means we don't need 45... we need 416 new nuclear reactors...which would not only go a long way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but would virtually solve our carbon emission problems. The US is 8th in Uranium production and Canada is #1... wouldn't you rather see your energy dollars going to Canada than Saudi Arabia?

Wonder what's wrong with our country? It's not the Iraq war, the price of oil, or gay weddings... it's our schizophrenic government (local, state, and federal) actions and policies. If you think I'm wrong, check out some of the symptoms for schizophrenia:

Impaired perception of reality, disorganized thinking, significant occupational dysfunction...

To paraphrase an aging cliche... It's the price of gas, stupid!

A man, dying of thirst in a desert, will cut a Prebles jumping mouse in half with a shovel while digging for water without a second thought.

No oil = No food for 300 million people... who ought to be on the endangered species list now? Of course that is an extreme example, but really... we ought to get some perspective folks.

My suggestion? Need a vacation spot? Cross California and New Jersey off your lists and go and visit Texas, they at least are helping somewhat in this petroleum predicament.

~Finntann~

You've got to be kidding....right?

2008-06-15T19:22:00.011-06:00

Perhaps you are wondering why I have the flag of Ohio and that of Cuba above, hmm, vaguely similar, no?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-10-ohio-lethal-injection_N.htm#uslPageReturn

I take a short well deserved vacation, and look what happens!

Merits of the case aside, I point you to the photograph by Tony Dejak, AP of Ohio Common Pleas Judge James Burke.

For God's sake... the man has CHE GUEVARA and BARACK OBAMA posters hanging on the wall over his head.

Now the Obama poster is one thing, but then again it is his, (presumably?) private office and not his chambers, in which case it could possibly be construed as a state endorsement of a particular candidate (god...let's hope it's his private office).

But Che? CHE? Depending on your political perspective he is at best an idealistic Marxist-Maoist-Socialist revolutionary, at worst... the butcher of La Cabana.

Let's ignore the latter and simply ask the question:

What is a poster of a Marxist-Maoist-Socialist revolutionary doing hanging on the wall of an Ohio judge?

Good people of Ohio... please feel free to opine, as I certainly 'don't get it', and one might say am flabbergasted.

Update: A simple google search of Obama and Che Guevara leads to many links to this Fox 26 news story:

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5700252&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

Which in and of itself would be unremarkable aside from the Cuban flag with an image of Che superimposed upon it hanging upon the wall in an Obama campaign office. Keep in mind that this is not an official campaign HQ office, but one funded by the volunteers.

I wouldn't generally be considered a conspiracy theorist... but these people are beginning to scare me.

How far to the left do we intend to go?

~Finntann~

Shooting the Quran

2008-05-22T12:51:00.003-06:00

President Bush has apologized to Iraq's prime minister for an American sniper's shooting of a Quran and the U.S. military said Sunday that it had disciplined the sniper and removed him from Iraq after he was found to have used Islam's holy book for target practice.

Iraqi police found the bullet-riddled Quran with graffiti inside the cover on a firing range near a police station in Radwaniyah, a former insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad. Members of the local U.S.-allied group said the Quran was found with 14 bullet holes in a field after U.S. troops withdrew from a base in the area.

Al-Maliki's office said the Iraqi Cabinet called on Tuesday for the "severest" punishment against the sniper and warned of "grave consequences" if similarly offensive actions were committed in the future.

On Tuesday, Khalaf al-Elyan, a senior Sunni Arab lawmaker, said the sniper must stand trial, preferably in Baghdad.

I wonder what they mean by "severest punishment"? Is this Death? 5, 10, 15, 20 years in jail? This soldiers actions were culturally insensitive, stupid, and wrong... but would we be having this conversation if he were shooting a Bible? A Torah? 40 churches have been bombed by militants in Iraq since June 26th, 2004... where was the global outrage then?

There is no doubt that the soldier in question should be punished, but the question is for what? Use of an unauthorized target on a military range? Violation of general orders regarding culturally insensitive behavior? Certainly not for shooting a book. It's a book, you know, paper, cardboard, maybe some leather or some leatherette, little bit of glue, some ink. It's the message inside that's important...and somehow, I think, the bullets did very little damage to that.

The Al-Arabiya article had a quote from 'Muslim scholars' that is probably the best route. "Everyone is reminded that God protects his book and his revenge is strong," the scholars said.

Sounds like a good idea to me... It's his book, let him handle it.

~Finntann~

By George I Think He's Got It

2008-05-21T10:30:00.002-06:00

A must read from Senator Joe Lieberman in the Wall Street Journal on the ails of the Democratic Party.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

What ever happened to the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy?

What ever happened to the party whose philosophy was:

"it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Harry Truman

"pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom." John F Kennedy

The End of Democracy?

2008-05-19T19:40:00.006-06:00

Here is an interesting thought to ponder, right now Barack Obama has 1610 pledged delegates and Hilary Clinton has 1443 and the DNC requires 2025 delegates for a candidate to win the nomination. Left on the table are the following states, 5/20 Kentucky (51) and Oregon (52), 6/01 Puerto Rico (55), 6/03 South Dakota (15) and Montana (16). Which according to my calculations means there are only 189 voter delegates left, it's not going to happen, but giving all the delegates to either of the candidates results in: Obama 1799 or Clinton 1632, both short of the 2025 required to win the nomination.

What does this all mean? What it means is that the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States will be determined by some combination of the 795 super-delegates created by the party. That means that the Democratic nominee will be chosen by 19 Distinguished Party Leaders, 31 Democratic Governors, 48 Members of the Senate, 223 Members of the House, 398 Democratic National Committee members, and the 76 unpledged add-ons (usually party state chairs, etc).

The problem in this entire scenario is that the super-delegates, created by the party, are unpledged... meaning they may vote their conscience and do not have to follow the will of the people. The problem is that the people get 3253 and the party gets 795, that works out to approximately a 75/25 percent split, so 795 people get 25 percent of the say in who the next presidential party candidate is. Not exactly what I think our founding fathers intended when they established this Federal Republic of ours.

What is the worst case scenario here? Obama gets the popular vote and Clinton gets the nomination (Don't think it can't happen... the Clinton's have a lot of friends in the DNC, and simply because an unpledged delgate declares for a candidate doesn't mean they have to vote for them come convention time). As of right now Obama has 303 and Clinton has 278 'pledged' super-delegates. All this comes down to is a very interesting convention this August in Denver.

It means, that no matter what, the Democratic nominee is going to be the result of back-door political politics, decided not by the people but by party officials.

Only time shall tell where we go from there.

~Finntann~

The Thought Police

2008-05-16T11:35:00.002-06:00

A Dutch political cartoonist was arrested this week on suspicion of insulting people. According to Amsterdam public prosecutor spokeswoman Sanne van Meteren, "We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their race or belief, and possibly also of inciting hate."

Each is a crime punishable by up to a year in prison under Dutch hate speech laws — or two years for multiple offenses.

According to the news article he was arrested with a great show of force, by ten policemen. This is a reasonable precaution as everyone knows that cartoonists are the worst kind of criminal there is... "Look out... he's got a Crayon"!

Gee, I hope the Dutch don't find that insulting... maybe they'll come after me, but then again... I could just run! How fast can they chase after me in wooden shoes afterall?

Alas, it seems that Dutch authorities have already silenced him, as most of the links to his work now return a 404 error. Although if you speak dutch, there is an interview available on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9API1RH5ak

Hate Speech laws are a dangerous road to tread upon, tantamount to book burnings. Have we so abrogated personal responsibility in the west as to now convict those who 'incite' violence by words as opposed to those who commit violence by 'actions'?

Ostensibly, EU hate speech laws are a product of Nazi policies and a well intentioned policy to protect minorities, specifically Jews, yet how far do we go? True, freedom of speech does not extend, to use an overused analogy, to yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater... but are we now to ban cartoons of 'fires' in crowded theaters?

We are far too accommodating, and losing our culture and principles as a result. It is curious that Gregorius Nekschot has been arrested for mocking Muslims, as he over the years has pretty much mocked everyone... Christians, Jews, Leftists, Socialists, pretty much anything or anyone he considers to be going to extremes... but then again, the rest of us aren't going off killing people and blowing things up because we have been offended.

The Reconquista needs to start now!

~Finntann~

Alo Presidente

2008-05-15T17:23:00.003-06:00

Well, despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, it seems Hugo Chavez has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar again.

Interpol has confirmed that he computer equipment and data seized by Colombia was not tampered with and did indeed link Venezuela to the FARC rebels in Colombia.

"We are absolutely certain that the computer exhibits that our experts examined came from a FARC terrorist camp," said Interpol's secretary general, Ronald Noble, adding: "No one can ever question whether or not the Colombian government tampered with the seized FARC computers." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24651806/

Meanwhile, Hugo rants and raves calling the Interpol announcement a show of clowns.

The populist crackpot has also warned Colombia about allowing a US base in the region, calling it an act of aggression.

And this is the man Barack Obama has announced his intention to meet with one on one... an internationally proven state sponsor of terrorism and an elected official of questionable legitimacy. I am left wondering who is standing further to the left.

Colorado's "Personhood"

2008-05-14T19:36:00.002-06:00

Barring legal halts, the following amendment to the Colorado Constitution should be on the ballot this fall and in a world of confusing legal jargon it's simplicity sets it apart:

Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

The articles affected, as cited above are:

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

Section 25. Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. '

More information may be found at: http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/

The Worst in Politics

2008-05-08T17:42:00.003-06:00

Steven Ybarra, democratic super-delegate has offered his vote...for $20 million.

http://cbs13.com/local/Superdelegate.Vote.Ybarra.2.718616.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iyFKKPMWWE3914VCwkVV7XndqacgD90H0F203

Ostensibly, he wishes to use the money to register and educate Mexican-American voters.

This has got to be the most disgusting behavior I have seen yet, I am totally and utterly appalled. This man belongs in jail for he is the epitome of corruption...and if his behavior under federal and state law is not illegal, it ought to be.

You might argue that his motives are just and he is not seeking personal gain...but is he? Undoubtedly, as a Democratic super-delegate, his intent is to register and educate these Mexican-American voters to be good democratic party voters. I seriously doubt he is out there registering voters for the Republican party. In the end, is his intent not to get another 1.3 million (his figure not mine) democratic voters out there for the presidential election? Is his personal gain not getting his party into office? Welcome to the new Tammany Hall!

This is the perfect illustration of the 'rot' in American politics, and the perfect reason to get rid of super-delegates. What is a super-delegate after all? Whatever happened to 1 man 1 vote? Now the political elite of both parties are given undue influence in our government as a form of political patronage. It is estimated that right now, the vote of a super-delegate is worth the vote of 10,000 of the common man. Is this what we fought a revolution for? This disgusting subversion of our democratic ideals?

This is behavior worthy of the backroom political machinations of the Kremlin, not the world's bastion of democracy. I for one am outraged and utterly ashamed, as an American, of this despicable and abhorrent political intrigue.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, unless you kiss enough posteriors in your political party in which case we'll make you a super-delegate.

~Outraged~

Operation Chaos

2008-05-08T14:40:00.002-06:00

Operation Chaos is a proposal by conservative radio talk host Rush Limbaugh urging Republican voters to cross party lines and vote for Hillary Clinton in an attempt to prolong the Democratic Party race. Not that both candidates still running on the Democratic side aren't urging this themselves... hey, a vote is a vote, but is this how far we have sunk in American politics?

Talk of charges of election fraud in Ohio are unlikely to come to any fruition as it is virtually impossible to prove intent, so unless someone confesses to the felony you are unlikely to see anything come out of the talk. Ohio requires cross-over voters to 'swear' allegiance to the principles of the party they are crossing over to register with. As Rush jokes...principles? What principles?

It seems that principles are lacking all the way around if this is what American politics has become. It is one thing to urge members of the opposite party to come over to your side, quite another to specifically cast a vote simply to be an obstructionist. The Democratic party already seems to be headed towards a meltdown of Civil War proportions (Election of 1860)...do they really a push from Republicans?

An interesting twist, the Republican nightmare that is unlikely to occur, would be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. While neither candidate would likely support such a ticket... it would make for a very interesting November.

~Finntann~

Who's Racist or Sexist Now

2008-05-06T18:07:00.004-06:00

Curious results, or perhaps not so curious, from election polls in Indiana and North Carolina.

For white men in Indiana the number are 58/41 Clinton/Obama, and white women 61/39.

Overwhelmingly, black men and women are supporting Obama 92/8.

Not much difference financially, contrasting the lowest bracket to highest the numbers range from 57/43 to 54/46 in favor of Clinton.

In North Carolina the number are only a little different.

White men in NC are supporting Clinton 54/40 while white women are at 64/32.

Overwhelmingly, black men in NC are supporting Obama 92/6 and black women 91/5

If you would like to see all the exit poll results, go here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890

Overall, from state to state, it seems that blacks are overwhelmingly supporting Obama generally at an 85/15 ratio ( this is just a guestimate on my part, as his numbers range from the high 70's to the low 90's). Still, it seems to indicate that race is a major factor in the black vote. An interesting point is that 81% of those polled said race was not important, and while 8% of blacks and whites said race was a factor, only 24% of blacks said it was not, while 54% of whites said it was not.

Some interesting, although possibly somewhat controversial, statistics, although certainly something to get you thinking.

~Finntann~

The Fifth of May

2008-05-05T19:11:00.003-06:00

The history of the 5th of May:

In 1215, the rebel barons renounced their support of King John leading to the signing of the Magna Carta.

Christopher Columbus lands on Jamaica in 1494, claiming it in the name of Spain.

Mexican troops defeat the French in the Battle of Puebla in 1862.

The civil war Battle of the Wilderness began on this day pitting U.S Grant against Robert E Lee in the beginning of the Union's Virginia Overland Campaign of 1864.

In 1865 the first train robbery in the U.S took place.

West Germany gained sovereignty on this day in 1955.

May 5th is Europe Day... celebrating the founding of the Council of Europe in 1949

The 27th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified...202 years after it's initial submission in 1789.

Cheers!

~Finntann~

The Pendulum Swings Left & Right

2008-05-04T11:36:00.004-06:00

Does Labour's worst local election results in forty years indicate a swing to the right? Dropping to only a projected 24% share of the national vote now places Labour in third, behind the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Labor suffered a loss of 331 seats in local elections in England and Wales.

The question then becomes, is this any indication of where the general American election will go?

An interesting idea to contemplate is whether or not the general population is voting based on principle, or whether simply in a reactionary fashion. Labour, in power in the UK, suffers a significant loss... is this due to the abandonment of Labour's principles by the population at large, or simply due to the current state of dissatisfaction with the economy, taxes, bank-bailouts, and immigration problems. Could it be that these same issues will prompt a shift to the right in the UK while simultaneously causing a shift to the left in the US? Are we voting for principles? Or against the incumbents?

We define ourselves as Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or Authoritarian... but how much difference is there between parties as opposed to candidates? An interesting take on this can be found at http://www.politicalcompass.org/. Take the test if you care to see how they rate you, but more specifically, check out their ratings of the US Primaries... in which 16 of 19 recognized candidates are firmly in the Authoritarian Right block. (Not sure what to think of their methodology, as they placed me, close to the cross-hairs (Centrist?) in the Libertarian Right quadrant).

Is this clustering to the Authoritarian Right indicative of anything other than our common American and/or Western values? World-wide the majority of political figures wind up in this same quadrant. An interesting point to note, is that in playing around with the compass test I had to go to (what I consider) extremes to push my score to the outside edges, which is either indicative of a centrist bias on the test, or a personal centrist bias... I'm not sure which (lol).

I would be curious to know if the candidates positions on the chart are a result of participation, or an analysis by others... and if by analysis, how much reliability can we place in the assessment.

~Finntann~

Trinity United Church of Christ

2008-05-02T11:09:00.002-06:00

If you'd like to see for yourself, go here: http://www.tucc.org/, some quotes from their website:

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian", "We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization."

"Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology."

First of all, let me begin by stating that all of us (Americans) ought to be rightly proud of our distinct and varied heritages. I come from, and approach Christianity from, a distinctly Irish background, a people I might add that have been oppressed since the Norman invasion of 1169.

Now we are all familiar with the various 'Christian' theologies, be they Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Baptist, etc., theologies divided over theological matters. Should we be practicing 'Christian' theologies that are divided over race? country of origin?

Think long and hard on the connotations of 'White Church', 'White Christian', 'White Theology'.

Now, contemplate labelling yourself as such. Should we have a different reaction to the terms white theology and black theology? Should we be more tolerant of a black theology than a white theology? Don't get me wrong, I am not implying that they are equivalent terms. White theology is indisputably racist, but how racist is a church that identifies itself as "Unashamedly Black"? Is it any less than a church that identifies itself as 'unashamedly white'?

Then imagine hearing the following: "We are a European people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization."

It is human nature to form into groups, we tend to group and associate with those 'just like us'. It is why we have Italian neighborhoods, Irish neighborhoods, Chinatowns, and the like. But, is this separatism what we should be striving for? Or should we be embracing a more cosmopolitan philosophy?

Separatism and grouping lend political and social power to our endeavors, a unified group is much more powerful than a collection of individuals. The question then becomes, along what lines should we be grouping? Seen any 'white business councils' lately? If so, what did you think?

In the infancy of our great nation we were Pennsylvanians, Virginians, New Englanders... and this, our founding fathers recognized, was the greatest threat to the new republic. How many people do you know today that identify themselves as a Virginian? Perhaps as a small and insignificant label connotating pride of origin, but not with much meaning attached. If overseas, and asked, you will undoubtedly label yourself an American... why not at home.

Should we not be striving towards unification as opposed to polarization?

The American melting pot seems to be forming layers, do we not need a good politician who can stir the pot.

~Finntann~

Telling Wright from Wrong

2008-04-30T20:53:00.003-06:00

I must admit, I am seriously disappointed with Barack Obama, and honestly, his actions now are too little, too late. We are expected to believe that over the course of twenty years he did not notice how far out the Reverend Wright was? Even if accepted at face value, what does this say about his judgement?

I am also saddened, as I honestly liked Barack...he seemed...genuine, now I am not sure what to think. I am left feeling he is either disingenuous, or a fool. The kind of radical statements that the Rev. Wright made are the kind of statements most people notice. If my pastor stood up in church and said that the US government was responsible for the AIDS epidemic... I think that kind of would get noticed. Honestly, I think if he stated that 'our chickens and come home to roost' he would have been stoned, well maybe not that extreme, but there would have certainly been significantly fewer members of the congregation the following Sunday.

So what are we left to think? That Barack honestly didn't notice any of this? or that he either agreed, or chose to ignore it. It is not like this can be chalked up to the eccentricities of a beloved uncle, oh...don't mind him... he's harmless, we have decided to find his behavior amusing. This behavior is so repugnant I am having great difficulty even extending the courtesy to Mr Wright of addressing him as Reverend. Barack stated that "the person he saw [Monday] was not the person that I had come to know over 2o years", what... the 'good' Reverend has just suddenly and completely gone nuts?

Obama maintained he had never heard these types of statements as a parishioner, but long term supporters of Wright said this was no different than what parishioners heard in church. Is Mr. Obama deaf? Or was he just sleeping through the sermon? Suddenly Barack is using adjectives like "appalling," "ridiculous," "outrageous," "insensitive," "destructive" and "divisive" about the man who officiated at his wedding, baptised his children, and prayed with his family.

Could he have been so duped? Are we to believe that Mr. Wright never mentioned these things when Obama was around? That even if these things were never said in his presence, he never heard anything about it from his fellow parishioners?

I'm sorry, I had actually thought that Barack Obama was a different kind of politician, but I can not in good conscience vote for a man who can not tell Wright from wrong.

~Finntann~

A European Perspective

2008-04-29T23:18:00.002-06:00

For those of you of a technical bent... check out:

http://www.codesqueeze.com/forced-to-write-english-syntax-code-simplicity-or-burden/#comment-1816

Quite a humorous, and presumably 'tongue-in-cheek' perspective on the English language in the world community.

In Support of Iraq

2008-04-29T15:43:00.003-06:00

First let me point out that "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" Passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23.

The Spratt Amendment requiring UN Security council approval and the return to Congress for final authorization was defeated 155-270

The Lee Amendment requiring work through the UN for a peaceful resolution was defeated 72-355

The Byrd Amendment affirming that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq was defeated 14-86

The Levin Amendment requiring a UN Security council resolution for 'immediate access' was defeated 24-75

The Durbin Amendment restricting the use of force only to an 'immediate threat' was defeated 30-70

The representatives of the American people supported the use of military force against Iraq. In addition to the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which seems to be the anti-war movements catchphrase, the resolution also identified the following factors:

Non-compliance with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire

Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population

Iraq's capability and willingness to use WMDs against its own people and other countries (Kurds, Iran)

Iraq's hostility towards the United States

The Iraq Liberation Act, calling for regime change... signed into law by President Clinton.

and so on, and so forth.

That having been said, and taking no position for or against the invasion of Iraq other than to reiterate what America's representatives voted for, let me posit the position that a unilateral withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would be a war crime.

Having, through military action, toppled the existing government of Iraq it becomes incumbent upon the invading power to ensure civil stability in the nation conquered.

I am not opposed to a withdrawal from Iraq based upon rational, measurable criteria, but a knee-jerk unilateral abandonment of the new democratically elected government of Iraq without ensuring that they have the means to ensure stability could well evolve into a crime of immeasurable proportions. Imagine, if you would, Darfur... with the US as the root cause of the problem.

Many will argue that this is not 'our' problem, that if they want to kill themselves off in a sectarian orgy of bloodshed who are we to interfere. There is also the argument that they are not worth one American life, why should 'our' boys and girls die in defense of a foreign land.

The 'why' comes back to House Joint Resolution 114, which became Public Law 107-243. Our representatives, whether you like it or not, authorized it, our military executed the operation, and our government is responsible for the results, for at least the forseeable future. I urge all of you who advocate a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq to seriously reconsider the repercussions of such an act, and ask yourselves if you are willing to accept responsiblity for them.

While I would be overjoyed to find the Iraqis standing on their own two feet and seeing the planned draw down of American forces take place leaving a peaceful and democratic Iraq in their stead, I would find a chaotic, explosive, and genocidal aftermath unconscionable.

The recent 'American' penchant for disavowing all personal responsibility is disheartening. "It wasn't my fault I knocked over that liquor store... my parents failed me, I came from a broken home, I was picked on at school, and I couldn't find a job" Seems to be what the great spirt of American individualism has devolved to. Don't let the common banality of shirking personal responsibility become the policy of the United States in world affairs.

The American occupation of Germany in WWII lasted for 10 years and the occupation of Japan lasted 7, officially Berlin was occupied until October of 1990. While formal hostilities ended in 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority did not turn over power to an 'Iraqi' government until 2005. We stand now, three and a half years from the establishment of an Iraqi government asking how long should 'occupation' forces remain? My how American patience has waned over the years.

Let us leave in the middle east a groundwork similar to post WWII Europe and not post WWI !

I for one, when we are done there, wish to be done... not back in another twenty years.

~Finntann~

Army harrasses Atheists ???

2008-04-28T16:55:00.004-06:00

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/atheist-claims-harassment-in-military/20080428092709990001?icid=100214839x1200945981x1200035546

Army Spc Jeremy Hall is suing the Army over alleged harassment.

Spc. Hall was raised a Protestant, but became an atheist while in the Army, although he was concerned what other soldiers would think of him.

According to Hall, the matter came to a head when a superior officer threatened to bring charges against him for organizing a meeting of atheists. I find this very difficult to believe, not that charges were not threatened, but that they would be for this specific offense, nor can I readily believe that religion or the lack thereof was the motivation.

Now, not having been in the Army I won't call him a liar, but having just finished serving 24 years in the Air Force I must say that I am skeptical. I have never, in my entire career, ever experienced anything like what Spc Hall alleges in the article. I have worked with Christians, Jews, Muslims, a couple of Wiccans, and one new-age crystal kind of person (not sure what she was)... and a lot of agnostics and quite few atheists too.

While I have seen invocations and benedictions performed during ceremonies, usually retirement ceremonies or changes of command, I presume at the request of the participants, as I have seen them performed without them. They have predominantly been vaguely spiritual, tough to pin down as any specific denomination, although I have heard the occasional reference to Christ.

I have never seen religion brought up in any other official capacity. I have never been asked what my specific beliefs were by my chain of command, and any discussion of religion has always been incidental to conversation among co-workers. I did have one superior, NOT supervisor, who was predisposed to proselytizing a 'born-again' faith, but she was looked at as the 'oddity' and not the other way around. She was good natured about it, never mean or disparaging to anyone who challenged her beliefs, would leave you alone if asked, and while her behavior was recognized as 'inappropriate' by most, she was tolerated as anyone else was.

I have, during the course of my Air Force career, worked closely with the Army being stationed on one Army base and one joint base. Never, have I witnessed any institutionalized religious bias at all, and I find it highly unlikely that there is any. I have worked with a few religious high ranking officers and have never felt any pressure or compunction to profess my faith or to convert to one. Religion has always been incidental to my career, as I am sure it is in any career, and never a part of it.

While I will not dispute the possibility, in a small unit, of an inappropriate inclusion of religion by any specific commander, officer, or senior NCO, yet I can't say I would find the term 'institutional' accurate in any way. That he was quite possibly harassed by his fellow soldiers I can believe, although personally I would doubt that his religious beliefs were the underlying motive, that he claims 'he feared for his life', I find to be extreme.

Keep in mind I have never been in the Army, so I can't speak personally on their specifics, but to claim that this is an institutional bias in the Department of Defense I find highly unlikely. The only times I have routinely seen chaplains, outside of the chapel, is when they have changed, and once when a coworker was killed in an automobile accident; and all he did was let people know that he was available if anyone wanted someone to talk to.

Overall I'd have to say that religion was pretty much irrelevant in my professional career, neither here nor there, but just somewhere in the background (as it should be), it would occasionally come up, usually in conversation about news articles like this.

~Finntann~

America is not the gift basket of the world!

2008-04-25T13:06:00.004-06:00

Food crisis sends Haitian boat people to US. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24272407/

It is hard not to have compassion towards those who are suffering, yet one must ask when does it stop? We do not have unlimited resources, unlimited services, unlimited jobs, and unlimited money. With every illegal migrant the overall standard of living for each American declines a tiny bit. Each case taken individually is insignificant, it is in the totality of the problem that the numbers and effects add up.

"I will leave with the next boat going to Miami because I can no longer resist this hunger, I have four children and I don't have a job and everything is expensive, even for those who are working," Marcel Jonassaint said. "So what do you want me to do?"

I don't know what to tell you Marcel, other than you're not our problem, stay in your own country. What am I supposed to do? Give you a job? Give you a job that could have went to an American or a legal immigrant? Provide you with housing? Medical care? America is not the gift basket of the world. America is also not the answer to your problems, nor is it the cause of them. We are not responsible for your government's mismanagement of your country, its economy and its resources.

"It is clear that more boat people have been leaving the country and you should expect even more if they cannot find an alternative," said Pierre, director for the country's national migration office , who urged the government and the international community to set up programs to ease the plight of the poorest and most vulnerable.

Excuse me? I got news for you Pierre...you're part of the government... do something. While the international community and America are fairly compassionate and generous, the plight of your poor and vulnerable rests at your feet, not ours. I am sure there will be aid, the question is what will you do with it? How much of it will reach the poor and vulnerable? How much will line the pockets of corrupt politicians? The answer Pierre is not to beg, but to stand up, be recognized, and fix your own problems.

Human rights activist Renan Hedouville said Haitians are leaving because the government and the rest of the world have turned a blind eye to the hungry. "The universal right to have access to food has been neglected and denied to so many people," Hedouville said. "That's why people in desperate straits are taking to the sea, risking their lives and seeking a solution which is not really one."

The universal right to have access to food? What, my food? Don't you have land in Haiti? According to one source 28% of your land is arable, yet only 11% is under cultivation. We produce our own food here in the US and export the excess. Your labor did not produce it, yet you believe you have an entitlement to it? Your country has been identified as one of the most corrupt in the world, on a list of 179 countries, you are fourth from the bottom. It is not our fault that your people don't have access to food... look no further than the mirror to find the culprit.

Believe me, the generosity of America will send you food... what we do not need to do is send you an open invitation to eat at our table. We already provide you aid. Between 1985 and 2003 we gave you $850 million. In 2004 we gave you $435 Million, in 2006 we gave you another $200 Million, in fact, the US is Haiti's largest donor, with another $128 million slated for this year. How many billions of dollars do we need to send? We hand out almost $30 Billion in aid each year, and that is just our government.

Another $3.4 Billion gets handed out by US based foundations, $4.9 Billion from US business, $5.7 Billion from private and volunteer organizations (and another $4 Billion in time alone), $1.7 Billion in scholarships to foreign students, $4.5 Billion from religious organizations, and collectively, out of the goodness of their hearts, another $47 Billion comes out of the pockets of American citizens in the form of remittances.
http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/GlobalPhilanthropy.pdf

Over the last 50 years, the West has given $2.7 Trillion dollars to developing countries. Don't talk to us about a 'blind eye', it is time for you to stand up and set your own house in order instead of blaming everyone else... that is the root cause of your difficulties. Not too many people are going to Haiti on vacation, and why is that? Is it the violent armed gangs that roam your streets? The rampant crime? The complete and utter deforestation of your island? I suppose you cut down all but 2% of the trees to manufacture charcoal because we didn't give you enough fuel.

America gives and gives and gives, and more often than not it is throwing good money after bad. It's funny... do a search on the Internet for US aid, I think you'll find it flowing rather one sided. America is accused of being a bully on the world stage, when was the last time you were beat up in the school yard and forced to accept someones lunch money? America is accused of being an imperial power, sometimes I wish we were... it would certainly be cheaper.

~Finntann~

Rozita! What? No Caller ID?

2008-04-24T15:21:00.004-06:00

Any excuse will do!

Another interesting development in the Texas polygamy case:

According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, a phone number linked to a Colorado Springs woman was used to make calls to a Texas crisis hot line in the days leading up to a raid on a polygamist compound in Texas, records show. According to newly released court documents, Texas Rangers tracked the number to Rozita E. Swinton last week before traveling to Colorado Springs to interview her as part of their investigation into the April 4 raid at the Yearning for Zion ranch near Eldorado, Texas.

So, let's see if I understand this... you're sitting at your desk, fuming about the evil polygamists living down the street and the phone rings. A sobbing young woman begins to relate a horrid tale of rape and abuse. Action must be taken, bring in the sheriff and FBI, bring in the armored personnel carriers... RAID THE COMPOUND!!! Caller ID? What Caller ID?

What is with these people and how stupid do they think we are? Apparently they think we are pretty stupid, and we in our ignorance far exceed their expectations.

According to the Springs arrest affidavit, Texas Rangers determined the same phone that police in Colorado Springs linked to the Feb. 26 call had also been used to make false distress calls to the New-Bridge Family Shelter in San Angelo, Texas, on March 29 and March 30. In those calls, authorities allege, Swinton claimed to be a teenage girl named Sarah Barlow - the third wife of a 49-year-old man at the polygamist ranch. Read the whole story here:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/swinton_35580___article.html/calls_colorado.html

If I pick up my phone, dial 911 and hang up, the police will show up at my door, and I live so far out in the country I don't even get cell phone service. It is inconceivable that the Texas authorities did not know that the phone call was fraudulent and coming from out of state, and if they didn't they are completely and utterly incompetent. This woman would call and talk for hours...not minutes, more than ample time for the authorities if they so desired, to trace the call (which I will agree they had probable cause to do). Even if she was calling from a cell phone they could determine that it wasn't originating locally, as she would be on a cell tower in Colorado Springs, not in Texas.

The Texas authorities, without a doubt, were simply waiting for an excuse to raid this ranch. I would venture that in their desire 'to get in there', they acted in bad faith, if they did not know that the calls were fraudulent it was out of a desire not to know, a sin of omission so to speak, and trampled the constitution underfoot to do so. As much as the alleged behavior of the polygamists disgusts me, the actions of the authorities in Texas disgusts me just as much if not more. At least theoretically, the polygamists are acting on their beliefs and their faith... what's the state of Texas' excuse?

For those who find the FLDS practices and beliefs repulsive, consider that when they moved to Texas in 2003 the state's law allowed 14 year olds to marry with parental consent. That law wasn't amended until September 1, 2005 when the age was raised to 16. At least according to Texas Law:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm

I hear a number of people decrying the fact of married and pregnant 16 year olds... which unfortunately under Texas law is utterly and completely LEGAL! Looking at Texas law, theoretically, if a girl turned 14 on August 31st 2005 she could have been legally married on that day with parental consent. Still 14, she could have had her first child in May of 2006, her second child in February of 2007 at age 15, her third child in November 2007, and be five months pregnant today at age 16 years eight months. As repugnant this scenario is to most of us, it is still legal under Texas law (I'm not a lawyer, but I presume people married under the old law prior to their 16th birthday would fall under some sort of 'grandfather' clause).

So now the state of Texas is about to put 416 children into foster care, which one might rationally argue is an act of abuse in and of itself. Not only are these children being put into foster care, but I would wager that it will not be up to the same moral standards (polygamy issues aside) that they were raised under.

Setting aside their belief in polygamy and marriage at a young age, what do these people profess a faith in? A devout and worshipful life, hard work, a belief that modern society is corrupt? No TV, No Internet, Wives subservient to their husbands? Husbands subservient to the church? Children mindful and obedient? In other words a fundamentalist lifestyle? What riles us up more? Their polygamist belief system or the fact that they turn their backs on the rest of us as morally corrupt sinners? What does it say about us that the legal age of consent in Texas is 17 and marriage 18? We can have sex at 17 without our parents consent but we can't marry until 18 without it? We can make the rational decision to marry three years before we can make the rational decision to drink? We are wise enough to make decisions about sex, but not about politics at 17? Our laws are a conflicting hodgepodge of irrational and illogical boundaries. Why can't we all just get together and settle on an age at which someone is an adult? 18? 21? Heck... I'm sure the good state of Texas doesn't have any problems trying 14 year olds charged with murder as adults, seems like we kind of want our cake and want to eat it too!

~Finntann~

New Math: Clinton, Obama both ahead

2008-04-23T23:05:00.003-06:00

Both Clinton and Obama claim being ahead following the Pennsylvania primary. I suppose one can chalk it up to 'new math'. Two plus two equals five after all! Now matter how you add it up, one things for sure... I'm getting sick and tired of it all as this race drags on, and on, and on, and on, and on...

Seriously though, out of all this... who do I put ahead? Why John McCain of course. As the song goes... 'nothing could be finer than to be in Carolina....'

As Clinton and Obama duel, the only one unscathed is McCain... the guy holding the pistols, as he undoubtedly is sitting on the sidelines laughing his ### off.

Heck, he doesn't even need to run commercials, as his staff couldn't possibly be coming up with better stuff to use against Clinton and Obama than their own campaigns are providing. Even better, as the two candidates slash each other, McCain walks scott free of any of the negativity the voters feel to all this hacking.

Keep it up, drag it out... nothing could be better for Republicans than this Democratic run-off, neck to neck, down to the wire, watch from the bleachers as the Democratic Party self-destructs.

How negative will it go? Only time will tell, the question is will they ever recover from it.

~Finntann~

Immigration

2008-04-22T19:03:00.005-06:00

In researching this subject I have discovered that dependent upon the source, numbers and estimates vary wildly, generally dependent upon the source's point of view. So in the interest of neutrality I will simply rely upon the figures published by the Department of Homeland Security, numbers that are fairly close to those published by the Pew Hispanic Center.

In researching this subject a quote of Mark Twain's comes to mind:

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Given no universally acceptable source, the DHS will have to do.

In 2007, according to the DHS 1,052,415 persons became legal permanent residents (LPR) of the United States, generally since 2000 the number of illegal residents arriving per year has been averaging around 1,380,000.

As of January 2006 the estimate of legal immigrants (LPRs) was 12.1 million

In 2006 roughly 33.7 million I-94 visitors were admitted (The I-94 form is required for entry into the United States for non-immigrants from all countries other than Canada and Mexico.) and an additional 141 million visitors (from Canada and Mexico) were admitted.

For figures on illegal immigration, go here:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ill_pe_2006.pdf

In summary, 11.6 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in 2006, of those, 6.6 million were from Mexico. The estimated margin of error, at a 90% confidence level, is plus or minus 150,000.

The unauthorized resident immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents. Unauthorized residents refer to foreign-born persons who entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave.

These people are coming from: Mexico 6,570,000, El Salvador 510,000, Guatemala 430,000, Philippines 280,000, Honduras 280,000, India 270,000, Korea 250,000, Brazil 210,000, China 190,000, Vietnam 160,000, Other Countries 2,410,000

And the top five locations they are living in are: California 2,830,000, Texas 1,640,000, Florida 980,000, Illinois 550,000, New York 540,00

Let us put these numbers into some perspective, the illegal immigrant population of the United States exceeds the populations of each of these countries:

Cuba, Greece, Chad, Portugal, Belgium, Czech Republic, Tunisia, Hungary, Dominican Republic,Rwanda, Belarus, Haiti, Bolivia, Guinea, Sweden, Benin, Somalia, Burundi, Azerbaijan, Austria, Serbia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Israel, Honduras, El Salvador, Tajikistan, Togo, Papua New Guinea, Libya, Paraguay, Jordan, Sierra Leone, Laos

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than double the population of any of these countries:

Nicaragua, Denmark, Slovakia, Kyrgyzstan, Finland, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, Norway, Singapore, Croatia, Costa Rica, Georgia, United Arab Emirates, Central African Republic, Ireland, New Zealand, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Bosnia and Herzegovina

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than triple the population of any of these countries:

Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Lithuania, Panama, Uruguay, Albania, Mauritania, Armenia

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than four times the population of any of these countries:

Kuwait, Jamaica, Mongolia, Oman, Latvia, Kosovo, Namibia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Lesotho, Botswana, Gambia, Guinnea-Bissau, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Gabon, Mauritius, East Timor, Swaziland

There are a further 80 countries on this list which is comprised of sovereign states and self-governing dependencies.

If you add the legal and illegal immigrant residents of the United States, you can add the following countries to the list:

Ghana, Taiwan, Yemen, Romania, Mozambique, Australia, Syria, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Netherlands, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Niger, Malawi, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Ecuador, Senegal, Mali, Zambia

The complete list of sovereign states and self-governing dependencies contains 222 countries. Of those countries 175 have lower populations than the number of legal and illegal immigrants in the US.

Considering just illegal immigrants, 149 countries have a lower population.

Consider that fact... we could absorb the entire population of any of those countries and the number would be less than the number of illegals we currently have.

The figures for population for sovereign states and self-governing dependencies comes from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

Some of you may have a problem with the term illegal immigrant, may I point out that the definition of illegal is 'forbidden by law or statute' and/or 'contrary to or forbidden official rules, regulations, etc.' The term is not used to describe their motives or behavior outside of their immigration status... they are in this country contrary to law or statute, they did not follow the rules to get here.

Just a small dose of perspective

~Finntann~

'Illiterate peasants' ruin modern democracy

2008-04-21T16:27:00.009-06:00

Well the headline may be tongue in cheek, but Colorado state representative Douglas Bruce (R-El Paso County) is in the news again, this time for calling seasonal workers 'illiterate peasants'. The exact quote was "I would like to get the opportunity to say at the microphone why I don't think we need 5,000 more illiterate peasants in Colorado".

Needless to say, Rep. Bruce didn't get to say why he thought that way, as he was immediately cutoff by Chairwoman Kathleen Curry and immediately barred from speaking further on the bill. Reaction to Bruce's remarks was negative and no member of the Republican caucus defended Bruce or challenged Curry. The bill, which was expected to provoke a lengthy debate, was passed quickly with minimal opposition.

Read the whole story here: http://www.gazette.com/articles/workers_35510___article.html/bruce_rep.html

Not to defend Rep. Bruce's remarks, but one must question the validity of a participatory democracy in which people with unpopular viewpoints are silenced. I for one would like to know why Bruce thinks we don't need another 5,000 more illiterate peasants in Colorado.

House Bill 1325, by Rep. Marsha Looper, would create a five-year pilot program to expedite approval of temporary seasonal foreign workers to help harvest crops that have sometimes rotted in the fields because of a labor shortage. Given the nation's current crisis regarding illegal immigration, one must wonder how much incentive to leave the withholding of 20% of earnings would be. How much would you pay to stay in the United States? Under this bill the employer would pay for the visa, transportation, housing, wages, workers comp, meals...etc. At the end of the term when the employee returned to his home country he would get the 20% withheld, or if he did not return it would be turned over to the local law enforcement of the employer. Certainly sounds like a better deal than most of the "coyotes" (people-smugglers) are offering.

The actual legislation may be found here:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2008A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/611BF939B7A81E72872573A80065E651?Open&file=1325_eng.pdf

Bruce is one of those people always at the center of controversy and has earned the distinction of being the first representative in the history of Colorado formally censured by the house. Bruce was censured, and justly so, for kicking a photographer taking his picture (praying) during the morning prayer session, the morning before he was sworn in (Bruce is a vacancy appointee).

Bruce is an opponent of attaching 'safety clauses' (declaring a bill "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety") to change the date of enactment or to prohibit challenge to the legislation via petition. Bruce is the subject of much personal hostility and animosity from the other legislators and on one occasion an amendment submitted by him (on a safety clause) was voted down, only to be immediately passed when submitted by another member. One is forced to wonder what kind of games are being played in our statehouse.

While Rep. Bruce does not seem to get along well with others, at issue here is not the 'political correctness' of his comments, but of the people's right to be heard through their representative. In theory at least each member of the house represents approximately 71,000 people. 71,000 people silenced by the angry clap of the hammer in the hands of the Chairwoman.

I am in favor of many of the ideas put forth by Rep. Bruce, in many ways he seems a true Reagan Republican advocating limited government and limited taxation. He is the author of the Colorado TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights) limiting growth in government to inflation and population growth unless approved by the taxpayers via ballot (The term for getting around it is called 'de-Brucing'). He was against mail ballot elections, opposed county interference in the incorporation of the town of Falcon (although he was also opposed to the incorporation of the town). He donates his state salary to charity, introduced a bill to mandate classroom education on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and he is opposed to 'resolutions' that have no legal or binding effect as being pointless and a waste of the taxpayers time and money.

Despite the fact the Rep. Bruce seems completely inept at the art of politics, I am opposed to the legislature gagging any member, no matter how controversial his remarks. The actions of the Colorado house in this incident are a disservice to the people of Colorado. Silencing any representative silences the people they represent, no matter how much we disagree with his choice of words and his methods, he has the right and represents the right of the people to be heard. I personally am opposed to the legislation, it is not the government's job to provide migrant workers to our agricultural industry at taxpayers expense, nor am I happy that the bill seems to have been passed with little or no debate either out of spite or embarrassment at Rep. Bruce. While not in the print article, it was mentioned on our evening news that Bruce was advised by the Republican leadership not to make this an immigration issue, may I inquire why? It certainly seems relevant to the discussion, at least in my humble opinion. While this may not seem a national issue, the importation of 5,000 foreign migrant works into our country certainly is.

Already people are trying to make this a 'race' issue, the fact that the majority of our illegal immigrants are from Latin America makes it a race issue. I no more want 5000 migrant workers from Britain, Canada, Ireland, or Romania then Mexico, Haiti, Brazil, Chad, or Taiwan. The US unemployment rate is 5.1%... out of our 300 million population that is some 15 million people out of work. The population of Colorado is some 4.7 million people and it's unemployment rate is 4.4%, that leaves 206,800 people unemployed in the state of Colorado. Let the state and agricultural employers provide them with transportation, housing, wages, workman's comp, meals...etc. You can't convince me that we can't come up with 5,000 able-bodied workers from the number quoted above, if you provide to them what the state proposes we provide to migrants along with a legal wage. Refuse, and it's a concept unfortunately becoming alien to American society... no work...no pay.

To paraphrase an oft misattributed quote:

Let them pick fruit!

~Finntann~

Texas CPS: The New Gestapo

2008-04-20T10:34:00.006-06:00

There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?' He replied,
'One’s absurd, and bigamy, sir, is a crime.'

Putting aside the issue of child abuse and underage marriage (both legal issues that need to be enforced and prosecuted), one must wonder why in this enlightened age we still have laws making polygamy a crime. As John Turley, Professor of Law at Georgetown university said in a recent USA Today article, the difference between a polygamist and the practitioner of an 'alternative lifestyle' is religion.

It is perfectly acceptable (legally) to cohabitate with more than one woman or one man, but bring god and marriage into the picture and you are a felon! The pictures in the news of women in long conservative dresses with their children (139 women, 416 children) being herded onto buses under the watchful eyes of the law are reminiscent of Nazi Germany, is the Texas CPS the new gestapo?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24195958/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/10/

Strong words, but this fiasco is an embarrassment to a nation founded on the principles of freedom and liberty. I have even read articles putting forth the position that the teaching of FLDS principles is in and of itself 'child abuse'. Might I remind these people that the teaching of 'creationism' in schools has been ruled illegal... shall the CPS now seize all the fundamentalist home-schooled children on the grounds of 'child abuse'? It is a very dangerous path that we tread upon.

The court also orders genetic testing to begin Monday, this should fit in quite nicely with the new federal rules authorizing DNA testing of federal arrestees. Currently only the DNA of convicted felons is kept in the CODIS database, with the new rules you don't even need to be convicted of a crime to have your DNA seized (Although I fully expect to see a constitutional challenge to these new rules).

The rules to implement provisions of the 2005 Violence Against Women Act are expected to boost law enforcements ability to combat crime. I can see that, but so would allowing unreasonable search and seizure... I mean we can't have any criminals slipping through the cracks now can we? Why don't we just perform DNA testing at birth and file the results away, just in case the baby commits a crime twenty years hence. Of course, Orchid Cellmark, the leading provider in DNA services applauds the act... won't that be good for their bottom line to get an extra 1.2 million samples to process. I wonder how much they charge per sample. Heck, I'm sure random drug testing of people on the street would provide a nice boost to the scientific lab communities bottom line too, and help cut down on crime.

Even more appalling is the article I read in the Arizona Republic concerning the alleged 'hoax' phone call prompting this entire fiasco. "Phoenix child-protection advocate Flora Jessop said she was duped by a Colorado woman who pretended to be the victim of abuse in a polygamist sect and whose arrest Friday raises questions about the recent seizure of more than 400 children from a church compound in Texas." The fact that Ms Jessop is a critic and former member of the FLDS church couldn't possibly give her an axe to grind, wasn't all this such a convenient happenstance. But I'll leave this subject with her most disturbing quote, "Jessop said she had to maintain the pretense that her caller was real so that Texas police could continue investigating."

You can find the article here: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0419flora0419.html

I would venture to guess that removed from a religious context, the liberal left would be leaping to defend the rights of men and women to live in a polygamist lifestyle, as they defend the rights of gays and lesbians to engage in their lifestyles. It is the introduction of a religious aspect that makes these people unpalatable to the left, if they simply wanted to do it, that would be fine, that they want to do it in association with God is not. The right has also abandoned these people, as in their eyes the sexual aspects of such a relationship are taboo, despite the fact that in principle their conservative values align nicely with the religious right. Being orphaned by both the left and right, and falling far outside anything that could be defined as centrist, these people are an easy mark. This is a win-win situation for the authorities in Texas, they score points with the right for stomping out sin and points with the left for their social concern for the poor children.

The laws as they exist today enable the abuses alleged in Texas. Being hidden behind high walls, isolated from society, is what enables those like Warren Jeffs to manipulate the faithful for his own ends. His racist self-serving preachings are an anathema to a free and just society. It is not the beliefs of the faithful that are the problem, it is the isolation and power of the church that stems from such isolation. I do not believe in the principles or lifestyle advocated by the FLDS, yet despite that fact, I must defend in principle their right to live it.

~Finntann~

Good Money Bad Politics

2008-04-19T12:57:00.008-06:00

The 110th Congress of the United States has been seated since Jan 3rd, 2007, our esteemed congress members are paid $169,300 a year for their efforts and labors. Now we all understand that there is a presidential race going on, but here are some interesting statistics.

John McCain has missed 57.6% of the votes and is currently the #1 senator not there.

Barack Obama has missed 39.3% of the votes putting him at #3

Hillary Clinton has missed 29% of the votes putting her at #6

Tim Johnson has missed 57.1% of the votes, but then again he has a good excuse, having had a brain hemorrhage, he has since returned to work. One must also wonder why #4 Joe Biden (32.8%) and #5 Chris Dodd (31.2%) who have dropped out of the race are beating out Hillary Clinton on missed votes, when she's still in it. Sam Brownback #7 who also dropped out of the race is close behind her at 25% but we'll look to see his numbers improve. That leaves only Daniel Inouye (10.6%) at number 8 who's not there more than 90% of the time.

One could argue that all the free time off to run is an undocumented campaign contribution funded by the American taxpayer. Since the seating of the 110th congress the salaries paid thus far (through April) should be about $225,000 thus the missed votes (not based on hours worked) work out as being worth what follows:

John McCain $129,600

Barack Obama $88,425

Hillary Clinton $65,250

I understand that the Senators are theoretically working all the time, and that when missing a vote could be working on something at least just as important, but these folks are paid to vote...to guide the country in the direction it should be going, representing not only the interests of their constituents and their states, but all of us. One wonders what took place the 10% of the time Daniel Inouye wasn't there.

Looking at the senators, specifically from the perspective of the current election, got me wondering what else was going on. I found the following statistics on our congress, which got me wondering even more.

Barbara Cubin (R-WY) has missed 50.3% of the votes in congress, and she's not running, not even for reelection.

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has missed 29% of the votes

Ray La Hood (R-IL) has missed 18.7% of the votes, and he's not running again either.

Don Young (R-AK) has missed 17.5% of the votes.

Eddie Johnson (D-TX) has missed 17.1% of the votes.

Deborah Pryce (R-OH) has missed 16.5% of the votes, and has announced her retirement. (Sounds kinda like she already started it)

In defense of the current candidates, a look at the 109th Congress gives a slightly better picture:

John McCain missed only 9% of the votes

Hillary Clinton missed only 2.5% of the votes

Barack Obama missed only 1.7% of the votes.

But one wonders where Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) at 22.2%, and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) at 11% were. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) missed 37.2% of the vote, but he was running for governor of NJ.

Wouldn't we all like to take 2 or 3 days off a week to look for other employment while remaining on salary at our current job, no questions asked.

Really... we need to establish at least some minimum standard for our representatives to vote... say 5% barring extraordinary circumstances? I am not so naive to think that our elected representatives need to make all the votes, but there does need to be some rational level of participation. Perhaps in the near future we can take a look at what votes were missed and by whom.

Good sources of data for voting records are:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

For information on what votes were missed and how each candidate voted on each issue you can go to:

Hillary Clinton: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Barack Obama: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

John McCain: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

So you can find out how they all voted on the HR 2082 The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

Obama: NV (Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present)
Clinton: NV
McCain: N

~Finntann~

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thomas Jefferson

2008-04-18T16:22:00.005-06:00

I find several things in the news today rather disturbing, indicative of the the gradual erosion of our rights and liberties, most given up without the merest whimper on our part. First is the Orthodox Jewish man removed from a flight for not taking his seat when requested to, since he was praying the Amidah, a prayer that is supposed to be said three times a day, not interrupted, and is only 3-4 minutes long. My understanding from the various articles I have read is that this incident took place during boarding, the man apologized at the end of his prayer, and that even with the time it took to remove the man from the flight, it arrived on time.

My problem here is not with removing passengers for failing to comply with flight attendants instructions, but in my frequent experience passengers often stand in the aisles or in the back of the plane for various reasons, presumably thinking that they are 'out of the way'. I have never seen a businessman on his cell phone asked to sit while standing back near the lavatories during boarding, and it is very hit or miss whether or not a person standing in the aisle talking with friends before take off will be asked to sit down, as I have been forced to squeeze past them on many occasions. This appears to me to be a selective enforcement of the rules which is a dangerous step down the road to tyranny. You can stand up so long as you look 'normal' and aren't acting 'weird'. What has not been reported in the accounts is how close to take-off the flight actually was, as this could have transpired anywhere from a few minutes to half an hour prior to the closing of the doors.

Undoubtedly, the orthodox practice of praying the Amidah, which means 'standing prayer' was probably an unfamiliar act to the crew involved, one must wonder if an Irish Roman Catholic priest standing in the back of the plane reciting the rosary would have been interrupted. There is a good description of the Amidah here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/amidah.html

Have we become so intolerant that we can not accommodate the simplest of requests? Has religion become such an 'anti-social' politically incorrect behavior as to be banished from public sight? Or has fear become the overriding concern in this post 9/11 era. Has the herd mentality become so predominant that we viciously attack anything that is different? I participated in an online chat last night on this very subject and there seemed to be three predominant schools of thought.

1. The guy was a religious nut forcing his religion on everyone else, that he did this on purpose to either make a statement or force the airline to remove him in order to pursue legal action. And that religious expression has no place on an airplane or in any public place.

2. That everyone must follow the rules, no matter what, and that in this post 9/11 world blind obedience is a prerequisite to order. That even if singled out, one must comply for the sake of the public good. I suppose, by that logic, that we ought to resume payment of the tea tax to the British.

3. That the airline and/or the crew were completely wrong, that the man was out of the way, harming no one, and that the crew had been told he would be done in 1 or 2 minutes. They were on a power trip, forcing this poor man to comply for nothing more than their own egos.

I would venture that the man's activities were unfamiliar to the crew involved and made them nervous. Not sure of what he was doing or why, they requested the man take his seat, and when he did not comply it turned into something of a 'power' issue for them. I find it odd that the crew summoned a customer service agent to remover the man, and not the Port Authority or TSA. If he was such a risk, and this was such a significant incident the airline was derelict in it's duty by not involving the proper authorities.

Of curious note, this is not the first time that this has happened. This also occurred on 1 September 2006 when Air Canada removed a Hasidic Jew began praying in his seat while rocking back and forth, an activity called ’shokeling’, as the plane began its roll out to the runway. The flight attendant told him that he was making the other passengers nervous and would have to leave, and had the gall to announce to the other passengers 'that it was all right, he wasn't Muslim'. The airlines response was to offer crews 'sensitivity training'.

The evolving issue in Texas is also of some concern, the latest seems to be that the phone call prompting the raid was the result of a 'hoax' phone call from a woman in Colorado. I haven't seen it in the national news, but the local Colorado news is reporting that the call was actually traced to the woman by the FBI. Regardless of our personal feelings on the religious beliefs of these people, I am astounded that the authorities rounded up all the children from the 'ranch' which is larger in population than many Texas towns. I could understand removing the children from the household of the alleged threat, but imagine if the police in your town received an anonymous call about abuse... would they round up everyone in the neighborhood if they could not determine which house it was occurring in?

What is most disturbing is how the public at large readily accepts such incidents and the official explanations for them at face value. What would our founding fathers have to say? The state psychiatrist Dr Bruce Perry testified that " the girls he interviewed said they freely chose to marry young. But he said those choices were based on lessons drilled into them from birth." Well DUH? Can't that be said of anyone? Is not the fact that good Catholic, or Jewish, or Amish girls marry within their faith due to lessons drilled into them from birth. As long as the girls are over 16 and marry with the consent of their parents Dr Perry's personal beliefs are irrelevant. I am not saying that I agree with the Texas law, only that that is what it is... if the parents are okay with their 16 year olds marrying 49, 59, or even 69 year olds the states position outside the law is completely irrelevant as well. I firmly believe that any violations of Texas law should be prosecuted, but that outside the law the personal beliefs of the sheriff, social workers, or any expert witnesses they care to produce are meaningless.

One must question what the underlying motivations of the authorities in Texas are... are they really concerned about the children, or is this a convenient time and excuse to rid their community of an embarrassment, a religious community that exists in violation of their own beliefs? As one must question the motives of the airline in removing the praying man from he plane. I was amazed at how often people quoted Matthew 6:6 'that condemns people who pray only so that people might see them do so', in association with this incident. It would be funny if they weren't so darn serious, really... quoting the New Testament as an example of behavior for a Jew to follow. Are we so narrow minded?

It is amazing how willing we are give up our hard earned freedoms, be it for the sake of political correctness or for the false illusion of security. I heard repeatedly that while the man had the right to pray, we must give that right up in this post 9/11 world in order to obtain security. Might I offer the advice of a few of our founding fathers on this subject:

THOMAS JEFFERSON: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

JOHN ADAMS: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

JAMES MADISON: I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

And while he is not considered one of our founding fathers, his advice is certainly appropriate:

JUDGE GIDEON J. TUCKER: No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.

Just food for thought, and the advice to defend your rights and liberties vehemently and without pause.

~Finntann~

Justice-Texas Style

2008-04-17T17:55:00.002-06:00

What in the world is going on in Texas? Currently ongoing is a custody hearing involving 416 children, who are being housed in a domed coliseum. The hearing is so large, involving hundreds of lawyers, that it is being held not only in the courtroom but over closed circuit in a nearby auditorium as well. The proceedings can only be characterized as a circus, I can not comprehend what the authorities were thinking in proceeding in this fashion, unless of course a media circus was their intent.

So far the only arrests made in connection with this raid were for interfering with the investigation. The whereabouts of the 16-year old, whose allegations of being beaten and raped, are unknown. State authorities have named Dale Barlow as the man suspected of raping the 16 year old girl, he has met with the Texas Rangers but has not been arrested. We are still trying to sort out if it's the correct person or not," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. "Things are not matching up as we expected they would."

First let me state that any violations of Texas law ought to be prosecuted to the full extent and letter of the law. I must admit that I am conflicted on this issue between the need for the state to protect minors and the rights of the parents, however much I disagree with their beliefs.

But seizing 416 children on the words of an anonymous caller who can not be produced by the authorities seems to be a grave omen. I hope, for the sake of our principles, that the authorities have indisputable evidence that has yet to be produced.

A sixteen year old girl married to a 49 year old man is a reprehensible concept to many, however, under Texas law one must be 18 to marry, 16 with the consent of the parents, or if under 16 must have the concurrence of the court. We may disagree with a parent consenting to a 16 year old marrying a 49 year old man, yet from what I can see it is legal under Texas law with the consent of the parents of the minor.

One then must wonder how much 'legal' consent is involved on the part of the 16 year old and how much familial and social pressure could be applied to result in such consent. On the other hand, the sixteen year old could, at least theoretically, consent willingly based upon her beliefs.

What I find suspicious in all the circumstances of this nature is that you seldom hear of a 16 year old boy marrying a 49 year old woman.

Still, we must set aside our prejudices based on our personal belief systems and grant these people the benefit of the doubt. It seems instead we have set aside our belief in the presumption of innocence.

Self-isolated communities always receive our suspicion, warranted or not. Given many of the problems of society today, the desire to withdraw can be understood, but self-isolated communities can be Utopian or nightmarish, depending on the circumstance and the leadership. One need look no further than the Amish and the Peoples Temple (Jim Jones) to see the same contrast in real life.

Undoubtedly most will sympathize with the state, with the children, possibly with the mothers, but not the Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints. I would venture to guess that in a community of the size we are dealing with there are good people and there are bad, I can not venture to guess the alignment of the institution.

The question that remains is should we be cheering the state? Or outraged?

I for one would err on the side of caution, as would have our founding fathers. Always be suspicious of the powers and actions of the state, defend your liberties most vehemently.

Remember the presumption of innocence is a founding principle of our legal system. The case presented by the authorities in the court of public opinion should always be suspect, as should the case presented by the media, everything and everyone is biased, even me. If you believe otherwise you are either naive or a fool, and I have a lovely piece of property with a view of NYC, Brooklyn, and the river to sell you.

I am always suspicious of big brother, or perhaps a more apt description is Momma government. The analogy of Uncle Sam to the United States is a good one, for government should always be the kindly uncle... it should never assume the role of parent.

~Finntann~

European Guilt vs Free Speech

2008-04-16T13:39:00.002-06:00

The holocaust never occurred, it is a hoax arising from a Jewish conspiracy... Now I don't believe that at all, but at least I can say it, here in America.

I can not legally make that statement in: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland. I can not make that statement even though the European Convention on Human Rights Article 10, Paragraph 1. would seem to give me that right:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Were I French, with it's 5 million Muslim immigrants, I would be unable to say that I believed that they were ruining our country, that I lamented the Islamization of France.

See the Brigitte Bardot article at: http://foutsc.blogspot.com/2008/04/finally-brave-frenchman-er-woman.html

In addition, the Council of Europe and UN Human Rights Committee have rejected arguments that such speech is protected free speech.

I may not like the current immigration policy of the French government regarding former Muslim colonial possessions, but I dare not voice my opinion lest I be fined and thrown in jail.

This is the danger in the restriction of free speech, and our rights in general.

The authors (one of whom was Jewish) of a Le Monde article were tried and given token fines (1 euro each) for an article critical of Israel that condemned Mr. Sharon for ''oppressing and asphyxiating the Palestinian population.'' One of the passages cited by the court:

''One finds it hard to imagine that a nation of fugitives descended from the people which has been persecuted the longest in the history of humanity, having been subjected to the worst humiliations and the deepest contempt, would be capable of transforming itself in two generations into a 'dominating and self-assured people' and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others.''

Apparently the court took exception to the phrase 'dominating and self assured people', which ironically came from a speech by Charles De Gaulle following the 1967 war.

While the intent of such 'hate speech' laws is admirable, their effect is not to reduce hate but freedom. They stifle free and democratic debate of the issues, lest anyone 'offend' someone.

It is absurd to operate on the presumption that speech is going to produce irreparable psychological damage to the subjects, or that freedom from 'offense' is a basic human right. I am Irish Catholic... say what you will about the Irish or about Catholics, while I may be offended by your words, I promise your speech lacks the capability to 'incite' me to riot. Be forewarned that I will undoubtedly reply and you will certainly be offended.

Or perhaps I should just sue to get all those darned 'clergy sex abuse' stories out of the news. They are after all denigrating to the vast majority of non-pedophile Catholics and an unworthy stereotype.

So when will I be unable to say that the large numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants have a negative impact on our country and our culture? I certainly couldn't say it in France. When will you be unable to say George Bush or Bill Clinton are criminals?

How much do you value your free speech? Enough to stand up for it? Enough to stand up for the rights of others? Who say things you don't like?

It is easy to defend free speech you agree with. It is honorable to defend free speech you despise.

~Finntann~

WOW....The other candidates

2008-04-15T17:19:00.006-06:00

Gloria La Riva, Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)

PSL is a Marxist party and advocates building a revolutionary workers party in the United States, and believes in the validity of Marxism and Leninism.

Rational social & economic planning, rather than "market". Pay reparations, with interest, for slavery. Full rights and equality for all undocumented immigrants. Raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. Exit Iraq immediately, and pay reparations.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AboutUs

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Moore, Socialist Party USA and Liberty Union Party

Eliminate corporate welfare, then eliminate corporations. Socialize all financial & insurance institutions. Decriminalize drug use; de-fund war on drugs. Large-scale transfer of technology to developing countries. Give sanctuary to illegal immigrants & full social services. 30-hour work week with 6-weeks annual paid vacation.

http://www.sp-usa.org/ , http://www.libertyunionparty.org/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Gravel, Libertarian Party, seeking nomination.

US schools fail because we're yoked by military. Recognize Cuba; open up to Chavez in Venezuela. Americans are getting fatter & dumber; must get empowered! Military culture causes more gun violence. Make whole country a sanctuary city.

http://www.lp.org/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cynthia McKinney, Green Party, seeking nomination.

Reparations for former slaves, as promised & never delivered. Police take communities of color as rampaging ground. Leave the oil in the soil. we have not had truth about September 11. Gainful employment at a guaranteed income for every family. Criminal penalties for e-mail spamming.

http://www.gp.org/index.php

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And people wonder why we are basically a two-party system.

I found the Libertarian view of banning smoking and legalizing marijuana worthy of a chuckle.

Marxist/Leninist? Are you kidding me?

Reparations with interest? Not with my tax dollars... my ancestors were quietly minding their own business while being oppressed by the British in Ireland when all that was going on, then came here for 'no Irish need apply'.

Open up to Chavez? Must be the 'kiss ass for oil' program.

Illegal immigrants? keyword there is illegal, deport them when you catch them.

For an interesting read: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

Small towns, Guns, and Religion: What's the problem?

2008-04-14T19:27:00.006-06:00

What's the problem? The problem isn't that the response from both sides of the democratic campaign is patronizing and demeaning, the problem is that the issue, for the most part, is completely irrelevant. It is a distraction from the issues at hand.

We are debating not over the loss of American jobs, the flight of industry overseas and the loss of our manufacturing base, but are debating semantics. We argue over the sound bite and whether or not the remarks were 'elitist', we argue over the choice of words 'bitter' and 'cling'.

Recognize this for what is is... a distraction, the opportunistic politics of the circling shark sensing blood in the water, and we are in a frenzy.

I listened to Obama's speech, there is a longer excerpt than what I had previously seen available on Huffingtonpost

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html

as well as a the full 51 minute recording, here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-exclusive-audio-on_b_96333.html

What I found most striking was that this was not the well rehearsed and eloquent speaker I had heard in the more widely televised speeches, but seemed far more off the cuff, with Obama struggling for the appropriate words or phrase to convey his thoughts.

I found other portions of the speech far more disconcerting than the "bitter and clinging" parts... specifically his comment that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

It gives me pause, and causes me to wonder if he has an accurate self-assessment of his strengths and weaknesses.

Focus on the issues, not the sound bites. The issue is not whether or not a particular candidate is elitist or demeaning, they all are, these are not the issues that will make or break America. The issues are not a stark black and white, good and evil, although many try and make them out to be so. The issue is which candidate has the best overall platform, that in its totality will be best for the country.

And that, I will leave to you to decide.

~Finntann~

The McCain Controversy

2008-04-13T00:12:00.003-06:00

The Constitution states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The argument is that John McCain born at the US military base at Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone is not eligible to be President of the United States under the Article II of the Constitution.

The State Department's official position outlined in Acquisition and Retention of US Citizenship and Nationality 7 FAM 1116,1-4 Not included in the meaning of "In the United States", paragraph c. ""Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

In contrast to that, the US Supreme Court has already ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.

So now we have people arguing that the children of US military members born 'under orders' overseas on a US military base are not eligible to be President, but the child of illegal immigrants born while illegally in the US are.

Fortunately Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) introduced a bill clarifying that children born to US military personnel serving overseas can indeed grow up to be President and Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have signed on as sponsors of the bill.

Unfortunately the bill, for reasons unknown, seems to be stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So McCaskill has tried again, introducing a a resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen, again Obama and Clinton have signed on as sponsors.

It is virtually guaranteed that if elected someone will file a legal challenge against McCain on this basis.

My question is simply "HAVE WE LOST ALL COMMON SENSE?"

One might as well argue that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"... means that if you weren't a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, on September 17th, 1787 you are not eligible. It does after all say "at the time of"...not "on or after"

~Finntann~

POT CALLS KETTLE BLACK!

2008-04-12T22:31:00.003-06:00

Barack Obama says that in many small towns in the Midwest, jobs had been gone for 25 years and the federal government had failed to replace them. It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

“Now like some of you have been, I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Sen. Obama made about people in small-town America,” Clinton said during a campaign stop. “Sen. Obama’s remarks are elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans.”

So now, isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black, considering that in the 2000-2007 time frame the Clinton's have a declared income of over $109 million while the Obamas earned just a little over $3.8 million from 2000-2006. On average from 2000-2004 the Obamas earned just under $250,000 a year.

Hillary went to Wellesley and then attended Yale Law School.

Barack attended Occidental College in LA for two years before transferring to Columbia in NYC to obtain his B.A in 1983. He then attended Harvard Law starting in 1988.

What's most entertaining is the foolishness of a Yale grad calling a Harvard grad elitist.

Let's take another look at what Obama said:

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Okay... so people in small town America are bitter about the loss of jobs, pro-second amendment, religious, supportive of our social and cultural norms, and are frustrated over the loss of American jobs due to unfettered immigration and a disadvantaged trade policy. I can understand the liberal left's fear of this sentiment but wouldn't call it demeaning... Hell, it's a fairly decent description of my beliefs and that of my friends.

Looking closer at what Hillary said: Senator Obama's remarks are out of touch and not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans? Come on Hillary, it seems to me that you are the one who is out of touch.

Being pro-gun is demeaning? Not an American value or belief?
Being religious is demeaning? Not an American value or belief?
Being anti-immigrant is demeaning? (are we talking legal or illegal immigration here anyway?)
Being anti-trade is demeaning? Not an American value or belief?

I suppose we are left to wonder exactly what Obama meant by "antipathy to people not like them". It is possible to celebrate cultural diversity yet still be antipathetic towards those who refuse to learn our language or adapt to our culture in any way while expecting us to accommodate their refusal.

I found Obama's remarks poorly phrased and not typical of his general ability to communicate effectively, but I did not find them demeaning or elitist.

I am, however, left wondering what the heck Hillary is thinking?

~Finntann~

Islam and the West

2008-04-11T20:39:00.003-06:00

I was recently pointed in this direction by an old friend of mine... check out the story, and be sure to click on the links at:

http://foutsc.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-speech-religion-and-fed-up-british.html

I, until recently, was completely unaware of Pat Condell.

Now, you will either love or hate Pat... he is completely honest and outspoken, yet his views on Islam, however right, are certainly not politically correct.

It is refreshing to see someone stand up and speak out for the West, for Western Civilization, our values, and our way of life. Kind of makes me want to run off and join the Knights Templar. Pat points out in his videos that our very civilization is under assault and we are active participants in that assault.

Pat's speech is harsh, raw, controversial, and completely on target. There is no mollycoddling here, no patronizing political correctness, just straight talk and he doesn't care who he offends. Be forewarned, Pat is a secular atheist and Christians will be as offended by his views on Christianity as Muslims are on his views of Islam. This is free speech at its purest.

Bravo! Pat, my hat is off to you.

Makes me proud to be Irish

It was my intent to post once a day, but I couldn't pass this one up.

Carter, Hamas, and Khaled Mashaal

2008-04-11T16:26:00.004-06:00

According to Al Jazeera Hamas has confirmed that former President Jimmy Carter will meet with Khaled Mashaal the leader of Hamas sometime between April 13th and 21st.

All the Carter Center will confirm is that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter will lead a study mission to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan April 13-21, 2008, as part of the Carter Center's ongoing effort to support peace, democracy, and human rights in the region.

So far this has been met with criticism from a wide variety of sources both left and right.

The US state department has urged Carter not to violate foreign policy by meeting Hamas's political leader.

Condoleezza Rice has criticised the reported plans.

According to his campaign "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements..."

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the campaign of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Hamas is a terrorist organization who is responsible for the deaths of countless innocents and almost daily rocket attacks against Israel, Hillary respects former President Carter but disagrees with his decision."

According to an anonymous Israeli official, "Israel is very angry about the idea of former President Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Syria next week."

First let me recognize and praise President Carter's humanitarian and international electoral work.

In the field of international diplomacy he seems to have a much more mixed record. President Carter has often been accused of meddling in affairs of state, operating against the interests and policies of our nation.

It is US policy to isolate Hamas, an organization, reasonably placed, on the state departments list of terrorist organizations. Carter's plans to meet with the leader of Hamas would seem counter-productive to that stated goal.

Former President Carter is a member of the Elders and this was originally supposed to be a visit by Carter, Nelson Mandela, and Kofi Annan (all members of the Elders), but according to the Carter Center the others have decided "that the timing was wrong".

For a look at a real interesting curiosity (I haven't decided what I think about this yet), go to:

http://www.theelders.org/elders/

It is curious that despite widespread advice against this meeting Carter continues to persist with his plans.

I would urge President Carter to reconsider and not to meet with Khaled Mashaal.

However, and I have poked around a bit doing some research, I can find no legitimate reason to actually stop him. He may be misguided and completely off-base, but he has the right to travel to Syria and meet with whoever he pleases as a private citizen, so long as he doesn't provide financial or material aid to the organization it all seems completely legal.

The administration should publicly and loudly avow that President Carter is neither a representative of the US government nor can he speak as such.

Finntann

Whose election is it anyway?

2008-04-10T17:54:00.003-06:00

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that a foreign national just raised $2.5 million for an American presidential candidate?

Elton John played a benefit concert for Hilary Clinton last night at Radio City Music Hall raising $2.5 million: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6074098

Am I wrong? I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm misguided, but I think the law says:

11CFR110.20 7b Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to: (1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or (2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

I'm sure there is a loophole, as those donating were the concert goers, not Sir Elton John, but...

Could one not argue that his performance was an indirect contribution that would fall into the category of "other thing of value"?

I can't say that a violation of election law occurred, still it strikes me as not complying with the spirit and intent of the law at the least.

Still this bothers me, with all due respect to Sir Elton John, but I thought we settled the issue of those of British title being involved in American politics in 1783.

My honest opinion is that who gets elected president of these United States is none of his damn business! As who gets elected prime minister in his country is none of ours.

Given the 1996 campaign finance controversy one might expect a little more sensitivity to foreign involvement in our political process.

Some quotes attributed to Elton John:

“ I’ve always been a Hillary supporter, there is no one more qualified to lead America."

“I’m amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them .... I love you Hillary, I’ll be there for you.”

As the saying goes "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I lived in Swindon, England for a while, frequented their pubs and nightclubs, and in my experience Americans have nothing over the English when it comes to misogyny.

The story doesn't begin with Elton John though:

Elvis Costello netted Hilary more than $1.5 million at a birthday fundraiser last October:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/elvis-costello-sings-to-clinton/1900702162

How much foreign involvement do we need in our political process?

Personally, legal or not, I find endorsements by foreign nationals extremely distasteful and that they produce the exact opposite of the intended effect. While I grant that Sir Elton John has a musical gift, I fail to see how his musical abilities qualifies him to comment on American politics or recommend to us "the candidate most qualified to lead us" nor do I find someone with a English grammar school education to the age of 15, overly competent to judge.

But I'll save the fame equals intelligence debate for another day.

Finntann

Contrast

2008-04-10T16:13:00.005-06:00

Two headlines in the news today make a striking contrast:

Compare "DEMS: America can not afford endless war" to "Marine who lost leg returns to combat in Iraq"

I'd like to start by offering a salute to Gunnery Sergeant William Gibson

Two years ago he lost his leg to a sniper's bullet in Iraq. Today he is back in the combat zone by his own choice.

Read the whole story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24029144/

Meanwhile, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi whine about the cost to taxpayers and keep asking are we safer.

To address the cost issue, we are spending 2% less of our GDP on defense now then we were under Ronald Reagan during the cold war.

Are we safer? That is an interesting question. To the best of my recollection we haven't had any major or minor terrorist attacks lately. I could leave it at that... seems a simple answer to a simple question, but what are they really asking and what do they mean by safer? Obviously they are aware of the facts regarding enemy action on US soil, so it would seem what they are asking is "do you feel safer". This is kind of a loaded question, not concerned with the facts but with your feelings. I'd go so far as to suggest that everyone felt pretty safe on September 10th, 2001... and as events proved, this feeling was pretty far off the mark. So, do you feel safer today? Your perception of threat might be higher in this post 9/11 world, but are you in any more danger? An avowed enemy has sworn to strike at this 'heart of Satan' we live in and has not successfully been able to do so. The suggestion, which is probably true, is that the evil is out there, plotting and planning, waiting to strike at the most opportune time. They are playing on your fears of attack, not the actual threat of attack itself.

Nancy Pelosi described this as a 'failed war', what I wonder is her criteria for assessing victory? One might have argued towards the end of 1942 that the war was a 'failed war' having lost most of south east Asia, Burma, The Philippines, Malaya, The Dutch East Indies, and Singapore. We were suffering significant naval losses in the South China Sea, The Java Sea, The Indian Ocean, and were losing ships along the Atlantic Seaboard to the Germans. In the desert the British had been pushed back by the Germans, and the Soviet Union looked ready to fall. Perhaps, then, from the perspective of a 'failed war' we should have sued for peace. We most likely would have gotten off rather easily, abandoning our European allies, and perhaps suffering at most the demilitarization of Hawaii. 'Failed War'! Where would we be now?

All indications are that the situation in Iraq is improving, might as well cut our losses now and withdraw. Might I point our esteemed leadership in the general direction of a good dictionary, in particular the entry on defeatist, "showing a tendency to expect failure or accept it too readily".

The debate about whether we should invade Iraq is over, Factum est... it is done.

Before we start the debate about when to withdrawal troops we really ought to consider and debate the repercussions of such an action. I keep hearing "out, out, out", but nothing about the consequences of withdrawing. Will our withdrawal result in genocide of a proportion to put Darfur to shame? Will our withdrawal result in an Iranian hegemony over the entire region? Having committed ourselves to action in Iraq we are now directly responsible for what happens there, no longer can we sit on the sidelines content or at least tolerant of our sins of omission. Like it or not each and every one of us has a responsibility and obligation to the people of Iraq. Whether you consider them our friends, enemies, or are simply indifferent to their fate whatever happens, happens as a result of our actions, past, current, and future.

Might we pause and consider the actions and motivation of Gunnery Sgt Gibson?

“This is where we were 232 years ago as a new nation,” he once said. “Now they're starting a new nation, and that's one of my big reasons for coming back here.”

Most people would consider the sacrifice that Sgt Gibson has made sufficient, all obligations have been met, no debt is owed, anything else is pure nobility.

Washington's Farewell

2008-04-09T20:48:00.000-06:00

Washington's farewell address was written to the American people and appeared in newspapers in 1796, although it existed in draft form as early as 1792. Americans, not Washington gave it the title "Farewell Address". Paragraphs 20-25 are a warning on the dangers of political parties, the entire text of the letter can be found here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

The excerpts of the content of Washington's letter will appear in bold, hopefully holding true to the context of the original, my commentary interspersed throughout will appear in yellow.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

One can hardly argue against the fact that our political parties seem to be lining up along geographical lines, although not in the manner foreseen by our founding fathers who were mainly concerned with north/south, east/west divisions. Our current geographical discrimination seems to be one of urban liberal versus rural conservatives, with the suburbs varying allegiance regionally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.

The bitterness and venom in the right/left debate gives proof to this assessment, enter any public chat room regardless of subject to witness the degeneration of American political differences to an ugly schoolyard brawl of vicious name calling and downright irrational and sometimes fanatical screaming. I find it particularly irksome to watch live chat rooms on subjects completely apolitical devolve into vehement diatribes against the current administration and in answer, against former administrations. Although the number of 'Cheney' hunting mishap posts to a log at the Denver Post on the killing of 30 bison was somewhat amusing, it was in a 'what are these people thinking' way. Are we now incapable of rationale dialog?

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

Alas, we seem to have arrived at this destination in the worst manner possible. The axe both parties constantly grind against the 'spinning' wheel of the press advances not our national interests but the agenda of only the parties themselves. While we were once a nation of Americans it seems that we are now only a nation of Democrats and Republicans (No offense to the other parties, but unfortunately, in reality we are a two-party state). Matters of national security are leaked to the press in the furtherance of party agendas and items not necessarily of national security are classified so, only in the furtherance or protection of party agendas.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

How true this rings! Would anyone care to disagree?

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Who can argue that the fire of our political scene is warming not consuming? I assert that we are ablaze and instead of grabbing the water we are reaching for the gasoline every time one of our number posts a "**** Bush or **** Clinton " comment instead of dousing the fire with the water of rational debate. The political discourse of the enlightenment has devolved into the totally irrational Bush=Hitler Clinton=Marx arguments prevalent in the anonymous (and sometimes not so anonymous) political discourse of the web.

Far too many align themselves with the extremes of thought seeing things in the stark contrast of black and white. American involvement in Iraq is either utterly evil or consummately good instead of the grey of a well-intentioned effort with significant problems requiring innovative thought and action to resolve. As long as we are screaming good and evil at one another we shall make no progress, to continue the debate of whether or not we should have gone there in the first place is moot, we are there and that is the subject we must deal with, and hopefully resolve in an intelligent manner avoiding the distinct possibility of factional genocide as the result of our activities.

Iraq, Iran, China, Venezuela... these are the foremost issues on the world stage, as Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying at the signing of the Declaration of Independence in response to John Hancock about hanging together... " "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately". Have we lost sight of the de facto motto of the United States? Pull a coin out of your pocket and look for E pluribus unum, it is on them all. Out of many, one!

Lately, E PLURIBUS DUO might seem a more apt description.

Don't get me wrong, I am not vehemently opposed to a two-party system, however I urge you all to take Washington's advice to heart: "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it". Be wise, discourage and restrain partisanship and encourage focused and rationale debate on the issues confronting us.

~Finntann~

Who was Finntann? According to Irish legend Finntann was the only survivor of the biblical flood who was not on the boat with Noah. Finntann had kept afloat during the flood and lived on afterwards seemingly immortal, at Dun Tulcha in southwestern Kerry. He reappears now and then through the course of Irish history at times of great importance to bear witness to events.
As the legend goes Finntann reappeared some thousands of years later in the sixth century during the reign of Diarmuid MacCarroll to settle, by testimony taken from his long memory, a dispute about the limits of the Royal Demesne. Great was the awed wonder at the King's palace, when the old man arrived, preceded by nine companies of his own descendants, and followed by another nine.

I first came across this story in "The Story of the Irish Race" by Seumas MacManus, a longer excerpt for those interested can be found here, under 'Irish Legend of the Flood":

http://www.carnahanclan.com/Default.aspx?tabid=60&g=profile&u=5

A seemingly Irish lesson in Winston Churchill's adage "That those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it", although Sir Winston being English is much more concise.

And as the length of this post attests, like most American-Irish I am endowed with the gift of gab, and yes... the word order is a political statement, American first and foremost!