Once in a blue moon I'll write something sports related... sue me. :)
This Sunday at Homestead-Miami Speedway, Jimmie Johnson will win his third straight Nascar championship. The sports media are drooling over themselves with all the talk of doing what no driver has done since Cale Yarborough: Winning 3 straight titles. Yes, it's been 30 years since that's been done... but under NASCAR's demeaning 'Chase for the Championship,' can we really compare what's happening now to what happened 30 years ago?
Not hardly.
NASCAR implemented the 'CFTC' to spice things up and make the end of the season exciting so it could compete with televised NFL games. In its first year (2004), the championship came down to 3 drivers and was decided by what happened on the last lap of the last race. It was the closest of margins in NASCAR history. Only eight points separated winner Kurt Busch from Jimmie Johnson.
The 'Chase' was considered a success.
But since then? It's been anything but.
Sure, once the Chase starts, it looks interesting. For about 2 weeks. After 3 races in, it's quite clear as to who is going to contend who isn't. It becomes another yawner, especially since ONE team (#48) has won 3 of the last 5 Chases! It's not exciting when someone is winning the thing 60% of the time.
Right now we have the press going nuts over Johnson's 3 straight titles. That's it. Had there NOT ever been a Chase, then what?
In 2004, Jeff Gordon would have won his FIFTH NASCAR championship. The media would be talking about tying Petty and Earnhardt's seven titles.
In 2005, Tony Stewart wins his second championship with 5,199 points. Greg Biffle comes home second, more than two hundred points back.
2006: The year that wasn't. Jimmie Johnson wins his first championship by FOUR POINTS over Matt Kenseth. Talk about being on the edge of your seat at the last race!
2007: Jeff Gordon returns, winning his SIXTH title and second in 4 years. Totaling 6 wins and 5,455 points, it isn't even close as teammate Jimmie Johnson comes home second in the standings, 353 points back.
Imagine the drama of the closest championship in history (4 point margin) and a driver within arm's length of tying Petty and Earnhardt's record 7 championships. Now that's excitement!
Instead, we have a 'Chase' that has offered only one year of excitement.
Woopty-doo....
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
More Laws = More Criminals
Last Tuesday night (10/21) outgoing Huntsville city councilman Glenn Watson proposed a new ordinance that would punish those who operate a cell phone or other electronic device (iPod, GPS) while driving. (Article here)
Just what we need. More petty laws. (note sarcasm)
Violators would face a $100 fine or up to 10 days in jail for the first offense. A third offense can put you in jail for up to three months!
Would we really all be better off by having more people in jail for victimless crimes? If I'm on my phone while driving, there's no victim. If I hit someone, that's different. There's a victim because of my actions.
Enforcement of the proposed law would be a nightmare. Cops could pull over anybody just because they thought someone was using a cell phone. Will I be pulled over if I even pick up and look at my cell phone? If I have to call 9-1-1 while driving will I be cited? It would be easier to pay a fine rather than fight it out in court! Of course, that may be the whole plan.
Watson said the next morning that if this measure saves just one life it will be worth it. But wouldn't it be better to save ALL LIVES by just dropping the speed limits in the city to 5 or 10mph?
'No one would accept speed limits that low! We have places to be!'
I agree. The reality is that we're willing to put more lives at risk (in the name of higher speed limits) in exchange for convenience (our time).
Recently Glenn Watson ran for a seat on the Madison County Commission... and lost. With his departure from the city council as well, we're all better off with one less politician introducing laws that turn law abiding citizens into criminals.
Just what we need. More petty laws. (note sarcasm)
Violators would face a $100 fine or up to 10 days in jail for the first offense. A third offense can put you in jail for up to three months!
Would we really all be better off by having more people in jail for victimless crimes? If I'm on my phone while driving, there's no victim. If I hit someone, that's different. There's a victim because of my actions.
Enforcement of the proposed law would be a nightmare. Cops could pull over anybody just because they thought someone was using a cell phone. Will I be pulled over if I even pick up and look at my cell phone? If I have to call 9-1-1 while driving will I be cited? It would be easier to pay a fine rather than fight it out in court! Of course, that may be the whole plan.
Watson said the next morning that if this measure saves just one life it will be worth it. But wouldn't it be better to save ALL LIVES by just dropping the speed limits in the city to 5 or 10mph?
'No one would accept speed limits that low! We have places to be!'
I agree. The reality is that we're willing to put more lives at risk (in the name of higher speed limits) in exchange for convenience (our time).
Recently Glenn Watson ran for a seat on the Madison County Commission... and lost. With his departure from the city council as well, we're all better off with one less politician introducing laws that turn law abiding citizens into criminals.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Getting What We Ask For
In a recent conversation about politics with Mom, she expressed how she feels (and I'm sure how other of millions of Americans feel) about the state of affairs with the folks in D.C. and the upcoming presidential election.
Paraphrasing a 10 minute conversation into one sentence: 'All politicians are crooks, aren't worth spit and need to be voted out.'
I'm fairly certain that she isn't the only one who feels that way. In fact, if you asked a million voters if they agreed with that above statement, I think you'd get 85% in agreement.
So why do the same yahoos keep getting elected? Is it because the public feels the 'other guys' don't stand a chance?
Here's my theory on what it takes to get elected to higher level public office (in order of importance):
1) First and foremost, the candidate must either be a Republican or Democrat. If the person doesn't have an 'R' or a 'D' by their name, they can hang it up. The public is so hung up on those two parties, that anybody else is considered 'fringe' (especially by the press) and can't be taken seriously. It's a two-horse race & it's a crying shame.
2) The candidate must be fit & attractive. Newsflash: Ugly people don't get elected. If the individual can't make the cover of GQ, he won't get the votes. Views and positions on the important matters don't amount to a hill of beans yet. Oh sure... you say you'd vote for someone based on their qualifications and whatnot, but that's a lie you're telling yourself so you can sleep at night. Can you imagine if FDR were around today running for office? A guy in a wheelchair?! 'What would that say to the leaders of other countries if our president couldn't walk? We'd be attacked!' Sad but true.
3) The candidate must be a decent public speaker. You're allowed to stumble on occassion and flub a word or 3 here and there, but you must be able to win the crowd with a mic in hand. If you can't, you're doomed.
These are my opinions of course... but like with most everything else on my blog... I'm right.
Sadly, what we want and say we want are very different. We get exactly what we ask for.
Paraphrasing a 10 minute conversation into one sentence: 'All politicians are crooks, aren't worth spit and need to be voted out.'
I'm fairly certain that she isn't the only one who feels that way. In fact, if you asked a million voters if they agreed with that above statement, I think you'd get 85% in agreement.
So why do the same yahoos keep getting elected? Is it because the public feels the 'other guys' don't stand a chance?
Here's my theory on what it takes to get elected to higher level public office (in order of importance):
1) First and foremost, the candidate must either be a Republican or Democrat. If the person doesn't have an 'R' or a 'D' by their name, they can hang it up. The public is so hung up on those two parties, that anybody else is considered 'fringe' (especially by the press) and can't be taken seriously. It's a two-horse race & it's a crying shame.
2) The candidate must be fit & attractive. Newsflash: Ugly people don't get elected. If the individual can't make the cover of GQ, he won't get the votes. Views and positions on the important matters don't amount to a hill of beans yet. Oh sure... you say you'd vote for someone based on their qualifications and whatnot, but that's a lie you're telling yourself so you can sleep at night. Can you imagine if FDR were around today running for office? A guy in a wheelchair?! 'What would that say to the leaders of other countries if our president couldn't walk? We'd be attacked!' Sad but true.
3) The candidate must be a decent public speaker. You're allowed to stumble on occassion and flub a word or 3 here and there, but you must be able to win the crowd with a mic in hand. If you can't, you're doomed.
These are my opinions of course... but like with most everything else on my blog... I'm right.
Sadly, what we want and say we want are very different. We get exactly what we ask for.
Friday, September 12, 2008
So now they're 'gouging' us?
As of this writing, Hurricane Ike is scheduled to hit Texas in about 2-4 hours. It seems everyone is in a panic thinking gasoline will soon become a scarce commodity. Thousands of people everywhere are lining up at the pumps trying to get in every bit of gas they can.
But their actions come at a price.
Newton's third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Greater demand of an item vs. limited supply of that item means the price of said item rises.
Prices in this area have spiked from around 3.45 a gallon all the way up to 4.00 and even 5.00 dollars a gallon in some places.
And now come the cries of 'gouging.'
Cry me a river.
The fact that some stations have inreased their prices to $4 a gallon or higher helps ensure that there will be some gas for me to purchase after work today. I'm not saying I want to pay $4 a gallon for gas. But with every yahoo lining up, raising prices is the best way to ensure that there will be some for me when I need to fill up later today.
Raising prices is also the best way to ensure that there will be some gas for me to fill up next week as well.
By the way... since I'm obviously in 'big oil's' back pocket, I let my car idle while I wrote this...
But their actions come at a price.
Newton's third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Greater demand of an item vs. limited supply of that item means the price of said item rises.
Prices in this area have spiked from around 3.45 a gallon all the way up to 4.00 and even 5.00 dollars a gallon in some places.
And now come the cries of 'gouging.'
Cry me a river.
The fact that some stations have inreased their prices to $4 a gallon or higher helps ensure that there will be some gas for me to purchase after work today. I'm not saying I want to pay $4 a gallon for gas. But with every yahoo lining up, raising prices is the best way to ensure that there will be some for me when I need to fill up later today.
Raising prices is also the best way to ensure that there will be some gas for me to fill up next week as well.
By the way... since I'm obviously in 'big oil's' back pocket, I let my car idle while I wrote this...
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Almost An Adult... But Not Quite?
Earlier this month, one hundred college presidents as part of the Amethyst Initiative recommended that the drinking age in this country be lowered from 21 to 18.
When this surfaced, there were plenty of 'chicken little busy-bodies' who went nuts with cries of how thousands will die if that were to happen.
But first some background...
Back in 1984, Congress passed the 'National Minimum Drinking Age Act.' In it, the fine print: The Federal Government would impose a ten percent penalty on a state's federal highway appropriation if the state's drinking age was under 21.
In short, 'Do as I wish or I'll cut you off.'
Kind of reminds me of the movie 'Arthur.' Marry Susan... or else.
And across the nation, the minimum age to consume alcohol was 21.
However, 18 year olds were, and still are, considered LEGAL ADULTS.
An 18 year old can vote, enter into contracts, sit on a jury, enlist in the military, etc. And they can do it all without approval from their legal guardian.
If arrested, they are tried as adults, not juveniles.
An 18 year old in this country has the same legal rights as all other adults.
Except one.
They aren't allowed to buy or consume alcoholic beverages.
Why not?
Well, there are plenty of 'chicken-littles' out there who still look upon 18 year olds as 'babies' and feel they aren't mature enough to handle alcohol.
But they are mature enough to be sent to war or sit on your jury?
The drinking age in this country is condescending and an insult to any 18, 19 or 20 year old who is considered a legal adult...
But not quite.
When this surfaced, there were plenty of 'chicken little busy-bodies' who went nuts with cries of how thousands will die if that were to happen.
But first some background...
Back in 1984, Congress passed the 'National Minimum Drinking Age Act.' In it, the fine print: The Federal Government would impose a ten percent penalty on a state's federal highway appropriation if the state's drinking age was under 21.
In short, 'Do as I wish or I'll cut you off.'
Kind of reminds me of the movie 'Arthur.' Marry Susan... or else.
And across the nation, the minimum age to consume alcohol was 21.
However, 18 year olds were, and still are, considered LEGAL ADULTS.
An 18 year old can vote, enter into contracts, sit on a jury, enlist in the military, etc. And they can do it all without approval from their legal guardian.
If arrested, they are tried as adults, not juveniles.
An 18 year old in this country has the same legal rights as all other adults.
Except one.
They aren't allowed to buy or consume alcoholic beverages.
Why not?
Well, there are plenty of 'chicken-littles' out there who still look upon 18 year olds as 'babies' and feel they aren't mature enough to handle alcohol.
But they are mature enough to be sent to war or sit on your jury?
The drinking age in this country is condescending and an insult to any 18, 19 or 20 year old who is considered a legal adult...
But not quite.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Our 'Poor' Economy
There sure is a lot of news about our economy and how it, well... sucks.
Chicken Little: We're about to enter a recession, the price of gas is sky rocketing, people are losing their homes, food is so expensive, etc.
Why bother getting up in the morning?!
But here's the reality: The economy is FINE... as long as you don't watch the news!
Yours truly just returned from 8 days at the beach. The beach was fairly crowded and the traffic was TERRIBLE! You couldn't get anywhere quickly. At one traffic light we were stopped for two to three minutes, wasting gasoline in our SUV and surrounded by other HUGE, gas-guzzling SUV's also. At 4.19 a gallon, people aren't too concerned about their fuel economy...
The average time in line for eating out was about 45 minutes to an hour. And seafood isn't cheap either...
A trip to Target or Wal-Mart to stock up on food and other necessities was no easy task, either. It seems everyone had the same idea at the same time. You were lucky to find bread on the shelves.
Now one could argue that the above scenarios are typical of any beach resort on a holiday weekend. And that's true! But I feel certain I wasn't surrounded by 'the locals' either. The people came from somewhere else and the higher fuel prices didn't stop them from coming.
Next time you hear a report on the news or read something in the newspaper about our 'poor' economy, ask yourself why you still see so many people on the road and out buying things.
The economy is doing fine... as long as you don't watch the news.
Chicken Little: We're about to enter a recession, the price of gas is sky rocketing, people are losing their homes, food is so expensive, etc.
Why bother getting up in the morning?!
But here's the reality: The economy is FINE... as long as you don't watch the news!
Yours truly just returned from 8 days at the beach. The beach was fairly crowded and the traffic was TERRIBLE! You couldn't get anywhere quickly. At one traffic light we were stopped for two to three minutes, wasting gasoline in our SUV and surrounded by other HUGE, gas-guzzling SUV's also. At 4.19 a gallon, people aren't too concerned about their fuel economy...
The average time in line for eating out was about 45 minutes to an hour. And seafood isn't cheap either...
A trip to Target or Wal-Mart to stock up on food and other necessities was no easy task, either. It seems everyone had the same idea at the same time. You were lucky to find bread on the shelves.
Now one could argue that the above scenarios are typical of any beach resort on a holiday weekend. And that's true! But I feel certain I wasn't surrounded by 'the locals' either. The people came from somewhere else and the higher fuel prices didn't stop them from coming.
Next time you hear a report on the news or read something in the newspaper about our 'poor' economy, ask yourself why you still see so many people on the road and out buying things.
The economy is doing fine... as long as you don't watch the news.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Save gas and lives! Drive Slower!
John Ehinger recently wrote a column that appeared in the Sunday edition of the Huntsville Times.
The topic: Saving lives and driving down the cost of gasoline!
The solution? Simple, really. Just slow down! Driving slower would reduce the demand on gas by 2 to 3% and maybe knock the price of gas down by 10%. Driving slower is also safer, so this is obviously a 'win-win' situation for everybody.
Ehinger points out the solution, and then calls on what else? Government to fix it!
'The Alabama Legislature should lower the maximum speed limit to 60 mph on interstates and all other highways...'
It sure sounds good in theory... but it won't happen.
The reason it won't happen is because we're willing to accept a certain amount of risk for the benefit on not having a longer commute. Namely, driving 70mph on the interstate for 15 minutes as opposed to driving 35mph for 30 minutes.
We're also not willing to do everything we can to save on fuel. When radio stations hold promotional events and sell gas $1 a gallon, people line up as far as the eye can see. People will wait HOURS to be able to fill up and save $20-$30.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay $35 bucks to fill up my tank in 3 minutes and be done with it rather than wait an hour or two so I can pay $10 bucks for a fill-up.
And although hundreds line up for the cheaper gas, there are thousands more who DON'T.
Their time is more valuable!
Government can't pass a law that will change a human behavior.
The topic: Saving lives and driving down the cost of gasoline!
The solution? Simple, really. Just slow down! Driving slower would reduce the demand on gas by 2 to 3% and maybe knock the price of gas down by 10%. Driving slower is also safer, so this is obviously a 'win-win' situation for everybody.
Ehinger points out the solution, and then calls on what else? Government to fix it!
'The Alabama Legislature should lower the maximum speed limit to 60 mph on interstates and all other highways...'
It sure sounds good in theory... but it won't happen.
The reason it won't happen is because we're willing to accept a certain amount of risk for the benefit on not having a longer commute. Namely, driving 70mph on the interstate for 15 minutes as opposed to driving 35mph for 30 minutes.
We're also not willing to do everything we can to save on fuel. When radio stations hold promotional events and sell gas $1 a gallon, people line up as far as the eye can see. People will wait HOURS to be able to fill up and save $20-$30.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay $35 bucks to fill up my tank in 3 minutes and be done with it rather than wait an hour or two so I can pay $10 bucks for a fill-up.
And although hundreds line up for the cheaper gas, there are thousands more who DON'T.
Their time is more valuable!
Government can't pass a law that will change a human behavior.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Something better comes along...
Parker decided that he was going to the high school prom. He asked Mary to go with him but Mary already had other plans and turned him down.
'No worries,' thought Parker. 'There are more fish in the sea.'
So then Parker asked Betty the beauty queen to the prom... and she said yes!
Perfect! Parker rented a tuxedo and a limo and charged both on his parent's credit card without batting an eye. He was committed to taking Betty to the prom.
But then Parker found out that Tina, a COLLEGE student and a cheerleader at an upper-crust university, had just broken up with the Captain of the college football team... only weeks before a big on campus party which falls on the same date as the high school prom.
Chances are Tina wouldn't want to go to a high school prom... but Parker could certainly see himself going to a big college party instead.
Parker found himself in quite a pickle. Yes, he was the one who asked Betty to the prom, but when he did he didn't know that 'something better' would come along. Namely a college student named Tina and the chance to go to a college party instead of a high school prom.
After much debate, Parker decided that someone else could take Betty to the prom and he'd pursue Tina instead. He was certain Betty would understand.
Oh... the rented limo and tux?
Sorry, no refunds.
'No worries,' thought Parker. 'There are more fish in the sea.'
So then Parker asked Betty the beauty queen to the prom... and she said yes!
Perfect! Parker rented a tuxedo and a limo and charged both on his parent's credit card without batting an eye. He was committed to taking Betty to the prom.
But then Parker found out that Tina, a COLLEGE student and a cheerleader at an upper-crust university, had just broken up with the Captain of the college football team... only weeks before a big on campus party which falls on the same date as the high school prom.
Chances are Tina wouldn't want to go to a high school prom... but Parker could certainly see himself going to a big college party instead.
Parker found himself in quite a pickle. Yes, he was the one who asked Betty to the prom, but when he did he didn't know that 'something better' would come along. Namely a college student named Tina and the chance to go to a college party instead of a high school prom.
After much debate, Parker decided that someone else could take Betty to the prom and he'd pursue Tina instead. He was certain Betty would understand.
Oh... the rented limo and tux?
Sorry, no refunds.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Run For Congress?
Since my senior year in high school, Robert 'Bud' Cramer has represented the 5th district of Alabama in Congress. Just recently he announced he would NOT seek re-election so now there is a lot of talk of other 'career politicians' wanting to make a bid to fill his seat.
Maybe I should throw my hat in the ring as well?
One might wonder what qualifications I have. That's a fair question. The answer is that I am MORE THAN QUALIFIED since I well exceed the three requirements.
1) You have to be at least 25. Check!
2) You have to live in the state you represent. I'm 2-for-2 so far...
3) You have to be a U.S. citizen. Looks like I'm batting a thousand!
So if elected to the House of Representatives, what would I do?
In no particular order...
1) This country's tax system is beyond broken. It doesn't need tweaking and it doesn't need fixing. It needs to be abolished and replaced with the FairTax.
2) I would introduce legistation to repeal the 17th amendment. Back in the day, senators were elected by your state legislatures. The 17th amendment did away with that and now you vote directly for your senators.
3) I would vote NO on every bill that I couldn't read from beginning to end in less than 10 minutes.
4) I would vote NO on every bill that had a provision in it that wasn't specifically enumerated as a function of the federal government.
5) Every bill must show where in the Constitution it is a function of the federal government. Otherwise, the 10th amendment applies and it gets a 'no' vote.
6) I would introduce the 'Equal Treatment Bill' which would state that what the federal government does for one citizen it must do for ALL citizens. Likewise, what it doesn't do for one citizen it must not do for any citizen.
Those are six things just off the top of my head... but I think it's a good start...
Maybe I should throw my hat in the ring as well?
One might wonder what qualifications I have. That's a fair question. The answer is that I am MORE THAN QUALIFIED since I well exceed the three requirements.
1) You have to be at least 25. Check!
2) You have to live in the state you represent. I'm 2-for-2 so far...
3) You have to be a U.S. citizen. Looks like I'm batting a thousand!
So if elected to the House of Representatives, what would I do?
In no particular order...
1) This country's tax system is beyond broken. It doesn't need tweaking and it doesn't need fixing. It needs to be abolished and replaced with the FairTax.
2) I would introduce legistation to repeal the 17th amendment. Back in the day, senators were elected by your state legislatures. The 17th amendment did away with that and now you vote directly for your senators.
3) I would vote NO on every bill that I couldn't read from beginning to end in less than 10 minutes.
4) I would vote NO on every bill that had a provision in it that wasn't specifically enumerated as a function of the federal government.
5) Every bill must show where in the Constitution it is a function of the federal government. Otherwise, the 10th amendment applies and it gets a 'no' vote.
6) I would introduce the 'Equal Treatment Bill' which would state that what the federal government does for one citizen it must do for ALL citizens. Likewise, what it doesn't do for one citizen it must not do for any citizen.
Those are six things just off the top of my head... but I think it's a good start...
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Hate Mail
Last Sunday (2/24), a technical glitch at WHNT caused the first story aired on '60 Minutes' to be missed. Viewers missed all but the final 5 minutes of a much hyped story dealing with this state's former Governnor. At first we (WHNT) thought the problem was on CBS' end. We soon discovered it was on our end.
We apologized, aired the story at 10pm and again the next at 6pm. We also put it on our website.
Regardless... the ever-so-tolerant, good peace loving liberals came unglued. Yes, some employees here even took death threats!
Enjoy!
(jaela2@yahoo.com) Thank you for blacking out the Siegelman story. Your clumsy attempts at censorship will now bring much needed attention to this story. Even more than 60 Minutes could have done on its own.
(TKwow@aol.com) Your partisan censorship of "60 Minutes" on Sunday night sounds like something more likely to happen in the former Soviet Union. Good luck renewing your broadcast license once Siegelman is exonerated and a Democratic administration is in power. Go climb up Karl Rove's ass where you belong. Disgusting!!!!!!
(tgbeachbum@yahoo.com) YOU ARE SO TRANSPARENT...and disgusting.60 Minutes signal failure????What a joke, you're a bunch of NAZI's
(hwbliz@mac.com) Your claim that your equipment failed at the exact moment the Seigelman story came on the air, streaches the limits of credibility
(kwgrlup@ndsupernet.com) Although i am many miles from your station, i do have friends and relatives in your area. What your station did with the referenced segment of 60 Minutes, regarding Don Siegelman, was shameful to put it mildly! The reason our forefathers created an exception in our founding documents for the fourth estate was to be sure OUR government was held accountable, NOT so that the media, who uses OUR airwaves, reports infotainment and trash, but reports to us what we the people NEED to know for our own good. To do what you did was a treasonest act to the people of your area, state and our country. You should lose the priviledge of use of the airwaves. My friends and family WILL see that segment! i will make sure of it. i and many others will be filing a complaint with the proper agencies. How do any of you sleep at night?! And you call yourself a "news" station! HA!
(GeorgeP922@gmail.com) What you did IS a step towards Facism You should be ashamed of yourselves.The public will always see you guilty in your actions.American media is supposed to be without bias and free.You are NOT State owned media!This is America, not China, North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia etc.Actually the producers there have at least one exuse, they will go to jail.I can't wait till Congress prosecutes you.I don't accept your apology, tell the truth and forgiveness can begin.Shame on you.So many americans have died for freedom that you just crushed.
(sirgent77@yahoo.com) Will you reair that 60m story about the Gov...If not why not..Alabama the little USSR state...
(bkohatl@hotmail.com) What liars you are. Now We know what evil is.Hitler censored German Radio; Stalin censored Russian Radio and TV. The Bass Brothers want to Turn America into Nazi Germany. You see a Reporter for WHNT be sure and say Sieg Heil and Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow and Segregation Forever. A language all evil people understand. Now you know how Bob Riley, Judge Fuller and Pryor Stole the 2002 Governor's Election. Treason at WHNT
(imarhfc@bellsouth.net) Congradulations! WHNT made "the worst" on Countdown on MSNBC
(erik.anderson@furman.edu) your recent censorship of 60 minutes ...... is absolutely despicable. Think of the company you now find yourselves in: Pakistan, Russian, North Korea, Iran ... . Here's a tip: after rereading your copy (if you have one) of the U.S. Constitution, go to your local library (if you have one) and check out John Stuart Mill's classic work, On Liberty. Then go somewhere and hang your head in shame.
(jack.griffith@pobox.com) You are a bunch of partisan whores. Who paid -off you suck-ups to censor 60 minutes? What a joke. This is very typical for a pack of redneck Republicans. I hope the FCC pulls your license (after Obama is elected!!).
(clay.harris@gmail.com) You really do embarrass yourself. Blacking out the nub of 60 Minutes, while mocking Ted Kennedy. Would you do that to a Republican? Try at least to pretend that there's some objectivity there.
We apologized, aired the story at 10pm and again the next at 6pm. We also put it on our website.
Regardless... the ever-so-tolerant, good peace loving liberals came unglued. Yes, some employees here even took death threats!
Enjoy!
(jaela2@yahoo.com) Thank you for blacking out the Siegelman story. Your clumsy attempts at censorship will now bring much needed attention to this story. Even more than 60 Minutes could have done on its own.
(TKwow@aol.com) Your partisan censorship of "60 Minutes" on Sunday night sounds like something more likely to happen in the former Soviet Union. Good luck renewing your broadcast license once Siegelman is exonerated and a Democratic administration is in power. Go climb up Karl Rove's ass where you belong. Disgusting!!!!!!
(tgbeachbum@yahoo.com) YOU ARE SO TRANSPARENT...and disgusting.60 Minutes signal failure????What a joke, you're a bunch of NAZI's
(hwbliz@mac.com) Your claim that your equipment failed at the exact moment the Seigelman story came on the air, streaches the limits of credibility
(kwgrlup@ndsupernet.com) Although i am many miles from your station, i do have friends and relatives in your area. What your station did with the referenced segment of 60 Minutes, regarding Don Siegelman, was shameful to put it mildly! The reason our forefathers created an exception in our founding documents for the fourth estate was to be sure OUR government was held accountable, NOT so that the media, who uses OUR airwaves, reports infotainment and trash, but reports to us what we the people NEED to know for our own good. To do what you did was a treasonest act to the people of your area, state and our country. You should lose the priviledge of use of the airwaves. My friends and family WILL see that segment! i will make sure of it. i and many others will be filing a complaint with the proper agencies. How do any of you sleep at night?! And you call yourself a "news" station! HA!
(GeorgeP922@gmail.com) What you did IS a step towards Facism You should be ashamed of yourselves.The public will always see you guilty in your actions.American media is supposed to be without bias and free.You are NOT State owned media!This is America, not China, North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia etc.Actually the producers there have at least one exuse, they will go to jail.I can't wait till Congress prosecutes you.I don't accept your apology, tell the truth and forgiveness can begin.Shame on you.So many americans have died for freedom that you just crushed.
(sirgent77@yahoo.com) Will you reair that 60m story about the Gov...If not why not..Alabama the little USSR state...
(bkohatl@hotmail.com) What liars you are. Now We know what evil is.Hitler censored German Radio; Stalin censored Russian Radio and TV. The Bass Brothers want to Turn America into Nazi Germany. You see a Reporter for WHNT be sure and say Sieg Heil and Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow and Segregation Forever. A language all evil people understand. Now you know how Bob Riley, Judge Fuller and Pryor Stole the 2002 Governor's Election. Treason at WHNT
(imarhfc@bellsouth.net) Congradulations! WHNT made "the worst" on Countdown on MSNBC
(erik.anderson@furman.edu) your recent censorship of 60 minutes ...... is absolutely despicable. Think of the company you now find yourselves in: Pakistan, Russian, North Korea, Iran ... . Here's a tip: after rereading your copy (if you have one) of the U.S. Constitution, go to your local library (if you have one) and check out John Stuart Mill's classic work, On Liberty. Then go somewhere and hang your head in shame.
(jack.griffith@pobox.com) You are a bunch of partisan whores. Who paid -off you suck-ups to censor 60 minutes? What a joke. This is very typical for a pack of redneck Republicans. I hope the FCC pulls your license (after Obama is elected!!).
(clay.harris@gmail.com) You really do embarrass yourself. Blacking out the nub of 60 Minutes, while mocking Ted Kennedy. Would you do that to a Republican? Try at least to pretend that there's some objectivity there.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
'Free' Money
If there is only ONE thing you can be sure of and bet your life on, it's this:
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
That's right. EVERYTHING has a cost associated with it. Even stuff that is 'free' to you has a cost, even though you may not have had to pay anything for it.
If I buy you a newspaper, it still cost something. Namely, 50 cents out of my pocket.
If you're going to read it, it's going to cost you something as well. Namely, not watching the tv for the next 20 minutes.
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
Moving on...
Just passed in Washington D.C. was the much-hyped 'Economic Stimulus' package. In an attempt to 'jump start' the 'slowing' economy, our lovely politicians have decided to send most people in this country 3oo or 600 dollars. Free and clear!
Except there's a problem: THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
Where does the government 'get' the money it's going to send you?
There are 3 ways that happens.
First, government could simply print more money! But that leads to inflation.
(Simple explanation)
Government can tax us. Of course, raising taxes means that the money comes from someone and then given to another. If your long, lost uncle left you and your brother each $50,000 dollars, it is ridiculous to think that your brother would actually only get $10,000 dollars more than you if it were divided 60/40.
Finally, the government can borrow the money. Going back to the long, lost uncle analogy, imagine the same uncle borrowing $600 dollars from the bank, giving it to you and then dying... leaving you to pay back the $600 (with interest) to the bank.
Don't get too excited about the 'free' money you'll get in May. Sure, it's nice. But it's far from free.
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
That's right. EVERYTHING has a cost associated with it. Even stuff that is 'free' to you has a cost, even though you may not have had to pay anything for it.
If I buy you a newspaper, it still cost something. Namely, 50 cents out of my pocket.
If you're going to read it, it's going to cost you something as well. Namely, not watching the tv for the next 20 minutes.
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
Moving on...
Just passed in Washington D.C. was the much-hyped 'Economic Stimulus' package. In an attempt to 'jump start' the 'slowing' economy, our lovely politicians have decided to send most people in this country 3oo or 600 dollars. Free and clear!
Except there's a problem: THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
Where does the government 'get' the money it's going to send you?
There are 3 ways that happens.
First, government could simply print more money! But that leads to inflation.
(Simple explanation)
Government can tax us. Of course, raising taxes means that the money comes from someone and then given to another. If your long, lost uncle left you and your brother each $50,000 dollars, it is ridiculous to think that your brother would actually only get $10,000 dollars more than you if it were divided 60/40.
Finally, the government can borrow the money. Going back to the long, lost uncle analogy, imagine the same uncle borrowing $600 dollars from the bank, giving it to you and then dying... leaving you to pay back the $600 (with interest) to the bank.
Don't get too excited about the 'free' money you'll get in May. Sure, it's nice. But it's far from free.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Guilty as sin! Why bother with a trial?
I asked this question to some co-workers the other day, involving an upcoming murder trial:
If you were on the jury right now and had to decide 'guilty' or 'not guilty' after hearing the opening arguments ONLY... how would you vote?
The over-whelming response: GUILTY.
Look, we all KNOW the guy did it! And we all know that the defense attorney is out to accomplish one thing: Keep the guy from getting 'the big stick.' It's a win for them if their client gets life in prison.
The accused is guilty! AS SIN! He knows it, the judge knows it, the prosecutor knows it, the jury will know it, my co-workers know it... and I know it.
So why am I the only one to take the same hypothetical question and say I'd vote 'not guilty?'
'That's pretty crazy, especially if you KNOW the guy did it!' you might say. But not at all. In this country, something very important has to happen (or at least 'should' happen) in order for someone to be found guilty: The government (prosecution) must PROVE that the accused did what they are indeed accused of. The burden of proving guilt lies soley with the prosecution! If you can't be convinced by FACTS that the defendant is guilty, then you MUST vote NOT GUILTY.
Is it better for a guilty man to go free rather than have an innocent man go to prison?
Some would say no... but would be quick to change their mind if they were the innocent man looking at life in prison.
If you were on the jury right now and had to decide 'guilty' or 'not guilty' after hearing the opening arguments ONLY... how would you vote?
The over-whelming response: GUILTY.
Look, we all KNOW the guy did it! And we all know that the defense attorney is out to accomplish one thing: Keep the guy from getting 'the big stick.' It's a win for them if their client gets life in prison.
The accused is guilty! AS SIN! He knows it, the judge knows it, the prosecutor knows it, the jury will know it, my co-workers know it... and I know it.
So why am I the only one to take the same hypothetical question and say I'd vote 'not guilty?'
'That's pretty crazy, especially if you KNOW the guy did it!' you might say. But not at all. In this country, something very important has to happen (or at least 'should' happen) in order for someone to be found guilty: The government (prosecution) must PROVE that the accused did what they are indeed accused of. The burden of proving guilt lies soley with the prosecution! If you can't be convinced by FACTS that the defendant is guilty, then you MUST vote NOT GUILTY.
Is it better for a guilty man to go free rather than have an innocent man go to prison?
Some would say no... but would be quick to change their mind if they were the innocent man looking at life in prison.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
What's really ridiculous about illegal immigration...
Welcome to 2008.
To kick off the new year, a new law is now in effect in Arizona. Any business that is found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker is subject to punishment which can range from probation all the way to a 10-day suspension of their business license. A second violation will result in having their license revoked permanetly.
Apparently in addition to businesses running their day-to-day operations, they must now be in the business of verifying someone's legal residence in this country.
I was under the impression that job belonged soley to the federal government.
The problem with illegal immigration isn't the millions of people being here illegally. It's with the government having made something illegal and then lacking the gumption to enforce its own laws. Rather than actually catch those in the country illegally, the feds sit back and do nothing while politicians, always pandering for votes, debate over amnesty, guest worker programs and the like. The states then take it upon themselves to burden businesses with the task of verifying a person's legal residence. But it's not up to McDonald's, Lowe's or Pep Boys to do the federal government's work!
Laws needs to be enforced or they need to be taken off the books. Unenforced laws are useless and pointless.
To kick off the new year, a new law is now in effect in Arizona. Any business that is found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker is subject to punishment which can range from probation all the way to a 10-day suspension of their business license. A second violation will result in having their license revoked permanetly.
Apparently in addition to businesses running their day-to-day operations, they must now be in the business of verifying someone's legal residence in this country.
I was under the impression that job belonged soley to the federal government.
The problem with illegal immigration isn't the millions of people being here illegally. It's with the government having made something illegal and then lacking the gumption to enforce its own laws. Rather than actually catch those in the country illegally, the feds sit back and do nothing while politicians, always pandering for votes, debate over amnesty, guest worker programs and the like. The states then take it upon themselves to burden businesses with the task of verifying a person's legal residence. But it's not up to McDonald's, Lowe's or Pep Boys to do the federal government's work!
Laws needs to be enforced or they need to be taken off the books. Unenforced laws are useless and pointless.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Three MORE Cheers For Guns!
Two days before Christmas, Paul Crabtree had some last minute Christmas 'shopping' to do.
His girlfriend/friend/whatever, Elizabeth Holt, also had some 'shopping' to get done... so she went with him.
Unknown person #3, accompanies Paul and Elizabeth to fight the holiday crowds and the trio sets off to get gifts and spread holiday cheer.
How did they fare?
It turns out, they skipped the malls, the traffic and the crowds. Instead they went to an apartment complex, armed themselves with knives and broke into someone's home.
Those were bad decisions. But then it got much worse.
The resident of the apartment was home. And armed. With a gun.
What's the old saying? 'Never bring a knife to a gunfight?'
I'll give you 3 guesses as to who came out on the short end of the stick here, and the first two don't count.
When Crabtree took a slug from the gun, Miss Elizabeth Holt and the other unnamed person decided they got the wrong apartment and got the heck out of dodge. They left Mr. Crabtree at the apartment to discuss things more in depth with the resident.
Rest easy. The good guy (apartment resident) is alive and kicking and gets to enjoy Christmas of 2007.
As for Crabtree? He's forever on the 'Naughtly List' and enjoying a dirt nap. His two accomplices, Elizabeth Holt and the unknown person... they're on the run. For now.
The good news in all this? There's one less criminal you have to worry about breaking into your home and doing you and your family harm. There are two other criminals who will think twice (hopefully) before doing something like this again and will be caught soon.
And lastly... the guy at home who fended off the intruders... He's alive.
Thanks to his gun.
I can only imagine how this scenario might have turned out had our hero only been allowed by government to be armed with a knife...
His girlfriend/friend/whatever, Elizabeth Holt, also had some 'shopping' to get done... so she went with him.
Unknown person #3, accompanies Paul and Elizabeth to fight the holiday crowds and the trio sets off to get gifts and spread holiday cheer.
How did they fare?
It turns out, they skipped the malls, the traffic and the crowds. Instead they went to an apartment complex, armed themselves with knives and broke into someone's home.
Those were bad decisions. But then it got much worse.
The resident of the apartment was home. And armed. With a gun.
What's the old saying? 'Never bring a knife to a gunfight?'
I'll give you 3 guesses as to who came out on the short end of the stick here, and the first two don't count.
When Crabtree took a slug from the gun, Miss Elizabeth Holt and the other unnamed person decided they got the wrong apartment and got the heck out of dodge. They left Mr. Crabtree at the apartment to discuss things more in depth with the resident.
Rest easy. The good guy (apartment resident) is alive and kicking and gets to enjoy Christmas of 2007.
As for Crabtree? He's forever on the 'Naughtly List' and enjoying a dirt nap. His two accomplices, Elizabeth Holt and the unknown person... they're on the run. For now.
The good news in all this? There's one less criminal you have to worry about breaking into your home and doing you and your family harm. There are two other criminals who will think twice (hopefully) before doing something like this again and will be caught soon.
And lastly... the guy at home who fended off the intruders... He's alive.
Thanks to his gun.
I can only imagine how this scenario might have turned out had our hero only been allowed by government to be armed with a knife...
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Before you sign...
Scenario 1: You're going through 9 pages of paperwork with the bank for the approval of your loan. At the signing, you:
A: Get a short synopsis of each page and then sign where the loan officer tells you to sign.
B: Read and scrutinize through each section, asking questions before you sign anything.
Scenario 2: You are about to sign the contract for your new job. When it comes time to sign your contract, you:
A: Go ahead and sign it. You're certain it says exactly what you agreed it would say.
B: Read and scrutinize through each, making sure everything is correct before you sign at the bottom.
Although entirely different scenarios, the importance of each doesn't change. You have to know, understand and agree to all the terms when you're entering into something that requires your signature.
Sure, going through those nine pages at the loan signing will take an extra 20 to 40 minutes as you read over everything... and yes, you're eating into the loan officer's lunch break. But this is important because once signed, it's fixed.
And re-reading the contract with your about-to-be employer before signing it may make you appear to be a bit paranoid, but if something is wrong and not in your favor, you want to catch it BEFORE you sign.
Home loan. Employee contract.
Important things.
They really don't compare to a hill of beans when it comes to imposing a federal law, right? Once something is law, we're all bound to it and can face severe punishment if we don't comply.
On Wednesday, December 19th, the Energy Bill was signed into law by President Bush.
The bill was about a foot in height and had about three thousand five hundred pages.
Ask yourself: Do you think any member of Congress or President Bush read all 3,500 pages?
Me neither.
That strikes me as irresponsible.
A: Get a short synopsis of each page and then sign where the loan officer tells you to sign.
B: Read and scrutinize through each section, asking questions before you sign anything.
Scenario 2: You are about to sign the contract for your new job. When it comes time to sign your contract, you:
A: Go ahead and sign it. You're certain it says exactly what you agreed it would say.
B: Read and scrutinize through each, making sure everything is correct before you sign at the bottom.
Although entirely different scenarios, the importance of each doesn't change. You have to know, understand and agree to all the terms when you're entering into something that requires your signature.
Sure, going through those nine pages at the loan signing will take an extra 20 to 40 minutes as you read over everything... and yes, you're eating into the loan officer's lunch break. But this is important because once signed, it's fixed.
And re-reading the contract with your about-to-be employer before signing it may make you appear to be a bit paranoid, but if something is wrong and not in your favor, you want to catch it BEFORE you sign.
Home loan. Employee contract.
Important things.
They really don't compare to a hill of beans when it comes to imposing a federal law, right? Once something is law, we're all bound to it and can face severe punishment if we don't comply.
On Wednesday, December 19th, the Energy Bill was signed into law by President Bush.
The bill was about a foot in height and had about three thousand five hundred pages.
Ask yourself: Do you think any member of Congress or President Bush read all 3,500 pages?
Me neither.
That strikes me as irresponsible.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Trumping Contracts
Suppose you work for a multi-million dollar company and have a contract that states the terms, conditions, the salary and the salary increases of your employment.
When the contract was drawn up, you and the company both agreed to the terms. Each side was happy because they felt that they were getting the better end of the deal.
Two years into your employment, the company falls on hard times. Sales are down, the projections are off, etc.
It's unfortunate for the company, but luckily for you, YOU have a signed CONTRACT that specifically states that you still get your raise/bonus from the company. Right?
Not so fast.
The Federal Government steps in.
The government 'suggests' that instead of the company giving you your 15% raise next week, it should 'freeze' your salary right where it is.
For the next FIVE YEARS.
How 'bout them apples?
So when the government 'steps in' and 'suggests' to banks and mortgage companies they should 'freeze' their interest rates so that people who bought houses they can't afford won't have to foreclose or sell their homes when their interest rate increases.... You should be equally miffed as well.
When the contract was drawn up, you and the company both agreed to the terms. Each side was happy because they felt that they were getting the better end of the deal.
Two years into your employment, the company falls on hard times. Sales are down, the projections are off, etc.
It's unfortunate for the company, but luckily for you, YOU have a signed CONTRACT that specifically states that you still get your raise/bonus from the company. Right?
Not so fast.
The Federal Government steps in.
The government 'suggests' that instead of the company giving you your 15% raise next week, it should 'freeze' your salary right where it is.
For the next FIVE YEARS.
How 'bout them apples?
So when the government 'steps in' and 'suggests' to banks and mortgage companies they should 'freeze' their interest rates so that people who bought houses they can't afford won't have to foreclose or sell their homes when their interest rate increases.... You should be equally miffed as well.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Drug Testing Students?
The Madison School Board was about to vote on drug testing students recently but the vote was stalled thanks to three parents who voiced their opposition.
So how could any rational parent be opposed to this vote? The parents 'said they didn't think the proposed policy had been publicized enough and would like to know why the policy is being considered in the first place.'
Good for them! These three parents deserve our thanks. They stopped politicians from sneaking through a vote that would affect their children. That's called being a GOOD parent.
By the way, it IS 'sneaking' when the board doesn't put it on the agenda and doesn't mention it on their website.
The school board says the drug testing would have been 'random.' Random meaning students who drive to school and those who participate in extracurricular activities.
That pretty much covers 90%+ of students age 16 and older... and folks, that's not 'random.'
This is another example of government run schools. First, when your child is ready for school, your local school system sends you a letter. It states that your child is required by law to go to school. Punishment for not complying? Mom and dad go to jail.
Wow! Where do I sign up for that?! (note sarcasm)
(You've already signed up. You don't have a choice.)
Next, after being forced to go to school, the government decides that, for a better, safer and healthier society, that it will test the students for illegal drugs.
Great!
Just show probable cause and get a warrant FIRST.
Yes... GET A WARRANT. People in this country have RIGHTS and it doesn't matter if the person is 40 years old or 15 years old. The same rules apply across the board! EVERYONE is protected by the 4th amendment... which reads:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
What part of the 4th amendment isn't clear about that?
I've heard the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to minors or students... but that's hogwash. The Constitution applies to our GOVERNMENT.
What's sad is that when it comes to 'winning the war on drugs,' the government is quick look past the rules (the Constitution) that impedes their effort.
Which is yet another reason to end the insane war on drugs...
So how could any rational parent be opposed to this vote? The parents 'said they didn't think the proposed policy had been publicized enough and would like to know why the policy is being considered in the first place.'
Good for them! These three parents deserve our thanks. They stopped politicians from sneaking through a vote that would affect their children. That's called being a GOOD parent.
By the way, it IS 'sneaking' when the board doesn't put it on the agenda and doesn't mention it on their website.
The school board says the drug testing would have been 'random.' Random meaning students who drive to school and those who participate in extracurricular activities.
That pretty much covers 90%+ of students age 16 and older... and folks, that's not 'random.'
This is another example of government run schools. First, when your child is ready for school, your local school system sends you a letter. It states that your child is required by law to go to school. Punishment for not complying? Mom and dad go to jail.
Wow! Where do I sign up for that?! (note sarcasm)
(You've already signed up. You don't have a choice.)
Next, after being forced to go to school, the government decides that, for a better, safer and healthier society, that it will test the students for illegal drugs.
Great!
Just show probable cause and get a warrant FIRST.
Yes... GET A WARRANT. People in this country have RIGHTS and it doesn't matter if the person is 40 years old or 15 years old. The same rules apply across the board! EVERYONE is protected by the 4th amendment... which reads:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
What part of the 4th amendment isn't clear about that?
I've heard the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to minors or students... but that's hogwash. The Constitution applies to our GOVERNMENT.
What's sad is that when it comes to 'winning the war on drugs,' the government is quick look past the rules (the Constitution) that impedes their effort.
Which is yet another reason to end the insane war on drugs...
Monday, October 8, 2007
Torturing Terrorists & Constitutional Rights
Last Friday night I was listening to a local radio talk show. The discussion was about torturing terrorists in order to gain information about future attacks & terrorist activities.
I think I may have been the only individual who called in to think that it's wrong to do so.
Other callers said that torture was completely acceptable... by any means necessary!
Wow. That's just plain scary.
When I called in, I said that I was fairly confident, more than 98% sure, that when the feds apprehend someone they think is a terrorist, they've got the right guy.
Great. Give him a trial and prove it.
That's right. Give the suspected terrorist a trial (and a lawyer). After all, if the government is so certain, the trial should be open and shut in a day!
What ensued quickly thereafter were numerous callers saying that terrorists don't have a right to a trial. In fact, they don't have any rights, period!
Well, that's just plain ignorance of how our government works.
When our government suspects someone of a crime or other illegal activity, there are certain rules that must be followed. The individual(s) must be charged, given a trial, etc.
Other calls didn't seem to think so... that our constitution doesn't apply to others.
That's true. Our constitution applies to our government. It's the set of rules that restricts what our government can and cannot do.
Other callers chimed in using the term 'constitution rights.'
Folks, there are no such thing as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. That's a ridiculous term that implies that the rights and freedoms we have come from a document that specifies what our government can and cannot do.
Not so.
Our rights come from above. Period. Our constitution was created by our founding fathers to ensure that the government does not impede or trample on the rights we, as human beings, have. Our rights are therefore constitutionally protected.
I think I may have been the only individual who called in to think that it's wrong to do so.
Other callers said that torture was completely acceptable... by any means necessary!
Wow. That's just plain scary.
When I called in, I said that I was fairly confident, more than 98% sure, that when the feds apprehend someone they think is a terrorist, they've got the right guy.
Great. Give him a trial and prove it.
That's right. Give the suspected terrorist a trial (and a lawyer). After all, if the government is so certain, the trial should be open and shut in a day!
What ensued quickly thereafter were numerous callers saying that terrorists don't have a right to a trial. In fact, they don't have any rights, period!
Well, that's just plain ignorance of how our government works.
When our government suspects someone of a crime or other illegal activity, there are certain rules that must be followed. The individual(s) must be charged, given a trial, etc.
Other calls didn't seem to think so... that our constitution doesn't apply to others.
That's true. Our constitution applies to our government. It's the set of rules that restricts what our government can and cannot do.
Other callers chimed in using the term 'constitution rights.'
Folks, there are no such thing as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. That's a ridiculous term that implies that the rights and freedoms we have come from a document that specifies what our government can and cannot do.
Not so.
Our rights come from above. Period. Our constitution was created by our founding fathers to ensure that the government does not impede or trample on the rights we, as human beings, have. Our rights are therefore constitutionally protected.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
What's the alternative?
Recently an older gentleman struck up a conversation with me outside in a parking lot. He told me that he had had a car accident and now his insurance company was stringing him along and not paying for all of his medical care.
Not knowing anything more than what he told me, I responded, 'It beats the alternative.'
I think he was really looking for someone to take his side in the situation. He said that was a good point and then we parted ways.
Rarely do people consider the alternatives in any situation. Take the price of gas today. At 2.50 a gallon, people loathe paying for gas. They feel like they're getting raked over the coals every time they fill up.
But what's the alternative? There's a lot! The alternatives could be walking, carpooling, taking a bus, not doing whatever is needed to have to use gas... or no gas at all! The truth is that getting gas at 2.50 a gallon beats the alternative... otherwise you wouldn't be getting that gas.
That doesn't mean you have to like getting gas for 2.50. But 'liking' something isn't a factor to consider.
Not knowing anything more than what he told me, I responded, 'It beats the alternative.'
I think he was really looking for someone to take his side in the situation. He said that was a good point and then we parted ways.
Rarely do people consider the alternatives in any situation. Take the price of gas today. At 2.50 a gallon, people loathe paying for gas. They feel like they're getting raked over the coals every time they fill up.
But what's the alternative? There's a lot! The alternatives could be walking, carpooling, taking a bus, not doing whatever is needed to have to use gas... or no gas at all! The truth is that getting gas at 2.50 a gallon beats the alternative... otherwise you wouldn't be getting that gas.
That doesn't mean you have to like getting gas for 2.50. But 'liking' something isn't a factor to consider.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
'Illegal' Immigration
Regarding 'illegal' immigration, I used to be of the mindset that those who were against it were probably bigoted in some sense. After all, no one's complaining about immigrants from Canada, right? It's the immigration from Mexico that's causing a stir.
But that's not the reason so many oppose illegal immigration. The issue isn't just Mexicans sneaking across the border & being in the country illegally. The issue is the cost they have on our economy, namely using our system of free education, lack of health insurance, receiving Social Security without paying into it, all while working and getting paid under the table and avoiding our income taxes. Some say that 'they' are a burden on us, slowly bleeding us dry.
To that end, I say 'ROCK ON!' If I could do it too, I would! Heck, who wouldn't?
To those who oppose illegal immigration, examine things closer:
Many years ago, immigrants came to this country to pursue a better life for themselves and their family. They worked. There was no promise of having your children getting a 'free' education. There was no promise that someone else would pick up your medical expenses if something happened and you couldn't pay.
Not anymore.
Now immigrants (not all) come to this country seeking the promises of 'free' education or 'free' housing and the expectation that they'll be taken care of if they get sick.
Reality check: When stuff is being sold as being 'free,' you get more people wanting more of it. (Think of gas being sold for 14 cents today. Imagine the lines at the pump!)
You can't have it both ways. You can't want your 'free' education for you and then not expect MILLIONS of other people in this world to not come and try to get a slice of that pie for themselves. It just doesn't work that way.
I could care less about 'illegal' immigration. The 'burden' they have on this country is our own doing. We offer so many 'services' for 'free' it's no wonder there are people doing ANYTHING they can to get in here.
It's our bed and it has quite a few nails. And it's starting to suck to have lay in it.
But that's not the reason so many oppose illegal immigration. The issue isn't just Mexicans sneaking across the border & being in the country illegally. The issue is the cost they have on our economy, namely using our system of free education, lack of health insurance, receiving Social Security without paying into it, all while working and getting paid under the table and avoiding our income taxes. Some say that 'they' are a burden on us, slowly bleeding us dry.
To that end, I say 'ROCK ON!' If I could do it too, I would! Heck, who wouldn't?
To those who oppose illegal immigration, examine things closer:
Many years ago, immigrants came to this country to pursue a better life for themselves and their family. They worked. There was no promise of having your children getting a 'free' education. There was no promise that someone else would pick up your medical expenses if something happened and you couldn't pay.
Not anymore.
Now immigrants (not all) come to this country seeking the promises of 'free' education or 'free' housing and the expectation that they'll be taken care of if they get sick.
Reality check: When stuff is being sold as being 'free,' you get more people wanting more of it. (Think of gas being sold for 14 cents today. Imagine the lines at the pump!)
You can't have it both ways. You can't want your 'free' education for you and then not expect MILLIONS of other people in this world to not come and try to get a slice of that pie for themselves. It just doesn't work that way.
I could care less about 'illegal' immigration. The 'burden' they have on this country is our own doing. We offer so many 'services' for 'free' it's no wonder there are people doing ANYTHING they can to get in here.
It's our bed and it has quite a few nails. And it's starting to suck to have lay in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)