Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech republic. I've heard things about this guy before and I like what I've heard. He's spot on about this economic thing in my opinion. Can we grant him US citizenship and coax him into running for president in 2012. If he's not interested maybe he's got a brother or a cousin that could run?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN259750420100925
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Shameful
I was proud of the unbias that I demonstrated by criticizing the recent vote by Republicans. I should have known that it wouldn't take long for democrats to trump them.
You should know that inside my blood is boiling and I'm doing a whole lot of self-editing on this one. The words I would like to say would get me in big trouble at home. I'm angry because what I'm about to tell you about highlights just how big of a joke we've become - literally. I've often felt that Congress doesn't take any of our problems all that seriously, that they somehow thing this is all some kind of game and now I know that this is how they feel. Regrettably, we're led by a bunch of - see I can't say what we're led by because there's no way to describe it without using obscenities, lots of them.
Today there's a dog and pony show congressional hearing on immigration reform and who has the subcommittee called to testify? None other than the highly qualified, widely respected for his experience in immigration law - Steven Freaking Colbert!!!!
And what's better he's going to be testifying in character!!! Did you get that? STEVEN COLBERT IS TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS IN CHARACTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know what to say. The dems are in control of congress which means that they chair these committees which means that they are responsible for this joke only it's not a joke, they're completely serious. They're turning to a political comedian/satirist to testify under oath in front of congress. If I was a republican (or anybody with common sense) on that committee I would stand my butt up as soon as Colbert starts to take the oath and walk the heck out of there. The hallowed halls of congress are no place, NO PLACE, for that kind of circus.
This country is a freaking mess. It's a pathetic joke. We need immigration reform and we need our immigration laws enforced and THIS is their answer? Now look, when we had cable I watched The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is hilarious. Colbert is hilarious but these guys aren't journalists. They're comedians that make satirical political commentary. They're characters. And they're very, very good at that. I was well aware of the fact that there are alot of liberals who can't seem to separate fact from satire and they follow these shows as if they are legitimate news sources (trust me I know some) but I didn't know that even our congress people view these tv shows this way. I mean this would be like congress calling Carroll O'Connor to testify, in his Archie Bunker character, on the state of race relations in the
1970s. It's exactly the same and it's pathetic. Now I'm going to find out who runs this subcommittee and I'm going to send some emails. I may not self-edit as much in my email to whoever that pathetic piece of crap is.
You should know that inside my blood is boiling and I'm doing a whole lot of self-editing on this one. The words I would like to say would get me in big trouble at home. I'm angry because what I'm about to tell you about highlights just how big of a joke we've become - literally. I've often felt that Congress doesn't take any of our problems all that seriously, that they somehow thing this is all some kind of game and now I know that this is how they feel. Regrettably, we're led by a bunch of - see I can't say what we're led by because there's no way to describe it without using obscenities, lots of them.
Today there's a dog and pony show congressional hearing on immigration reform and who has the subcommittee called to testify? None other than the highly qualified, widely respected for his experience in immigration law - Steven Freaking Colbert!!!!
And what's better he's going to be testifying in character!!! Did you get that? STEVEN COLBERT IS TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS IN CHARACTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know what to say. The dems are in control of congress which means that they chair these committees which means that they are responsible for this joke only it's not a joke, they're completely serious. They're turning to a political comedian/satirist to testify under oath in front of congress. If I was a republican (or anybody with common sense) on that committee I would stand my butt up as soon as Colbert starts to take the oath and walk the heck out of there. The hallowed halls of congress are no place, NO PLACE, for that kind of circus.
This country is a freaking mess. It's a pathetic joke. We need immigration reform and we need our immigration laws enforced and THIS is their answer? Now look, when we had cable I watched The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is hilarious. Colbert is hilarious but these guys aren't journalists. They're comedians that make satirical political commentary. They're characters. And they're very, very good at that. I was well aware of the fact that there are alot of liberals who can't seem to separate fact from satire and they follow these shows as if they are legitimate news sources (trust me I know some) but I didn't know that even our congress people view these tv shows this way. I mean this would be like congress calling Carroll O'Connor to testify, in his Archie Bunker character, on the state of race relations in the
1970s. It's exactly the same and it's pathetic. Now I'm going to find out who runs this subcommittee and I'm going to send some emails. I may not self-edit as much in my email to whoever that pathetic piece of crap is.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
This week the democrats brought to the senate floor a bill which included a repeal of the antiquated, Clinton-era Don't Ask/Don't Tell (DADT) policy. We all know what that policy is so I won't go into it here. The measure failed to pass with a few democrats joining all (I think) republicans in voting against the bill. In the spirit of fairness I should mention that a number of the republicans who voted against the measure expressed a desire to overturn DADT but felt that other provisions in this bill precluded them from being able to support it. Now this is a common thing, to throw an amendment into a bill (such as a defense spending bill) which you know the opposing party would not support thus causing them to vote against a bill so that you can come out and say 'hey, these guys voted against increasing funding for our troops' when the reality is much more complex than that. So I took a breath and thought 'okay, let's see what is so awful about this bill that the republicans had to vote against it even if it meant that DADT doesn't get repealed.' I must be missing something. If anybody knows more about this bill than I do please enlighten me. I hear republicans complaints about how Harry Reid was greatly limiting the ability to introduce amendments to this bill and how the period of time in which the bill would be debated was being limited as well. I'm not sure how big those issues should really be. It doesn't appear to me that there are such awful things in this bill that you would vote against it. DADT wasn't even going to be repealed until a thorough poll of military commanders was taken in order to assess any potential negative effects of repealing that policy.
I think the republicans lose on this one. How is repealing DADT a bad thing? This is the height of hypocrisy in government. It was in 1990-whatever when Clinton installed it and it is today. If I'm a business owner and I fire or don't hire somebody based on their sexual preference I'm getting taken to the cleaners. We're talking lawsuits coming from every direction. Yet if you're the government/military you can exclude somebody based on whether they want to hold a girl's hand or a boy's?? This is just one of thousands of examples where government insists that they are above their own laws. We all have to include everybody regardless of race, religion, blah, blah, blah. And rightly so. But government doesn't have to. I'm very disappointed in the republican party. This is not what conservatives believe in. And it's not what Americans believe in. It's 2010, nobody is losing morale by having a gay guy working with them. It doesn't affect morale in my workplace, why do we think it would affect morale in the military? And even if it did would that work as an excuse for discrimination in MY business? Why not judge people based on the content of their character (or in this case their commitment to protecting the USA) and not on the gender of their romantic partners? We're fighting endless wars for heaven's sake, shouldn't we welcome absolutely anybody who is physically and mentally competent and passionate about defending the country? It's mind-blowing! In 50 years our society (if it exists) will assuredly look back to the early 21st century and wonder what in the world we were thinking.
Conservative ideas are good for this country. I think that conservative ideas are, in most cases, BEST for this country. Republicans used to espouse conservative ideas. They no longer do and I'm not convinced that Republicans have learned the lessons of 2006 and 2008 well enough that they will be able to govern this country any better than the democrats have been. I look forward to a Republican takeover of the House in November because we've got to slow down this train wreck that Obama has us on. But that alone is not the answer because although we're more likely to get conservative ideas from the Republican party, it's not a guarantee. If I have the option to vote for a conservative-leaning democrat I'll gladly do it.
I think the republicans lose on this one. How is repealing DADT a bad thing? This is the height of hypocrisy in government. It was in 1990-whatever when Clinton installed it and it is today. If I'm a business owner and I fire or don't hire somebody based on their sexual preference I'm getting taken to the cleaners. We're talking lawsuits coming from every direction. Yet if you're the government/military you can exclude somebody based on whether they want to hold a girl's hand or a boy's?? This is just one of thousands of examples where government insists that they are above their own laws. We all have to include everybody regardless of race, religion, blah, blah, blah. And rightly so. But government doesn't have to. I'm very disappointed in the republican party. This is not what conservatives believe in. And it's not what Americans believe in. It's 2010, nobody is losing morale by having a gay guy working with them. It doesn't affect morale in my workplace, why do we think it would affect morale in the military? And even if it did would that work as an excuse for discrimination in MY business? Why not judge people based on the content of their character (or in this case their commitment to protecting the USA) and not on the gender of their romantic partners? We're fighting endless wars for heaven's sake, shouldn't we welcome absolutely anybody who is physically and mentally competent and passionate about defending the country? It's mind-blowing! In 50 years our society (if it exists) will assuredly look back to the early 21st century and wonder what in the world we were thinking.
Conservative ideas are good for this country. I think that conservative ideas are, in most cases, BEST for this country. Republicans used to espouse conservative ideas. They no longer do and I'm not convinced that Republicans have learned the lessons of 2006 and 2008 well enough that they will be able to govern this country any better than the democrats have been. I look forward to a Republican takeover of the House in November because we've got to slow down this train wreck that Obama has us on. But that alone is not the answer because although we're more likely to get conservative ideas from the Republican party, it's not a guarantee. If I have the option to vote for a conservative-leaning democrat I'll gladly do it.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Didn't We Already Know This?
Yet ANOTHER scientific study refuting the (non-existent) "evidence", aka paranoia, concerning vaccination and autism. Yet, somehow, I doubt this will do anything to change the minds of those who are hellbent on convincing the world that vaccinations are a scourge on humanity. The hardcore anti-vaccine crowd (not the concerned parent, the hardcore wackos) has done so much damage to public health measures in this country. They're as ill-informed and agenda driven as those PETA nuts who protest the use of animals at medical research institutions and make physical threats against those who perform the research. The larger question is - why does there continue to be such a vocal minority in this country that REFUSES to understand science?
http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/moreevidencethatvaccinesdontcauseautism
http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/moreevidencethatvaccinesdontcauseautism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)