I have to admit, I never would have believed Obama was better with words than a Webster-Miriam dictionary.
George Stephanopoulos was discussing items related to Obama's (intended) health care - the one in question being... to quote Stephanopoulos, "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?"
That certainly sounds like a tax. Stephanopoulos called it taxes (as shown above). I call it taxes. I'm pretty sure you call it a tax.
However, President Obama disagrees with our (and a good portion of the rest of the world's) definition.
That probably has you raising an eyebrow.
So will the President saying that Stephanopoulos made up the 'language' himself.
Apparently, Obama's definition of reality is not one-hundred percent the same as yours or mine.
Actually, I would say Obama's definitions of a lot of things don't match ours. He and his associates seem to have no problem with situations of that sort when it doesn't directly affect them.
I hope people realize that he has no intention of putting himself (or his wife and children) on this plan. They, along with their associates in the Congress, will be chugging right along as usual.
If I recall correctly, someone told me that a proposal was made to the Senate that if this plan was going to be undertaken, that the Congress should be willing to fall under its auspices themselves, to prove their confidence in it.
According to what I was told, the Republicans who were asked agreed that if they expected the public to be willing to use the plan, they should be willing to as well.
You might be asking yourself, "Hey, what happened to the Democrats? Didn't they ask any Democrats?"
Believe me, they did. Apparently, not a single one of them was willing to even consider giving up their current health care for this 'wonderful!' system.
I'll leave it to you to decide what that says about their confidence in it.
21 September 2009
Remembering the blood of Heroes
When we refer to dates in this world, a significant majority of the time, when we are speaking in terms of 'public events' and 'history', we use a year. It gives us a context to the 'history' around the situation we are discussing, and perhaps some small insight in to the people who were involved in the situation. A useful way of discussing the past, don't you think? Certainly.
But there is one date I do not think anyone of the past two (if not in some rare cases, three) generations of these United States of America will ever have to be given a year to recognize. We often refer to it as two numbers.
Two numbers that also represent 'emergency' to us in another sense, ironic as that is.
Nine-eleven.
I believe that most everyone reading this will know what day I am referring to. The day that the Twin Towers of the 'City (and the Pentagon of our nation's capital, Washington D.C.)were hit by hijacked airplanes and sent our feelings of safety and security within our borders straight to hell.
The al-Quaeda were not slow about claiming responsibility, and they gloated in their feelings of superiority. They had, as far as they were concerned, committed an act that would bring them extraordinary glory in the eyes of their G-d. The murder of countless innocents, both in the planes they had taken and from the Towers themselves, was not an act they felt any guilt for - after all, those were blasphemers and uncivilized animals who did not follow the true faith... they, by the beliefs of the al-Quaeda's faith, deserved no less than to suffer horribly before they died and were sent to Hell.
Photographs and videos capable to this day of generating extraordinary horror can be seen in so many different places, in so many different ways. The photos are something that choke me up, and the video is not something I am capable of watching without to this day crying my eyes out, inside if not out. Images of people flinging themselves out windows, rather than face the collapse of the towers... and then having to watch the collapse, realizing that every person still inside, direct victim of the attack or attempting rescuer, would not be coming out.
President Barack Obama talks about 'National Service Day'... forgive me now, but President Obama has NO concept of what 'service' really is, or what it entails.
I do not think that any of us do.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, rescue personnel all over Long Island (in Suffolk, Nassau or otherwise...) and on the Island of Manhattan woke likely hoping for a normal day like any other - perhaps there would be some 'small' situations that would require their assistance. Perhaps a fire, or a car accident. Perhaps there would be the need for some police to break a fight up, or investigate the aftermath of a burglary.
Then the alerts came in, and those men and women sprang in to action. I can guarantee to you they were probably afraid when they found out what was going on - I know I would certainly have been - but they swallowed their fear and remembered the importance of their duty, both to themselves and to the people they served. Their sirens blared, and the engines, ambulances and police cars raced toward the Twin Towers with their guns figuratively blazing.
Did any of them realize they wouldn't be coming home? I can't say for sure. I wasn't there, and even if I were, I am certainly no mind-reader. The only thing I can say for certain is that without thought for the sacrifice they might be making, those men and women launched themselves into a pair of burning towers that were doing a good impression of Hell at the time.
Can you imagine how enormous their fear must have been? I certainly cannot, other than to say that I probably would have been unable to go in myself, as much as I always say to friends that if I had been there, that I would have tried. I am certainly no coward, but the kind of bravery it takes to run in to ANY burning building is enormous, and going in to one there is NO chance of coming out of... I certainly could not.
I pray with all my heart that what happened on 9/11/2001 never, ever happens again in this country, because the cost was more than I think we could have ever stood to pay in the first place... but it would seem to me that part of our nation has already forgotten we paid it.
'National Service Day'. Obama seems to think that empty, paltry gestures are an acceptable, appropriate way to remember the remarkable deeds of our past, and the selfless, heroic men and women who have proceeded us through the gates of Heaven.
I would say, Mister President, that you have an extraordinary deal to learn before you will ever understand what it means to be a 'real' American...
Much less a hero.
But there is one date I do not think anyone of the past two (if not in some rare cases, three) generations of these United States of America will ever have to be given a year to recognize. We often refer to it as two numbers.
Two numbers that also represent 'emergency' to us in another sense, ironic as that is.
Nine-eleven.
I believe that most everyone reading this will know what day I am referring to. The day that the Twin Towers of the 'City (and the Pentagon of our nation's capital, Washington D.C.)were hit by hijacked airplanes and sent our feelings of safety and security within our borders straight to hell.
The al-Quaeda were not slow about claiming responsibility, and they gloated in their feelings of superiority. They had, as far as they were concerned, committed an act that would bring them extraordinary glory in the eyes of their G-d. The murder of countless innocents, both in the planes they had taken and from the Towers themselves, was not an act they felt any guilt for - after all, those were blasphemers and uncivilized animals who did not follow the true faith... they, by the beliefs of the al-Quaeda's faith, deserved no less than to suffer horribly before they died and were sent to Hell.
Photographs and videos capable to this day of generating extraordinary horror can be seen in so many different places, in so many different ways. The photos are something that choke me up, and the video is not something I am capable of watching without to this day crying my eyes out, inside if not out. Images of people flinging themselves out windows, rather than face the collapse of the towers... and then having to watch the collapse, realizing that every person still inside, direct victim of the attack or attempting rescuer, would not be coming out.
President Barack Obama talks about 'National Service Day'... forgive me now, but President Obama has NO concept of what 'service' really is, or what it entails.
I do not think that any of us do.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, rescue personnel all over Long Island (in Suffolk, Nassau or otherwise...) and on the Island of Manhattan woke likely hoping for a normal day like any other - perhaps there would be some 'small' situations that would require their assistance. Perhaps a fire, or a car accident. Perhaps there would be the need for some police to break a fight up, or investigate the aftermath of a burglary.
Then the alerts came in, and those men and women sprang in to action. I can guarantee to you they were probably afraid when they found out what was going on - I know I would certainly have been - but they swallowed their fear and remembered the importance of their duty, both to themselves and to the people they served. Their sirens blared, and the engines, ambulances and police cars raced toward the Twin Towers with their guns figuratively blazing.
Did any of them realize they wouldn't be coming home? I can't say for sure. I wasn't there, and even if I were, I am certainly no mind-reader. The only thing I can say for certain is that without thought for the sacrifice they might be making, those men and women launched themselves into a pair of burning towers that were doing a good impression of Hell at the time.
Can you imagine how enormous their fear must have been? I certainly cannot, other than to say that I probably would have been unable to go in myself, as much as I always say to friends that if I had been there, that I would have tried. I am certainly no coward, but the kind of bravery it takes to run in to ANY burning building is enormous, and going in to one there is NO chance of coming out of... I certainly could not.
I pray with all my heart that what happened on 9/11/2001 never, ever happens again in this country, because the cost was more than I think we could have ever stood to pay in the first place... but it would seem to me that part of our nation has already forgotten we paid it.
'National Service Day'. Obama seems to think that empty, paltry gestures are an acceptable, appropriate way to remember the remarkable deeds of our past, and the selfless, heroic men and women who have proceeded us through the gates of Heaven.
I would say, Mister President, that you have an extraordinary deal to learn before you will ever understand what it means to be a 'real' American...
Much less a hero.
15 September 2009
Mickey Mouse's Voter Registration...
ACORN has been very, very bad group of people.
Not that most of the media in the United States cares about that. I see people attacking Republicans for "...keeping voters away from the booth..." - "...hundreds of thousands of registered American voters!", they say, are being kept from voting by the 'evil Republican conspiracy'
I didn't realize we were evil.
A few days ago, the stories of ACORN employees assisting people pretending to be 'pimps' and 'prostitutes' to avoid taxes, launder money, get legitimate credit and to open '...multiple bank accounts..." in which she should deposit no more than $500 a week to avoid suspicion. Later she is told to call herself a "freelancer" to get that credit line.
That is disgusting, but that behavior is not even the limit on ACORN's part. Bertha Lewis, their chief organizer, has now accused the man responsible for making the video (O'Keefe) of altering the video. She says "It is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist 'filmmaker' O'Keefe and his partner in crime,"
They have provided no proof of any kind that the video has been altered, but the people of the United States are to believe them without any kind of proof... after all, this is all being done by the 'evil' Republicans and their associates!
So much for reality.
Yet as important as ACORN's behavior is in relation to that matter, there are more important matters at hand.
For example, the registration of the entire Offensive Line of the Dallas Cowboys as voters in Nevada. None of them live there, and none of them vote there. Wow...
As well, we have the registration of a seven year old as a voter in Connecticut. Again, wow... little kids get to be a part of the elections and our voting process! Unless they're extraordinary children, I doubt they have the understanding of issues to be voting...
ACORN seems to feel they do, however, and at least in one case had no trouble registering one to vote.
That's bad enough... but in Florida, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck were registered. I never knew that rodents could vote.
Even cute ones.
Not that most of the media in the United States cares about that. I see people attacking Republicans for "...keeping voters away from the booth..." - "...hundreds of thousands of registered American voters!", they say, are being kept from voting by the 'evil Republican conspiracy'
I didn't realize we were evil.
A few days ago, the stories of ACORN employees assisting people pretending to be 'pimps' and 'prostitutes' to avoid taxes, launder money, get legitimate credit and to open '...multiple bank accounts..." in which she should deposit no more than $500 a week to avoid suspicion. Later she is told to call herself a "freelancer" to get that credit line.
That is disgusting, but that behavior is not even the limit on ACORN's part. Bertha Lewis, their chief organizer, has now accused the man responsible for making the video (O'Keefe) of altering the video. She says "It is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist 'filmmaker' O'Keefe and his partner in crime,"
They have provided no proof of any kind that the video has been altered, but the people of the United States are to believe them without any kind of proof... after all, this is all being done by the 'evil' Republicans and their associates!
So much for reality.
Yet as important as ACORN's behavior is in relation to that matter, there are more important matters at hand.
For example, the registration of the entire Offensive Line of the Dallas Cowboys as voters in Nevada. None of them live there, and none of them vote there. Wow...
As well, we have the registration of a seven year old as a voter in Connecticut. Again, wow... little kids get to be a part of the elections and our voting process! Unless they're extraordinary children, I doubt they have the understanding of issues to be voting...
ACORN seems to feel they do, however, and at least in one case had no trouble registering one to vote.
That's bad enough... but in Florida, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck were registered. I never knew that rodents could vote.
Even cute ones.
18 August 2009
The Future of Medicine
I was reading the NY Post this morning, and decided to take a look at the editorials. I found one written by (Dr.) Mark K. Siegel, specifically about the new (supposed) 'health care' plan proposed by (President) Obama. The doctor (rather appropriately, I think) chose to title the piece "The Hopes Obamacare would Kill".
I think it is a very good name, although many people will probably disagree with me.
What (President) Obama is proposing is a government-run health care system, or at least what will become one, if it does not begin as one. He wants to make our health care system like the ones in Canada and Europe, and apparently believes those systems are quite successful, and that our system will become even moreso.
Wherever Obama gets his ideas , I want to know... I have a bridge to sell to anyone else who gets theirs there. (Believe me, they would love the view, and I promise, I'm more than willing to be reasonable on the price... They could charge tolls!)
But back to Dr. Siegel's editorial. He makes good points, asking what would have happened if we had adopted these "reforms" to our system in the past. As he says, would the (medical) advances we have made be present now, under such a system's rule?
When you consider that the other goverments on this world who have adopted this type of medical system have cut (significantly) back on medical research. New, cutting-edge equipment is not purchased as often, and with less profit, less further research is done. As well, less new drugs are produced - the government will not pay for them (saving the government's money, after all, is the way to go!), and therefore patients who might be saved by innovation are left to die.
What Obama wants to do will compromise the Hippocratic Oath, which says that a doctor must "...prescribe regimetns for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement." How can a doctor follow such an oath when their ability to do so would be taken away by trimming costs?
For a long time, I wanted to be a psychologist - to earn a Psy. D., and since (President) Obama has begun this ludicracy, I have found myself wondering that if I did so, would it be financially worth it? A strange statement to begin with, yes, but would I ever be able to pay back my school loans when you take in to consideration that a sizable portion of psychiatric care would probably be cut off by this plan?
More importantly, however, there would be my obligation to follow the Hippocratic Oath. Would I be able to? I do not believe I would, and I believe many people will suffer terribly because of what this President is proposing.
More and more people are turning on Obama, and he still seems to believe that he is following 'the will of the people', and the Democratic party seems to think (or at least Howard Dean does...) that "You can't really do health reform" without it, referencing the government-run insurance program proposed in this bill.
How is taking the ability for a person to properly care for themselves out of the hands of the people any real kind of (positive) reform? People will suffer if this should happen, but I do not think it will.
If it does, I'd say we're going to see a lot more graves (in this country) a lot more quickly than expected under the current system.
I'm sure the government will deny any (public) payment for the funerals.
After all, they need to save (our) money.
I think it is a very good name, although many people will probably disagree with me.
What (President) Obama is proposing is a government-run health care system, or at least what will become one, if it does not begin as one. He wants to make our health care system like the ones in Canada and Europe, and apparently believes those systems are quite successful, and that our system will become even moreso.
Wherever Obama gets his ideas , I want to know... I have a bridge to sell to anyone else who gets theirs there. (Believe me, they would love the view, and I promise, I'm more than willing to be reasonable on the price... They could charge tolls!)
But back to Dr. Siegel's editorial. He makes good points, asking what would have happened if we had adopted these "reforms" to our system in the past. As he says, would the (medical) advances we have made be present now, under such a system's rule?
When you consider that the other goverments on this world who have adopted this type of medical system have cut (significantly) back on medical research. New, cutting-edge equipment is not purchased as often, and with less profit, less further research is done. As well, less new drugs are produced - the government will not pay for them (saving the government's money, after all, is the way to go!), and therefore patients who might be saved by innovation are left to die.
What Obama wants to do will compromise the Hippocratic Oath, which says that a doctor must "...prescribe regimetns for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement." How can a doctor follow such an oath when their ability to do so would be taken away by trimming costs?
For a long time, I wanted to be a psychologist - to earn a Psy. D., and since (President) Obama has begun this ludicracy, I have found myself wondering that if I did so, would it be financially worth it? A strange statement to begin with, yes, but would I ever be able to pay back my school loans when you take in to consideration that a sizable portion of psychiatric care would probably be cut off by this plan?
More importantly, however, there would be my obligation to follow the Hippocratic Oath. Would I be able to? I do not believe I would, and I believe many people will suffer terribly because of what this President is proposing.
More and more people are turning on Obama, and he still seems to believe that he is following 'the will of the people', and the Democratic party seems to think (or at least Howard Dean does...) that "You can't really do health reform" without it, referencing the government-run insurance program proposed in this bill.
How is taking the ability for a person to properly care for themselves out of the hands of the people any real kind of (positive) reform? People will suffer if this should happen, but I do not think it will.
If it does, I'd say we're going to see a lot more graves (in this country) a lot more quickly than expected under the current system.
I'm sure the government will deny any (public) payment for the funerals.
After all, they need to save (our) money.
Too long...
If anyone ever finally starts reading this blog, I'll apologize for not posting in over a year and a half. I lost track of the blog, and my life has been more than a little crazy for a while.
27 December 2007
The (Liberal) First Amendment
There are two versions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And then there's the Liberal's version of the Amendment:
2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of ourspeech, or of the press associated with us; or the right of the people we choose to allow peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Only those who agree with our opinions (people, the press and otherwise) will be allowed any true 'freedom of speech' without our interference.
The screams (of protest) the second version will be little surprise, as neither will be the vicious slander (of myself) that I am certain is to follow my choosing to ignore the protests. I can imagine I will be called all sorts of terrible things, and I will be attacked from every angle. I have seen it happen on too many blogs, in too many networks, to think I might be given anything else.
Conservatives are not always a prize package... I will not deny that... but at least we are willing to admit that some of our members (even some of our leaders, perhaps!) are not everything we want them to be. That they do not hold up to the standards we set - that they are hypocritical.
Democrats are known for hypocrisy. The blinders they have on must be immense, and how they can see any part of reality is something I wonder all the time. They attack their opponents for things they themselves do, and then when brought to the question, they attack again, or lie, even when faced with irrefutable proof they are lying.
For example, we have Al Gore, the self-styled 'inventor of the Internet'. The man is a joke, as pretty much everyone who will be reading this knows very well already. His own opinion of himself far outweighs any real capability on his part.
To give an example I have used many times before - we have his unwillingness to fly on a commercial airplane, instead choosing to use a gas-guzzling private jet. How can we learn from your example, Mister Gore, when you create such a quantity of (as you call them) 'greenhouse gasses' crossing the country on a private jet because you're too snide to fly in pubic (with Secret Service agents)?
And what of Mrs. Clinton and the matter of licenses for illegal immigrants? She did a fine job of tripping over her own tounge several weeks ago when she had to cover her butt because her support for Spitzer backfired in her face. Hillary is, as I have heard said in several articles, a typical Liberal, trying to have it 'both ways', as it were, and to have the support of all sides.
Truth no longer matters to Liberals, as shown by their relation to the First Amendment of our constitution. As I have said before, the Amendment is only fitting to theirstandard, and anyone who dissagrees with them is not allowed its protection, as far as they are concerned.
Under other circumstances I'd make a sarcastic comment here, but the circumstances are such that it would not be appropriate, because their behavior is what the world expects from them - indignancy and arrogance. Truth is not one-sided... unless you're a Democrat.
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And then there's the Liberal's version of the Amendment:
2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of ourspeech, or of the press associated with us; or the right of the people we choose to allow peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Only those who agree with our opinions (people, the press and otherwise) will be allowed any true 'freedom of speech' without our interference.
The screams (of protest) the second version will be little surprise, as neither will be the vicious slander (of myself) that I am certain is to follow my choosing to ignore the protests. I can imagine I will be called all sorts of terrible things, and I will be attacked from every angle. I have seen it happen on too many blogs, in too many networks, to think I might be given anything else.
Conservatives are not always a prize package... I will not deny that... but at least we are willing to admit that some of our members (even some of our leaders, perhaps!) are not everything we want them to be. That they do not hold up to the standards we set - that they are hypocritical.
Democrats are known for hypocrisy. The blinders they have on must be immense, and how they can see any part of reality is something I wonder all the time. They attack their opponents for things they themselves do, and then when brought to the question, they attack again, or lie, even when faced with irrefutable proof they are lying.
For example, we have Al Gore, the self-styled 'inventor of the Internet'. The man is a joke, as pretty much everyone who will be reading this knows very well already. His own opinion of himself far outweighs any real capability on his part.
To give an example I have used many times before - we have his unwillingness to fly on a commercial airplane, instead choosing to use a gas-guzzling private jet. How can we learn from your example, Mister Gore, when you create such a quantity of (as you call them) 'greenhouse gasses' crossing the country on a private jet because you're too snide to fly in pubic (with Secret Service agents)?
And what of Mrs. Clinton and the matter of licenses for illegal immigrants? She did a fine job of tripping over her own tounge several weeks ago when she had to cover her butt because her support for Spitzer backfired in her face. Hillary is, as I have heard said in several articles, a typical Liberal, trying to have it 'both ways', as it were, and to have the support of all sides.
Truth no longer matters to Liberals, as shown by their relation to the First Amendment of our constitution. As I have said before, the Amendment is only fitting to theirstandard, and anyone who dissagrees with them is not allowed its protection, as far as they are concerned.
Under other circumstances I'd make a sarcastic comment here, but the circumstances are such that it would not be appropriate, because their behavior is what the world expects from them - indignancy and arrogance. Truth is not one-sided... unless you're a Democrat.
26 September 2007
Allowances...
The Iranian president spoke at Columbia University the other day. There was obligatory objection to some of the statements he made by the University staff, and 'snarls' from newspapers, with more coming now.
It really is amazing what's acceptable and what isn't. Many people (in the United States and in Europe) accept the attacks on Israelis by the Middle East (I would make a bet, 9 out of 10 that Iran is involved in funding the terrorists, as well as the still-radical former associates of the PLO...), and there is the obligatory wrist-slap and scolding...
But we are dealing with a different, though related, matter here and now. I was reading the news earlier (on several web sites, though I will not deny I prefer what I consider more balanced sites - such as FoxNews or Sean Hannity's site), and human rights groups are screaming as loudly as they may over the comments made by Iraninan P.M. Ahmadinejad in reference to his comment (paraphrased here) that "... there are no gays in our country, as there are in yours,".
The extremist Iranian government has been murdering people for many, many years, for all sorts of (what would be considered, at least, in this country) 'minor infractions', if they would be considered 'infractions' at all.
As I've asked before... what have we come to, when such behaviors as the Iranians undertake - the beating of women who do not behave to a rediculous, chauvenistic standard, the killing of people who do not agree with their religious beleifs, and the hanging of people who do not fit their standard as for what is 'acceptable' in society.
Some of the world claims to have come a 'long way' in the past several hundred years. But, I will ask, where have we gone when the United States is not truly supported by its people or by our supposed 'allies' in the U.N.? We have gone to a terrible place.
It's like deciding, when a boat is sinking, who you save based on, for example, what level of education they have, or because of their political orientation. Both are totally unacceptable reasons, but people still choose to follow blindly.
I can think of a fallen nation on this Earth where people used to do things of that sort. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself whom it is I'm referring to.
All I finish with is a prayer that God above will save us from the folly of the ignorant religious zealots who populate the world - in this case, those of the Middle East and their relatives.
May Adonai bless you and keep you - to the Jews out there... l'shana tovah.
It really is amazing what's acceptable and what isn't. Many people (in the United States and in Europe) accept the attacks on Israelis by the Middle East (I would make a bet, 9 out of 10 that Iran is involved in funding the terrorists, as well as the still-radical former associates of the PLO...), and there is the obligatory wrist-slap and scolding...
But we are dealing with a different, though related, matter here and now. I was reading the news earlier (on several web sites, though I will not deny I prefer what I consider more balanced sites - such as FoxNews or Sean Hannity's site), and human rights groups are screaming as loudly as they may over the comments made by Iraninan P.M. Ahmadinejad in reference to his comment (paraphrased here) that "... there are no gays in our country, as there are in yours,".
The extremist Iranian government has been murdering people for many, many years, for all sorts of (what would be considered, at least, in this country) 'minor infractions', if they would be considered 'infractions' at all.
As I've asked before... what have we come to, when such behaviors as the Iranians undertake - the beating of women who do not behave to a rediculous, chauvenistic standard, the killing of people who do not agree with their religious beleifs, and the hanging of people who do not fit their standard as for what is 'acceptable' in society.
Some of the world claims to have come a 'long way' in the past several hundred years. But, I will ask, where have we gone when the United States is not truly supported by its people or by our supposed 'allies' in the U.N.? We have gone to a terrible place.
It's like deciding, when a boat is sinking, who you save based on, for example, what level of education they have, or because of their political orientation. Both are totally unacceptable reasons, but people still choose to follow blindly.
I can think of a fallen nation on this Earth where people used to do things of that sort. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself whom it is I'm referring to.
All I finish with is a prayer that God above will save us from the folly of the ignorant religious zealots who populate the world - in this case, those of the Middle East and their relatives.
May Adonai bless you and keep you - to the Jews out there... l'shana tovah.
01 August 2007
Convenient Speech
This will be quick.
I finally saw a reaction from PETA today, in the Michael Vick case. Convenient how they only get (directly and visibly) involved when the matter is already long at hand, and various groups have said 'don't convict him before the trial, without proof!'
I would say there's proof enough, folks, and that more of his co-defendants are going to turn State's Evidence before long...
Yet another example of how our society has reduced morality to a matter of profit.
I finally saw a reaction from PETA today, in the Michael Vick case. Convenient how they only get (directly and visibly) involved when the matter is already long at hand, and various groups have said 'don't convict him before the trial, without proof!'
I would say there's proof enough, folks, and that more of his co-defendants are going to turn State's Evidence before long...
Yet another example of how our society has reduced morality to a matter of profit.
30 July 2007
PETA Hypocrisy
This post is about animal cruelty and the hypocrisy of those who claim to 'fight' it. I'm referring, as made obvious by the post title, to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - more about them later) and its associate organizations' behavior during the recent matter of a certain football player (Michael Vick) and his running a dog-fighting arena. A matter they seem to be completely ignoring.
In the past, I have heard PETA referred to as a bunch of terrorists who go around wreaking havoc, throwing mud on people wearing furs and leather, and causing damage to laboratories.
Apparently, the cruelty of animal testing and the fur/leather industry mean more than the cruelty of training dogs in to viciousness, then setting them loose on each other in a small ring. Those animals are then bet upon, as to which one will win. The loser is killed. I have heard of dogs being put to sleep, shot, or beaten to death.
It's horrific, and for some reason we haven't heard a single word out of PETA during the entire matter. Some of the media is making a hue and cry about Vick's behavior, but not a peep out of an organization that claims to dedicate itself to the preservation of animal lives, and the discouragement of animal cruelty.
Turning a blind eye to this doesn't say much for PETA. I hope I get some responses to this post, because I really want to see if anyone out there knows where PETA and their sanctimonious behavior are when these animals need (and deserve) some champions. No, they aren't having tests performed on them, no, they're not being skinned and turned in to coats, gloves, hats and shoes, but they should be receiving the same protection as the animals that are.
I guess they don't think throwing animal blood on a football player will make as much a difference for their cause as doing it to a scientist or a clothing manufacturer. Too bad for the dogs… they apparently don’t matter.
In the past, I have heard PETA referred to as a bunch of terrorists who go around wreaking havoc, throwing mud on people wearing furs and leather, and causing damage to laboratories.
Apparently, the cruelty of animal testing and the fur/leather industry mean more than the cruelty of training dogs in to viciousness, then setting them loose on each other in a small ring. Those animals are then bet upon, as to which one will win. The loser is killed. I have heard of dogs being put to sleep, shot, or beaten to death.
It's horrific, and for some reason we haven't heard a single word out of PETA during the entire matter. Some of the media is making a hue and cry about Vick's behavior, but not a peep out of an organization that claims to dedicate itself to the preservation of animal lives, and the discouragement of animal cruelty.
Turning a blind eye to this doesn't say much for PETA. I hope I get some responses to this post, because I really want to see if anyone out there knows where PETA and their sanctimonious behavior are when these animals need (and deserve) some champions. No, they aren't having tests performed on them, no, they're not being skinned and turned in to coats, gloves, hats and shoes, but they should be receiving the same protection as the animals that are.
I guess they don't think throwing animal blood on a football player will make as much a difference for their cause as doing it to a scientist or a clothing manufacturer. Too bad for the dogs… they apparently don’t matter.
Getting Away with it All...
Reasonable limits...
People keep talking about those, and then they only apply them when they feel they are necessary - only when they apply to the cases that they want them to apply to.
Case in point: an article from the NY Times I saw on AOL recently. It was about a
(man I consider a)dirtbag who's been posting pictures (fully clothed, but still inappropriate, considering what accompanies them) of young children on his web site. A site that was shut down recently by its host, but that he plans to restart the function of with a foreign host. Dutch, I believe.
This is the first time I've seen a Californian Liberal (in recent history) complain about a child-related pervert. Most of the time they claim that we're either violating the rights of those animals or that we're falsely accusing them. No matter what our reasons are, they say, we have no right to protest their actions.
Suddenly, now that they are being directly affected, it's become an important issue to them. When it involves East Coast parties, then it is acceptable to claim that the police have 'falsely accused' the parties involved - and when a man like this starts doing online postings about 'trolling' for children on the West Coast, it is 'unacceptable' and 'inappropriate'.
Make up your minds, folks. Either do what's right and support all the kids, or support the people who damage our children in the name of their own pleasure.
People keep talking about those, and then they only apply them when they feel they are necessary - only when they apply to the cases that they want them to apply to.
Case in point: an article from the NY Times I saw on AOL recently. It was about a
(man I consider a)dirtbag who's been posting pictures (fully clothed, but still inappropriate, considering what accompanies them) of young children on his web site. A site that was shut down recently by its host, but that he plans to restart the function of with a foreign host. Dutch, I believe.
This is the first time I've seen a Californian Liberal (in recent history) complain about a child-related pervert. Most of the time they claim that we're either violating the rights of those animals or that we're falsely accusing them. No matter what our reasons are, they say, we have no right to protest their actions.
Suddenly, now that they are being directly affected, it's become an important issue to them. When it involves East Coast parties, then it is acceptable to claim that the police have 'falsely accused' the parties involved - and when a man like this starts doing online postings about 'trolling' for children on the West Coast, it is 'unacceptable' and 'inappropriate'.
Make up your minds, folks. Either do what's right and support all the kids, or support the people who damage our children in the name of their own pleasure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)