Post #226 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed, Pt. II

Re: Arizona immigration law

UnConstitutional? I don't think so. I understand the arguments about the federal government taking the lead in immigration and violations of civil rights. But let's face it: This Supreme Court will not throw out a law that is popular with the Republican base.

The Arizona immigration law makes it a crime to be caught in Arizona without your 'papers.' Police must make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official," to determine a person's immigration status.

It is not well-thought-out. It is vague and may have unintended negative consequences. The problem with this law is it gives too much power to the cop on the street -- prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner. It calls for racial profiling -- despite language against that -- under the guise of "reasonable suspicion."

Let's be honest: There is NOTHING a person can do that will create a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant -- except for having brown skin. Even a "I'm an illegal immigrant" T-shirt should be reasonably seen as a political statement -- especially when worn by Megan McCain. :p The legal definition of "reasonable suspicion" will be tied up in court for years.

I criticize the Arizona lawmakers for coming up with a week law that will drain the resources of Arizona's courts.

And other resources. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police criticized the legislation, saying that it will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner. Simply, solving crimes against Arizona citizens gets harder as you scare a portion of the population into not cooperating.

However, there is still no reason to applaud the Mexican President's criticism before Congress.

P.S.: There are two things I learned while researching this topic:
1. No illegal immigrant is living 'the American Dream.'
2. It's harder to become legal than I thought.

Post #225 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed

I saw Anne Coulter on FOX News* the other day, and she was spewing some garbage about Dems cheering when the Mexican President criticized the Arizona immigration law before a joint session of Congress. I thought surely that she was full of crap -- much like Bill O'Reilly had been when he claimed to have the socialistic ramblings of Barak Obama's college thesis. That turned out not to true, but O'Reilly "stood by the document" as it sounded like what he believed Obama would say.

But then I saw the video.

My apologies to Coulter: For there on the video, the Democratic side of the joint session of Congress cheered -- a standing ovation, for goodness sake -- the Mexican President's criticism.

That was an unpatriotic act -- no matter how you feel about the Arizona immigration law. And politically stupid, too, for Republicans will play that video over and over for the November 2010 eletions -- as well they should.

There are two places where it is appropriate to applaud during a speeh by a foreign dignitary before a joint session of Congress: the beginning and the end. Is that too hard to understand?

If I was President Obama, I'd fire every Cabinet member who participated in the spectacle and fire my vice-president. If he does not, well, that says a lot.

* I have a crush on Megyn Kelly, OK?

Post #224 'Where I be from?'

I never thought it was important, but, recently, I was doing some research and....

I've tried to be fair in this blog. I've tried to always treat everybody with respect -- even when George Weasel Bush didn't deserve it! :p

My guiding quote in this blog... and life: "Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him." And, of course, the opposite: "I am every man's superior in that he may learn from me."

Anyway, I am from North Carolina. We were the last state to secede from the Union in 1861 and join the Confederacy. We knew it was a bad idea -- not swayed by the overheated rhetoric of our cousins in South Carolina.

Indeed, North Carolina's aversion to overheated rhetoric continues today... and, hopefully, reflected in this blog.

Which brings up the Tea Party.

In Charlotte, North Carolina's largest city, recently, the Tea Party organized a 'human chain' to surround the Bank of America headquarters to protest that the Bank of America has repaid its 'bailout.' The event drew seven protesters to form the chain.

[rolleyes]

North Carolina only joined the Confederacy after we were surrounded by Confederate states and the War had actually started -- we realized it was not in our best interests to be a Union outpost. Once we joined, North Carolina lost more troops supporting 'the cause' -- despite ranking #7 in slaves.

The moral: Listening to overheated rhetoric will burn.

Post #223 If The Tea Party Was Black, Pt. II

I usually don't talk about race because the concept of 'white privilege' is so difficult to explain -- especially to somebody who has been called a "honkie." But not talking about race is probably the biggest example there is of 'white privilege.'

http://www.dickshovel.com/priv.html

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #222 If The Tea Party Was Black...

Too bad people can't be forced to 'walk a mile in my shoes' -- they might learn something....

http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html

Post #221 I, too, am tired

I got an "Fwd" e-mail -- "I'm 63 and I'm Tired" -- in which a tough-talking straight-shooter with 'problems' that most people would trade for proceeds to blame his 'problems' on nearly every aspect of modern society.

I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and inactions. I am tired of hearing them blame mysterious forces such as "the economy' or Government actions they don't understand or the media and celebrities -- ! -- for their problems. So, no, I was not impressed by that rant.

First, the guy lists his credentials of being a hard worker. Then, he says, "Givn the economy, there's no retirement in sight." Huh? Has this guy never heard of Social Security Insurance?

The question is, what has this guy been doing for 40 years to plan for his retirement? There is no law against having a 'private' retirement account -- or a 'Vegas vacation' account, for that matter. Surely, he has not been relying on the Government to take of his needs, huh?

Well, no -- he has a "paid-off $250,000 condo" as a nest egg -- that's $10,000 a year for 25 years, almost twice as much as my Grandma draws from Social Security. Plus, his nest egg is probably bigger now than my nest egg from my own 'private' retirement account will be when I am 65.

Why is he whining?

He goes on: "I'm tired of being told that I have to 'spread the wealth' to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it." Wow. Who told him that? Glen Beck?

Which brings us to the housing bubble. He blames the Community Reinvestment Act and suggests that "the left-wing Congress-critters" who passed that Act pay.

Uh, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. It survived amending and tweaking during 12 years of Reagan/Bush and 8 years of Clinton just fine. It wasn't until the Republican Congress and the Republican President after 2001 had their way that we had a mess.

And don't forget the Fed chairman -- appointed by a Republican President, by the way -- who 'pumped up' the money supply by lowering interest rates to a 45 year low. How many Republicans will seek office in November 2010 calling for higher interest rates?

Well, everybody's favorite kicking toy -- the media -- gets a few kicks. He blames the media for his vote for George W. Bush in 2004. The media, he says, "picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his."

I'm sorry that our e-mail writer missed the 'swift boat' ads during the summer of 2004 which prompted the media to go over and over and over John Kerry's daily activities in Vietnam. All I learned about Bush was that he worked on a political campaign instead of protecting our southern flank against the hostile Mexican Air Force.

And, by the way, what kind of military records does an individual soldier have that the Pentagon doesn't? It sounds like a made up controversy to justify his notions -- much like the 'birthers.'

Oh, well, the whole e-mail hits all the 'hot buttons,'but a little bit of thinking calns.

A little bit of thinking, please. Is that too much to ask?

Post #220 Weapons of Mass Destruction Found

German authorities shut down Berlin's main international airport this past Wednesday after construction workers discovered a quarter-ton Weapon of Mass Destruction. They claimed it was a World War II bomb.

But we know better.

Obviously, Saddam Hussein faked his own execution, fled to Germany and has gone back into the WMD business to arm his world-wide network of terrorists who do his bidding.

Obviously, too, we must invade Germany, capture Hussein, destroy WMD, nurture democracy and watch peace bloom.

Can I get an "Amen," Dick Cheney?

Post #219 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!," Pt. II

Conservatives have one last legitimate hope to derail health care reform: The activist, right-wing Supreme Court. As we've seen in "Bush vs. Gore," the Supreme Court has no problem sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. As we've seen with D.C. gun ban, the Supreme Court has no problem seeing a policy it doesn't like and declaring that policy unConstitutional -- no matter how dubious the Constitutional reasoning.

If I was a gambling man, I'd give it 3-to-1 odds that the Supreme Court will ride to the rescue.

Questions arise if the Supreme Court rules against health care reform: Will I still be legally required to buy car insurance? Will my Grandma get a refund from Plan D of Medicare? After all, Plan D was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President.

Of course, the BIG question: How is adding 32 million Americans to health insurance rolls a bad thing?

Oh, the theory is that adding 32 million poor Americans to health insurance rolls will make everybody's quality of health care go down. If that is so, why not eliminate the poorest 32 million Americans who are now on health insurance rolls to improve the quality of health care. Everything is honkey-dorey -- unless you're one of the 64 million of the poorest Americans.

I criticize President Obama for a too-complex bill and too-long debate -- not pretty watching sausage being made. I would have just opened Medicare to everybody. But I'm happy it's here.

The good news is that the issue of health care is here to stay. And the Republican plan is...?

Post #218 FOX News Bleach Blonde Bobble-Heads!

Where can I buy 'em? :p

Post #217 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!"

Post #217 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!"

President Barack Obama signed a health care bill just this past Tuesday that will for the first time cement insurance coverage as the right of every U.S. citizen and begin to reshape the way virtually all Americans receive and pay for treatment. Obama said, "After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise. It is the law of the land."

Thank You.

It as literally a lifesaver for countless Americans. The extension of health care coverage to 32 million who now lack it is to be achieved through a complex cocktail of new mandates for individuals and employers, subsidies for people who can't afford to buy coverage on their own, consumer-friendly rules clamped on insurers, tax breaks, and marketplaces to shop for health plans.

Many thought you couldn't do it -- me, too. And when you said not to bet against you, I thought you were blowing smoke.

Take your victory lap, Mr. President!

And where are our friends, the loyal opposition? David Frum, former speechwriter to President George W. Bush:

"Conservatives and Republicans suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

"It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today with a big win in the November 2010 elections.

"No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there; would President Obama sign such a repeal?

"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

"So the defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours."

Post #216 ... revised, 2010

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (to corporations), that they are endowed by their Creator (or certified public accountant), with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (or corporations), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (or corporations of some of the governed), That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People (or corporations), to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,....

-- John Roberts, chief justice, SCOTUS

Post #215 Charles Krauthammer Jumps The Shark

"Jumps The Shark" is a phrase used to describe a TV series which has run out of fresh ideas. The phrase stems from the episode of "Happy Days" in which the gang visits California and 'the Fonz' jumps a shark with his motorcycle.

In his "War? What War?" column of January 01, 2010, Charles Krauthammer jumps the shark -- he repeats the same ol' tired and discredited neo-con world view.

Krauthammer says, "The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension." Um, nobody is uneasy. Of course, Republicans are uneasy about being out-of-power, but nobody leaves their house scanning the skies for falling planes.

Krauthammer also says, "From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face." Um, no. In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." The threat comes from al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than a tactic, "terrorism."

"And just to make sure even the dimmest understand," Krauthammer adds, "Obama banishes the term 'war on terror.'"

Well, "jihadists." Krauthammer's favorite term, means 'holy warrior.' What could give more aid and comfort to the enemy than having our President say we are fighting 'holy warriors?'

Krauthammer gives more aid and comfort to the enemy with his, uh, smirkiness. :p He sneers: "Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management." Every major military commander on the ground understands the need to close Guantanamo as it acts as a recruiting poster for al Qaeda. Surely, we shouldn't ignore our military commanders on the ground. Surely, too, we shouldn't ignore the rule of law. Surely, three, we should have confidence in our judicial system.

Why does Krauthammer seem to devalue so much about what is right with America? Simple. He and only he and his neo-con allies know how to fight terrorism. But, of course, reality says otherwise. If Krauthammer and his pals know so much, why did 9/11 happen? And why hasn't al Qaeda been eliminated?

However, let me agree with Krauthammer on one point: "[The underwear bomber is] an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians." But the title of his "War? What War?" column hints at the problem.

Nobody has declared war -- well, nobody with the Constitutional authority to. It is my opinion that we were attacked with an act of war; it is Dick Cheney's opinion that we are at war; George W. Bush told us to go shopping.

Until we get that -- War? What war? -- cleared up, we will continue to flounder. God help us all.

Post #214 Happy 2010!

Well, well, well, don't Republicans feel embarrassed and ashamed? Health care reform has passed both the House and the Senate, and the party of "NO" is left to hoping that the bill falls apart in conference committee. But yet there have been no earthquakes or volcanoes or any other end-of-time scenarios.

Washington, D.C., is like a giant pre-school. Lil' Barack Obama showed up and spread his toys on the table, and Lil' Republican kicked the table over and then cried that Obama wasn't sharing. Like a five year old who wants to sulk, Lil' Republican ignored the numbers which said that health care reform was inevitable -- now, Republicans are on the outside looking in and crying that they wanted health care reform all along.

Don't believe it. Consistency, please.

It's like Sarah Palin's bailout support -- ya know, George W. Bush's bank bailout that she supported during the '08 campaign but bad-mouthed in her book. Now that banks are paying back the money -- it looks like the bailout is working, expect Palin to say any day; "I was for it before I was against it."

Don't believe it. Consistency, please.

'Ah,' ya ask, 'do you believe Sarah Palin is qualified to be President?' Yes, of course, she is -- Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. There is no test -- just present a valid birth certificate. :p After all, we just had the governor of a large state who was not intellectually curious, politely speaking, as President -- wait, that did not turn so well.

Anywho, consider inconsistent former Vice President Dick Cheney who said "[W]e are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe." Indeed, Cheney and his pals have been passing around a recording of a statement by Obama that shows he is weak on terror:

On Nov. 21, 2007, while taking calls on New Hampshire Public Radio, Obama said, "I truly believe that the day I'm inaugurated, that not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I'm reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I've lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also can understand their point of view. The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that's something that this administration has failed to understand."

Um, that is correct. How does that make us less safe?

In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." In other words, we are at war with that which is tangible -- Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than at war with a tactic, "terrorism," or a religion, Gawd-forbid.

How does that make us less safe?

The inconsistent Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee, chimed in: "I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal, by putting him into the criminal-justice system."

How does that make us less safe? And how does the underwear bomber differ from the shoe bomber -- who, of course, was placed in the criminal-justice system by Bush/Cheney?

Consistency, please.

[rolleyes]

Post #213 Sarah Palin is the anti-Christ!

Thought that would get your attention. :p

I don't follow too closely the end-of-time commotion -- beyond knowing that December 21, 2012 is THE day -- and the search for the anti-Christ. But I do know there are three things to look for.

First, the anti-Christ will seduce people. Who can forget Palin's performance during the debate? I felt seduced.

Second, the anti-Christ will be seen as a savior. Well, Palin is already seen as savior of the GOP.

Third, the anti-Christ will wear a green hat.

I have a cousin who is all excited about Palin's book tour. Will she ask about the differences between reality and Pality?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33918869/ns/today-today_books

Or if Palin has a green hat?

America 2009 [rolleyes]

When the shooting at Ft. Hood happened on a Thursday, I figured that out of respect for the dead it'd be at least until the round of Sunday talk shows BEFORE somebody blamed President Barak Obama. I was wrong. It was Friday afternoon, and I heard that Obama was "directly and personally" responsible.

I've tried and tried, but I just can't wrap my mind around that idea that Obama is to blame. It seems more reasonable to blame the previous President for starting the wars that set off the shooter.

But, of course, it is only reasonable to blame the shooter.

Speaking of reason, I thought Republicans were the 'law and order' crowd and would be cheering the trial of 9/11 mastermind. But no. Since we had a Republican in the White House whose policy was to ignore justice, Republicans are upset that a Democrat in the White House would show faith in our judicial system.

Don't Republicans realize the policy of the previous administration amounted to 'no consequence for terror' -- speeding? Ya want a trial? Kill thousands? Ha! Go to Miami Beach and ask Osama how effective the long arm of American justice is.

Speaking of Osama and his pals, why do they hate us? Why did they attack us on 9/11? I thought the answer was clear: They hate us because we are over there. They have probably never read the Constitution nor understand our government -- just as Russia was opposed during the '80s, not because of their government but because they were over there.

But I saw on TV just the other day some congressman doing his best impersonation of a 2002 George W. Bush: "They attacked us on 9/11 because they hate our freedoms, our values and our way of life."

America 2009 * sigh *

Has our educational system failed so badly -- in regards to both the congressman and the voters who elected a dolt? We need a savior. I wonder if Sarah Palin is busy?

Post #212 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction, Pt. III

I am so disappointed. Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is still not finished. The eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney has a rallying place for opposition to the "radical" foreign policy of the President Barack Obama, but yet there is still no update about joining the military. Or learning a new language -- Arabic? -- and joining the CIA.

But the website still incites a call to talk radio. Surely, the 'God, guns and country' crowd that Cheney is speaking to does not value a call to talk radio over a call to national service. The cynic in me says that Cheney does know her audience -- "ignorance is bliss."

But I am really disappointed because Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' ignores the big story of the week: Last week's release of an FBI interview summary of Dick Cheney's answers in the criminal investigation in the Valerie Plame affair -- on 72 occasions, Cheney equivocated, politely speaking, during his three-hour May 2004 interview. That is why Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald declared that "there is a cloud over the vice president."

Don't worry, Liz, I doubt the crowd you're speaking to has ever heard of Fitzgerald or even \Valerie Plame -- I'm sure they know that Obama is a Muslim! :p

But please explain, Liz:

How did 'Scooter' Libby find out that the wife of Bush administration war critic Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA? Libby's own handwritten notes suggest Libby found out from Cheney, and Libby talked to Cheney about this, according his grand jury testimony. Cheney "cannot recall Libby telling him how he first heard of Valerie Wilson," according to the FBI summary.

How long has ol' Dick suffered from a diminished mental capacity? Should somebody with a diminished mental capacity serve as Vice President!?!

[Insert your own 'diminished mental capacity-as-President' joke here.]

Rest easy, Liz: 'Your' crowd will not consider the implications -- either Dick Cheney has a diminished mental capacity, or he is full of crap! 'Your' crowd will never know.

By the way, the Cheney interview summary was released last Friday to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. At least somebody wants an informed electorate.

Post #211 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction, Pt. II

Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is still not finished. The eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney has a rallying place for opposition to the "radical" foreign policy of the President Barack Obama which it says has succeeded only in undermining the nation's security by moving away from the Bush era foreign policy. Yet there is no update about joining the military. Ya know, I'm beginning to think that Liz is as dismissive of the military as her father. :p

How many deferments did ol' Dick get during the Vietnam War!?! Four or five?

"I dismiss men like [Dick] Cheney who inject partisan politics into the profound deliberations our Commander-in-Chief and commanders on the ground are having to develop a cohesive and comprehensive strategy, bringing to bear the economic and diplomatic as well as the military power, for Afghanistan -- something Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld never did."

Who could be so disrespectful? Retired General Paul Eaton who served more than 30 years in the United States Army and from 2003-2004 oversaw the training of the Iraqi military. Ya know, one of those wishy-washy military guys.

Eaton continued: "The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

"The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes."

Of course, Liz repeats the same ol,' same ol:' "Since 9/11, the United States Government, through our armed forces and our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, has succeeded in preventing any further attacks on the American homeland. This is a major achievement." Almost as major as being asleep before 9/11. In August 2009, according to the "Washington Post," after first learning of the alleged Zazi plot, President Obama got briefings three times a day on it. In August 2001, where was ol' Dick?

From Eaton: "As one deeply invested in the Armed Forces of this country, I am grateful for the senior military commanders assigned to leading this fight and the men and women fighting on the ground. ... No human endeavor can be as profound as sending a nation's youth to war. I am very happy to see serious men and women working hard to get it right."

Post #210 disturbing trend

----- Start Forwarded Message -----

The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect US wildlife....

[Picture is of a bear sitting at a picnic table. I've never had the time nor inclination to learn how to add a pic to this blog.]

Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democrat Party... as they have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance.

This photo is of a Democrat black bear in Montana nicknamed... Bearack Obearma.

----- End Forwarded Message -----

I chuckled. But then I also wondered: How many peeps who chuckled do not recognize their own paws seeking the aid and comfort of government? I have diabetes and am covered by Medicare. Ya?

Post #209 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction

Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is not finished.

Take Action Now, the website extorts:

1) Join Keep America Safe -- give 'em your e-mail address and your home address so that ya can enjoy all sorts of right-wing propaganda (including, I bet, an offer to subscribe to "The Weekly Standard," the neo-con magazine by 'KeepAmericaSafe' co-founder Bill Krystol);
2) Contribute -- the low-end amounts are $25 or $10 per month (anything less means ya is a communist);
3) Write a letter to a news editor -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe;"
4) Call talk radio -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe;"
5) Write a letter to your congressman -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe."

What is missing? How about joining the military? Or learning a new language -- Arabic? -- and joining the CIA? Surely, the 'God, guns and country' crowd that Cheney is speaking to does not value a call to talk radio over a call to national service.

I'm going to give Liz Cheney the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure that she's busy, not dismissive of the military like her father.

Post #208 Who Killed Stephen Hawking?, Pt. II

One complaint against my writing -- but not the only complaint, by the way -- is that I'm too short. Guilty. I happen to think that anybody who is smart enough to connect to the 'net is smart enough to get a point in one sentence -- no need to beat 'em over the head.

However, I'm forgetting the tip from freshman English 25 years ago: If something is important, repeat it. If something is important, repeat it. By repeating the same something a third time in a different way shows that it is really important.

So, I'm going to expand my Post #200, "Who Killed Stephen Hawking?"

* * *

Well, he is not dead. Stephen Hawking, the renowned British theoretical physicist with a neuro muscular dystrophy, is alive -- just on TV getting the "Presidential Medal of Freedom."

So, the question really is: "Who is keeping Stephen Hawking alive?" The answer: Government, BIG, s-l-o-w and inefficient government. I'm sure that his health care is expensive, probably too expensive for Hawking to handle by himself/

It seems ironic to me that the same peeps who rant about government' theoretical future role in life and death decisions have nothing to say regarding private insurers' real current role. Tho the government is keeping Stephen Hawking alive, they want to cite Hawking -- ignoring the fact that he is not dead. But at least government will respond and change its ways. If we, the people, don't want 'death panels,' there won't be 'death panels' deciding the value of life and when to pull the plug on Hawking or Charles Krauthammer or Grandma.

"Who would kill Stephen Hawking?" Private insurers.

It is private insurers who make life and death decisions every day. If ya can't afford insurance, too bad. If Stephen Hawking had to rely on a private insurer....

Or Charles Krauthammer or Grandma. A private company will resist any change that may affect its bottom-line. Their 'death panels' -- which consist of accountants reading balance sheets -- are OK with them.

In 1995, Taiwan wanted to have universal health care -- they scoured the world for the best-run government health care to copy and choose the United States' Medicare. Taiwan of course opened their Medicare to everybody. Why can't we do that? Isn't it the best strategy to copy an already-existing program? That is why the search for an "uniquely American" solution makes no sense -- our "uniquely American" solution is under our noses.

Universal health care is a pro-business stance -- leveling the playing field of the world market. As Charles Krauthammer said in my Post #206, "There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless." What is good for General Motors is good for America, and government-run healh care is good for General Motors.

Universal health care is also pro-workers. As Charles Krauthammer said in my Post #206, "It [private insurance thro employers] makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness." -- government-run health care would mean nobody to be held hostage to a job because of the health benefits.

"Socialism" is the cry -- ignoring last November's election results. That is the same crowd who slurps at the troughs of Medicare and Social Security, Ignore 'em, I say -- they had their chance to be heard.

* * *

Better?

Post #207 Aaarrrggghhh!!!

I've come to really value my time on the 'net -- which seems to be getting less and less these days. And then I get crap in my e-box.

There are plenty of good and true and valid points on which to oppose Nancy Pelosi -- I have a few myself. But her new plane is NOT one.

Ya know the e-mail, the one that says Pelosi requested a "big fat jumbo jet" to ferry big supporters across country. That e-mail is a couple of years old. I'd gotten several over time but not recently. I thought it'd been thoroughly discredited and had died.

But there it was, again, in my e-box just the other day. The peeps who mindlessly -- without checking ar least at snopes.com -- hit "Fwd" on every rant don't realize what a disservice they're doing to their 'cause.' Whatever the 'cause' may be.

My Pelosi-hating e-pal had already lost credibility with me -- this was not his first error-filled "anti-Pelosi" e-mail. I don't know what his problem is, and I don't really care to know.

My advice is to NOT hit "Fwd" on a rant that doesn't have a link to show where it came from. Go to townhall.com or huffingtonpost.com and find a column ya agree with and e-mail that. Peeps who sign their columns have an interest in maintaining credibility. Keep in mind, tho, some columnists thrive on being over-the-top and playing fast and loose with the facts -- they usually claim to be a "comedian."

If ya lie down with dogs, ya get fleas. If ya send a column by a comedian, don't be surprised when peeps laugh at ya.