Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Finally! A Democrat With Some Common Sense

You have to hand it to Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. I have always thought that he can be a bit mealy-mouthed, and running with that waste of oxygen, Al Gore on the Democrat presidential ticket in 2000 didn't do much to endear me to him. All that has changed with this amazingly non mealy-mouthed column that Senator Lieberman wrote for the Wall Street Journal. In no uncertain terms, Senator Lieberman states that the United States must not withdraw its military from Iraq, leaving the country to the terrorists.

You can click on the article above, but if you don't have time to read the whole thing, here are some highlights that will give you the gist of Senator Lieberman's point:
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority...

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress...

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country...

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory...

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.
My Mind is still reeling that this was actually written by a Democrat. God Bless Senator Joe Lieberman for standing up to the Kool-Aid drinkers in his party and to the anti-American left in general, and stating clear, first-person reasons why we must stay the course in Iraq.

Good Day to You, Senator Lieberman

Monday, November 28, 2005

And if You Think Ramsey Clark is Bad...

Here is the latest sample of work from another loony lefty: Ted Rall. He is a cartoonist who has drawn some of the most vile, disgusting, and insulting cartoons you have ever seen. There was another cartoon he did that got people up in arms. That one made fun of football player Pat Tillman after he was killed in Afghanistan. You can view that one here.

Good Day to You, Sir

The Definition of an Anti-American Traitor

See this man? His name is Ramsey Clark. From 1967 to 1969, it pains me to say that he was the U.S. Attorney General in the LBJ administration. Since that time, Clark has traveled the world, defending every evil dictator you can think of, while denouncing the United States as the devil incarnate. Here is an informative article from the Washington Times that describes his disgusting doings in detail.

Good Day to You, Sir

Is the War in Iraq Ugly and Messy?

Leftists in our country continue to call for our withdrawl from Iraq, believing it to be an evil enterprise that is a lost cause. LTC Gordon Cucullu sees differently.

Good Day to You, Sir

Monday, November 21, 2005

One More Marker on the Road to Oblivion

This was in today's edition of the Sacramento Bee. An article by Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald detailed the official discontinuation of good sportsmanship by a school district in Northern Virginia. It seems that their players couldn't even perform the obligatory shaking of hands after a game without starting fights, spitting on each other, and verbal abuse. Instead of promising to kick off any player that does this (logical is it not?), district officials said that the shaking of hands policy would be discontinued. In the future, I wonder what other duties we require of our children will be discontinued because our children don't want to do them? And we wonder why "kids these days" are considered to be so out of control.

Good Day to You, Sir

Celebration of the "Gangsta Thug" Culture

Here is a fascinating article from Matt Rosenberg of City Journal, regarding the cultural abyss into which many of our young people are sinking, and the leftist celebration of that fact.

Good Day to You, Sir

Would Osama Have "Boogied to Baghdad"?

One of the constant drumbeats from the lefties is, "There was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda!" Hmm. If you read the 9/11 Commission Report, there is a section in there that describes what Richard Clarke (a former Clinton intelligence official, and a darling of the left wing media) has to say about where Osama bin Laden would have run to if he would have had to leave Afghanistan. columnist Byron York can tell you all about it.

Good Day to You, Sir

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Die Tookie, Die

On December 13, 2005, the state of California is planning on executing one Stanley "Tookie" Williams for the 1979 murders of a convenience store clerk and a mother, father, and daughter who ran a Los Angeles motel. Tookie maintains his innocence of the murders. Just for the sake of argument, let's say he really is innocent (which he isn't). I would call for his execution anyway. That is because in the early 1970s, Tookie Williams co-founded the Crips - a Los Angeles street gang. Think of the thousands of murders that have been committed in the name of the Crips, and that can all be laid at the feet of the creator of that gang: Tookie Williams, and his co-creator, who is dead. He was murdered years ago.

The wrinkle that could possibly save Tookie from execution is his behavior behind bars. He had a conversion of sorts in which he renounced his former life, and worked for peace instead of violence. He has been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize, and Jamie Foxx even portrayed him in a movie. I am glad that Tookie decided to see the light and renounce his former ways. Perhaps God will show mercy upon Tookie when he meets him soon. In the meantime, four innocent people were brutally murdered by Stanley "Tookie" Williams, and he must pay for those crimes. I always want to ask the question, "Would you have had this conversion had you not been caught?" Somehow I doubt it.

We have seen this before. A few years ago in Texas, a woman named Karla Faye Tucker was to be executed for a double axe murder. She too experienced a conversion behind bars. While it is the left wing that is trying to keep Tookie from his meeting with the executioner, it was the right wing that led the fight to save Ms. Tucker. Thankfully, they were not successful. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, it was Gov. George W. Bush who signed her death warrant. So Mr. Williams, God bless you for what you have done with your life behind bars, but may God curse you for what you did outside your prison walls.

Good Day to You, Sir

Have We Finally Killed This Guy?

Maybe so, maybe not. Not for the first time, there is word out of Iraq that our soldiers may have killed or caused the death of the infamous leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We have been here before, and then later it was determined that we missed him. If we actually truly caught a break, then Zarqawi is currently enjoying his 72 virgins in paradise. That is fine by me, as long as his earthly body is as dead as crab meat.

Good Day to You, Sir

Once again, it looks as if the intel was wrong. Fox News is reporting that it is "unlikely" that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead in the shootout in Mosul. Keep looking soldiers, keep looking.

The Democrats Show Their True Colors

They talk a good game, but when it came time to put their money where their mouth is, the Democrats in Congress folded like poker player with a pair of twos. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on the resolution submitted by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), that proposed a U.S. withdrawl from Iraq. The resolution went down to defeat 403-3. Now, I know there are a lot more than 3 Democrats in the House, so that means that the vast, vast majority of Democrats voted against the resolution. Not surprisingly, the three (all Democrats) who voted in favor of the resolution - Jose Serrano (NY), Bob Wexler (FL), and Cynthia McKinney (GA) - are leftists of the looniest of looney variety. Some other reps only voted "present" rather than "yay" or "nay". Almost all of these "yay" and "present" reps are members of the radical left House Progressive Caucus, which is linked to the group, Democratic Socialists of America.

In the wake of the vote, the Democrats have tried to weasel their way out of their "nay" votes with a number of amusing ways, but it is now on the record, all but three of these weasels did not have the guts to vote their alleged conscience regarding the War in Iraq. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the bunch just kicked their practically non-existent credibility just one more notch downward.

Good Day to You, Sir

Friday, November 18, 2005

The Republicans Grow a Bit of a Spine

Well, this is refreshing. The Republicans in the House are actually calling out the Democrats on something. First the backstory: Yesterday, a Democrat representative from Pennsylvania named John Murtha called for a resolution that would direct the United States to totally and immediately pull its troops out of Iraq. Why should anyone care what John Murtha thinks? To give him his due, he is a Vietnam Veteran and a 37 year veteran of the Marine Corps. Now he is appearing as a terrorist-appeasing wuss. His call for the troops to be removed is the same exact thing that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, has been saying for a couple years now.

So what does the Republican congressional leadership do in the face of Representative Murtha's proposed resolution? I'll be dipped in gravy if the Republicans didn't say, "OK, let's vote!" I seriously do not think that the Democrats believed the Republicans had the guts to bring the resolution to a vote. Now, the Democrats are going to have to put up or shut up. Let's see how many of them have the guts to vote in favor of total and immediate withdrawl of our troops in Iraq. Remember, many of these same Democrats who are currently calling the Iraq War a disaster, and a mistake, and wrong, actually voted in favor of it back in 2002 and 2003.

There shouldn't be any worries for the Democrats though right? They keep talking about how most Americans are now against this war in Iraq, so voting in favor of an immediate pullout shouldn't be so risky, should it? I am really looking forward to this vote, which should take place... well according to my EST watch: now.

Good Day to You, Sir

Thursday, November 17, 2005

What Became of Saddam's WMD?

This man can tell you. Here is an interview featured on Frontpage Magazine of Bill Tierney, a former UNSCOM inspector who spent a good deal of time in Iraq, doing his best attempt to verify the required destruction of Saddam's WMD. If you read this excellent interview, you will see that verification was not easy and usually didn't happen due to Saddam's and the Baath Party's refusal to cooperate. This interview must be read to be believed. Seriously folks, read it!

Good Day to You, Sir

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

The Bridge to Nowhere Will Keep Going Nowhere

It's not often that I agree with the Sierra Club, but when you have Republicans wasting money like Democrats, I have no problem calling them out. Here is a link to a press release from the Sierra Club announcing that Congress has defunded the huge pork project slated for the state of Alaska. This $200+ Million bridge was going to connect the town of Ketchikan to a small island inhabited by 50 people. Eventually, the noise made by the American people became too much to take, so Congress is dropping it. I just wish the American people made noise about the other billions of dollars of our money being spent by politicians on vote buying schemes that benefit their home states and home districts.

Good Day to You, Sir

The Party of Racism Strikes Again

This is rich. Remember the big brouhaha after the remarks Senator Trent Lott made at the 100th birthday party for the now deceased Senator Strom Thurmond? Now we have Hillary Clinton co-hosting an 88th birthday party for Democrat Senator Robert Byrd (KKK-West Virginia). Yes, the former Night Rider himself who was a big-wig in the Klan who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and still can't help but utter the word "Nigger" not once but twice on national television was given a birthday party by the junior Senator from New York. That is bad enough. Here is my favorite part. The party was held at the home of civil rights legend Frederick Douglass. I mean how tacky can you get. I know, lets have a birthday party for some old fogey Nazi and let's have the party at the home of Simon Wiesenthal!

Good Day to You, Sir

Imagine Fidel Castro in Charge of the Internet

Here's something to scare the hell out of you. An international coalition of U.N. member countries such as China, Brazil, Cuba, and Iran, want control of the Internet to be transferred from the United States to an international governing body under the auspices of the United Nations. Can you imagine the corrupt, anti-American, Communist/Totalitarian loving United Nations being in charge of the Internet? You could say bye-bye to a blog like mine. You are aware aren't you that bloggers in Communist China have to register their blogs with the government?

I am still amazed at the number of people who look at the United Nations as some sort of peace-loving, benevolent organization. It is nothing of the kind. It is actually a haven that legitimizes rogue regimes like China, Cuba, Iran. For goodness sake, look at some of the member countries of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, now and in the last couple of years: China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zimbabwe - not exactly bastions of human rights are they? And yet they were or are members of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Do you really want the United Nations in charge of regulating the Internet?

One more thing to add, and that involves the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you begin reading it, it sounds so good, talking about the freedom to do this, and the right to do that. But if you keep reading, you come to the money shot. Here it is:

Article 29.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
So the U.N. is saying that you can have all the rights and freedoms you want, but if the U.N. doesn't like it, then you get squashed:

U.N. Official: "Sorry Mr. Chanman, we do not like the content of your blog. Your views and ideas that you publish are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. We are shutting you down now. Gentlemen, take Mr. Chanman to the car. He won't need the Internet where he is going."

Good Day to You, Sir

An Answer to the "Wal-Mart is Evil" Crowd

On the way home from work the other day, I was listening to Christine Craft (the most annoying sounding voice in radio) on our local Air America affiliate. She and a caller were agreeing with each other about how evil Wal-Mart is; how they underpay their employees, they put mom-and-pop stores out of business, blah, blah, blah. Lo and behold, today I found a wonderful article by one of my heroes, John Stossel, that addresses this common perception that many people have of Wal-Mart. I loved the human interest story he told at the end:
Before Sha-ron Reese was hired at Wal-Mart she was on welfare. She'd lost custody of her kids and was homeless, living in her car. California store manager W.C. Morrison took a risk and hired her. "She had no references," he told us. "She had no work experience."
In her own words, she was "raw." But Morrison took a chance on her. That changed her life.
Today, Reese has two people working for her. She's got her own apartment. She's regained custody of two of her kids.
And she's a Wal-Mart customer. "Everything, just about, that's in my house," she said, "Wal-Mart sells."
So before you internalize all the sob stories of how Wal-Mart underpays its employees and all the usual invective, read Stossel's article. Now, I am not going to let Wal-Mart off scot free. I do have a problem in one regard. Wal-Mart is one of the major players in the current eminent domain controversy in this country. They are one of the biggest offenders in the matter of pressing local governments to seize other peoples' property, then hand it over to businesses like... Wal-Mart. That is where I do have a big problem with Wal-Mart.

Good Day to You, Sir

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Followup to Democrat Dishonesty on WMDs

Here is a link to a short video put out by the Republican National Committee (hat tip: Power Line Blog) that shows Democrat after Democrat talking about how Saddam needs to be removed, he has WMDs, and so on. This film is very well done, and the best part is, there is no spin. These are Democrats themselves saying this stuff. All the GOP had to do was play the tape. Priceless.

Good Day to You, Sir

Special Education Follies

A hat tip to my buddy George at Mimmenblog for beating me to the punch on this matter, but I thought my unique analysis wouldn't hurt. As a teacher, few subjects drive me up the wall more than the saga of Special Education. I am not a Special Ed teacher. My exposure to this subject comes from three sources; two minor, and one huge. As a substitute teacher, I subbed for a special ed class two times, as a regular teacher, I have covered for an absent special ed teacher twice. Now here is the kicker: as a regular teacher, I deal with special ed kids on a daily basis who have been mainstreamed into regular classes, then receive extra services as needed from the special ed teachers. I have sat in countless Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings, where all these accomodations are made for the little sweetheart student who then proceeds to walk into my and other teacher's classrooms like a Cat 5 hurricane and disrupts the education of all the other students in my classroom. In my opinion, mainstreaming special ed students is one of the worst things to ever happen to our public school system. I teach so many special ed students who should not be in my classroom, yet there they are. Many times, it is the parents who insists that their kid be in my classroom, and there isn't anything I can do about it. What gives the parent this power is a charming and unconstitutional federal law called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 (IDEA). This law "guarantees" a disabled student an education with the least restrictive environment possible. That last part translates into students being in my room who really should not be.

So why am I rambling about all of this? Here is an article about a Supreme Court decision that swings the pendulum away from overbearing parents of special ed students who want state and federal tax dollars to pay for their own kids' educations in a private school, and screw everyone else. A couple in Maryland didn't like the IEP for their kid at his public school, so they enrolled him in a private school and wanted Joe Taxpayer to pick up the tab. In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court said, "Nada." Who were the two dissenters? Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of course; President Clinton's two contributions to the Court.

The article states that over 13% of the public school population receives special education services. That is not how it should be. The problem with IDEA is that the more money that is authorized for special ed services, the more kids are magically found who need special ed services. When IDEA was passed, the students that legislators had in mind were the truly mentally and physically feeble, not some behavior problem with a so-called "learning disability." As federal funds for special education increased, so did the scope of criteria for kids who qualified for special ed.

I'm glad the Supreme Court ruled as they did, but it was only in response to a small part of a much larger problem. Open up a copy of the Constitution and please point out to me where the federal government has the authority to fund or pass laws regarding education. Don't bother, you won't find it. What the Supreme Court should be doing is finding any federal involvement in education - be it IDEA, the ESEA, Title I, or NCLB - to be unconstitutional, and kick education matters back to the states where it belongs.

Good Day to You, Sir

Same Old Tired WMD Arguments

I have had it up to here with these lying, scheming, disingenuous Democrats in the Congress, and leftists as a whole still tirelessly hanging on to the discredited canard of "Bush lied about WMD!" I have written about this already and I am not going to hash it out again. I don't need to actually, because this article by Norman Podhoretz in the Wall Street Journal says it all quite brilliantly. It is a bit long, but seriously folks, do not miss this article; it is a masterpiece. I will give you a taste of the article though. Here is a gem of a quote from the Ice Queen herself, Hillary Clinton:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."
There is a lot more where that came from - both quotes from Democrats about WMD in Iraq, and Mr. Podhoretz's expert analysis. If you read this article, you will have no problem dealing with the next Kool-Aid drinker who tells you that Iraq didn't have WMDs, Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda, and we never should have invaded and liberated Iraq.

Good Day to You, Sir

Is there an AARP for Reptiles?

I found this Yahoo news story that was linked to the Drudgereport, and I just had to post it; I guess it's the history teacher in me that made me do it. The tortoise you see pictured above just turned 175 years old. That means you are looking at a picture of a living thing (that isn't a tree), that was born in 1830, and is still going strong! To put things in perspective, in 1830, the president of the United States was our 7th president, Andrew Jackson. Think of everything that has happened in American and world history from the time of Andrew Jackson to now, and that tortoise has lived through all of it - the Alamo, the Gold Rush, the Mexican War, the Crimean War, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War, both World Wars.... It truly boggles my imagination. If only that big girl could talk, the stories she could tell.

Good Day to You, Harriet!

Monday, November 14, 2005

God's Country

This photo was taken less than a mile away from the campus of College of the Siskiyous in Weed, California. Weed is one of the many little towns that sit in the shadow of the majestic Mount Shasta, but if you only focus on Mount Shasta, you are missing the other 90% of the beauty in the area. I ran on the cross country and track teams at College of the Siskiyous. On many cross country training runs, we would run along the trails that lie hidden in the line of trees beyond the meadow. In the background are the Klamath Mountains, among them the 9,000 foot Mount Eddy. On weekends, some of the cross country runners would run a 12 mile loop that wound its way through those mountains. Attending College of the Siskiyous in the early 1990s was one of the best times of my life. What helped make it such an exhilarating experience was the fact that I was living in God's Country.

Good Day to You, Sir

Giving Veterans Day a Bad Name

I was out of town this weekend, the fetching Mrs. Chanman and I went to Los Angeles to see the King Tut exhibit at the L.A. County Art Museum, and even more daringly, we left our little cherub with Grami. That is the first time we have ever been separated from our little one like that. It was both liberating yet heartbreaking at the same time. By Sunday, we couldn't wait get to get our hands on that little ray of sunshine.

Now, down to business. While away, I read in the newspapers about this lout by the name of Jimmy Massey. It seems Mr. Massey was deployed to Iraq, and he claims he saw some bad stuff go down involving atrocities committed by U.S. troops. After making these claims, it was a race by the mainstream media to see who could print this stuff the fastest. They smelled super bad news from Iraq, so they were all over this story, and they were doing it around the time of Veterans Day to boot! When all was said and done, Mr. Massey turned out to have a bit of a credibility problem. You see, there was a reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by the name of Ron Harris who didn't witness any of these "atrocities" that Massey claimed happened. Mr. Massey was simply doing his best impression of John Kerry by claiming he witnessed atrocities by U.S. troops even though nothing of the kind happened.

So now, the mainstream media is doing a backward trot as they try to explain to their viewers and readers how they could have screwed up so badly. My own local paper, the Sacramento Bee had fallen for Massey's fabrications hook, line, and sinker. When I got home from L.A., my Sunday paper was on my doorstep, and this gem of an article from the Ombudsman (Public Editor) was in the Forum section. I have to admit, I did enjoy watching this guy verbally squirm in his mea culpa to the readers of the Bee. What really makes this all so pathetic is that this Massey brouhaha comes just a year after CBS - or more specifically, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes - screwed the pooch concerning President Bush and the fabricated memos about his National Guard service. This just goes to show the blind partisanship and willingness to believe anything on behalf of the mainstream media if it hurts the image, honor, or integrity of the United States, its leadership, or its military.

The Sacramento Bee requires a membership login to read its online articles, so I will post the juiciest parts of the mea culpa by its Public Editor, David Holwerk:
...We should have done more to check the truth of Massey's charges before deciding whether to publish them. We didn't, and the responsibility for that is mine.

It was an error in judgment, and The Bee's readers are entitled to an explanation of how I made that error.... Before we published the story, we should have called the Marine Corps for response. We also could have attempted to speak to other members of Massey's Marine unit and to check whether any reporters were embedded with Massey's company. But we didn't.

Nonetheless, after some internal discussion, I decided that Massey was a credible source with a riveting story to tell and that we would publish the story, which we did on May 16, 2004. The story sparked a number of letters, some questioning the credibility of Massey's story. We published five letters about the story - two of them critical - and that was that, until about three weeks ago.

That's when reporter Harris called. He told me he was working on a story about Massey and identified himself as having been embedded with Massey's unit in Iraq. He told me that neither he nor other embedded journalists had seen any evidence of the atrocities Massey alleged and that other members of Massey's unit had told him the incidents never occurred. He also told me the Marine Corps had investigated Massey's allegations and had concluded they were baseless.

He said a number of news organizations had published some version of Massey's accounts. (Among the ones he named are the Associated Press, USA Today and the Albany (N.Y.) Times Union, along with smaller newspapers around the country.) And he asked how The Bee had decided to publish the interview with Massey with no other sources, no response from the Marine Corps and no independent corroboration.

After I looked up the story, I told him the truth: It was clear in retrospect that we hadn't done due diligence with the Jimmy Massey interview....
And to think that these are "professional" journalists we are dealing with here folks. If anyone wonders why viewership of the evening news on T.V. is dropping like a rock, and subscriptions to the major newspapers are doing likewise, I am sure that crap like this that is being pulled has a great deal to do with it.

Good Day to You, Sir

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Semper Fi!

Today is the 230th birthday of the United States Marine Corps; without a doubt, one of the finest military organizations in the world. Unlike the other services in United States, which over time have grown squishy and feminized, the Marines have largely turned up their collective noses at the political correctness and pressure to become more soft that has infected the other branches of the U.S. military. To the U.S. Marines, I say Semper Fidelis, Happy Birthday, and Hoo-rah!!

Good Day to You, Sir

Gosh, I Didn't See That Coming...

This morning, I saw an ad in the local newspaper for the new 50 Cent movie, Get Rich or Die Trying, that just came out in theaters. I thought to myself, "Gee, I wonder how long it will take for there to be a shooting at a movie theater showing the movie." I didn't have to wait long. This afternoon, I found this news story about a guy who got killed at a theater concession stand. I have seen this before when a movie of this... caliber comes out. Back in 1991, there was a rash of shootings and gang incidents at theaters showing the movie Boyz 'n the Hood. Why would I think anything different was going to happen at Get Rich or Die Trying. If you glorify a lifestyle that embodies violence and killing, expect people to commit violence and killing in an attempt to live that lifestyle. It's too bad so many of our young people aspire to such a low way of living.

Good Day to You, Sir

You Gotta Love Those Spineless Republicans

The other day, I blogged about how the U.S. Senate had passed an authorization for oil drilling to begin in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I mentioned that the bill would then go to the House of Reps where, "supposedly, the Republicans have enough votes to pass it." My pessimism was well founded. Yesterday, some of the Republicans in the House assisted the Democrats in shooting down the ANWR portion of the budget bill. Once again, the Republicans have been thwarted by members of their own party. Here is what my Libertarian hero, Neal Boortz, had to say about what happened:

Yesterday, the House Republicans caved in and got the measure erased from a budget bill that would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, also known as ANWR. Despite the fact that the area where they would drill was designated for such activity and despite the Senate passing a similar measure....drilling in ANWR is dead .... for now.

The move against new drilling was led by leftist Congressman Charles Bass of New Hampshire. Said the "moderate" Republican: "Rather then reversing decades of protection for this publicly held land, focusing greater attention on renewable energy sources, alternate fuels, and more efficient systems and appliances would yield more net energy savings than could come from ANWR and would have a higher benefit on the nation's long-term economic leadership and security." Sounds like somebody faxed Howard Dean's talking points to Representative Bass' office by mistake.

On the one hand, politicians sit on their committees grilling oil executives about their profits and the high price of gasoline, yet when it comes time to actually doing something about it, like drilling for more oil...they stand in the way.

So the next time you fill your tank, remember it is the government keeping the price high, not oil companies.

I figured that he could put it better than I. What a shame that this happened. Think about it the next time you stop at the pump.

Here is a link to Michelle Malkin's blog where she put up a bunch of forwarded emails that Republicans sent to their congresscritters voicing their anger, frustration, and disappointment at the Republicans acting like they are the minority party. Very good reads.

Good Day to You, Sir

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Terminator Update

After enjoying a night's sleep, I woke up this morning and found that it was a clean sweep. All of the propositions that were on the ballot for this special election in California went down in defeat. It is as if the election never happened. How weird is that? I have never seen an election in California where not one proposition passed. I was disappointed to see that Prop 73 (abortion notification for parents) and Prop 75 (permission for Unions to spend dues on politics) failed, but that disappointment was tempered by the defeat of Prop 74. Assuming nothing weird happens this year, at the beginning of the next school year, I will become tenured. That is great! I wish the general public could see how many times new teachers are told, "You are just gonna have to bite your tongue and take it until you get your tenure." In August of 2006, I will hear that no more!

Good Day to You, Sir

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

The Terminator is in Trouble

I was just checking the results so far for the special election in California. As of this writing, the results are in from 35% of California's county precincts, and only one proposition (75) is passing. The link is to the results page on the website for the Secretary of State; I have no idea if that link will stay good, or will disappear at the conclusion of this election.

I have to say that I am surprised at some of the results so far. Prop 73, which would mandate that a parents would have to be notified for their daughter to get an abortion is losing. For most of the night, it was passing, but now the NO votes lead by 50.5%. It's close so things could change, but close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades. I do hope it passes. How ridiculous is it that schools and doctors must get permission for parents for the most mundane things, but a girl can get an abortion without the parents knowing? I think an abortion is a much bigger deal than an aspirin, what about you?

I am happy to declare, however, that the NO votes for Prop 74 are beginning to pull ahead. An hour ago, Prop 74 was leading by 0.3%; now that lead has widened to 4%. This is the proposition that would have lengthened the probationary period for teachers to 5 years before they could receive tenure, and even worse, a tenured teacher could be dismissed after 2 bad evaluations. All kinds of things bothered me about this proposition. I was talking to my father last night. He retired from the California Highway Patrol about 15 years ago. When he started on the job, his probationary period was only 1 year. As he put it, this is a job where I had the power to shoot people, and they only needed one year to figure out whether or not I was cut out for it. How could school officials need 5 years? What also bugged me was the fact that Prop 74 had an ex post facto problem. Any teacher hired during or after the 2003-04 school year was affected by Prop 74. This means that teachers who received tenure at the beginning of this school year two or three months ago, would have lost their tenure if Prop 74 passed. I fail to see how the state can go back and change the rules of the game like that. I also fail to see how they could have changed the rules for me either. I became a contracted probationary teacher at the beginning of the 2004-05 school year. My contract stated that my probationary period would last for 2 years. How can the state go back and say, "Nope, now its 5 years."? Lastly, what also bothered me was the two negative evaluations. In my relatively short time as a teacher, I have seen some slimy administrators who will give bad evaluations to competent teachers who they do not like. We teachers work in a sensitive and unique environment. We need protection from unsavory administrators who would take advantage of their power and use it to get back at the teachers under them for personal or political squabbles. I recently talked in another post about the danger this posed for politically conservative teachers.

Finally, the one Proposition on the list that is passing is one that I want to pass, and that is Prop 75, which requires public unions to secure the permission of their members to use their dues for political purposes. Being a conservative in an overwhelmingly liberal union, I am very happy to see this proposition pass (assuming the numbers hold up). If only one proposition is going to pass, let it be this one.

The bad news written on the wall for Arnold Schwarzenegger is that Proposition 75 is the only one passing right now, and that one only by 50.5% to 49.5% as I write. This can rightly be seen as a repudiation of his agenda by California voters. Did I agree with some of these propositions? Yes. Did I disagree with some of them? Yes. But for "Ahnold", I see this as a disaster for his tenure as governor, as he had a bunch of time and ego invested in his pet propositions: 74, 75, 76, 77. With only one of them passing (barely), I have a feeling he is getting the message from California voters. I could easily see him deciding not to run next year for reelection. That wouldn't break my heart at all, seeing as how in the recall election of 2003, I voted for Tom Mclintock. I also see that the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey went to the Democrat candidates. That doesn't surprise me. With the exception of maybe New Hampshire, Republicans might as well kiss off the northeast, much as the Democrats have kissed off the southeast.

So that's my take on election night, 2005. That and $4 might get you a latte.

Good Day to You, Sir

Monday, November 07, 2005

Piracy or Terror on the High Seas?

A report from details some additional information about a cruise ship that was attacked off the coast of Somalia last week. Initial reports described the attackers as pirates. We know what pirates want. They want to board a ship and rob it and its passengers blind. After the attack, the cruise ship had to find a port fast, because an unexploded missle was stuck in its hull. How are you going to rob a ship if you sink it, unless sinking it was your goal? If one does want to sink a ship full of civilians, then it isn't piracy, it is terrorism. Add to that the fact that the attack took place off the coast of a Muslim controlled country that is known as a haven for terrorists, and.... You do the math.

Good Day to You, Sir

Saturday, November 05, 2005

ANWR: What Took You Guys So Long?

Finally! We have progress in the quest to open up a miniscule portion of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and drilling. On November 3, the Republicans in the U.S. Senate passed a rider to a larger filibuster-proof budget bill that requires the Department of the Interior to begin selling leases to oil companies who want to work in ANWR. This argument about drilling/no drilling in ANWR has been going on for years. It wasn't big on the list in say, 1998 when I was paying $.94 at the pump. Now that gas hovers between $2.50 and $3.00 a gallon, people finally realized that action needed to be taken. The dumbest quote of the day comes from a supposedly non-partisan group called According to an article from Jerome Corsi, after the Senate vote, sent out an email that in part, stated the following:
Opening the wildlife refuge to oil rigs is not about "energy security" or bringing down the price of gas (siphoning out all the oil under the sanctuary would save just one penny at the pump). Drilling oil wells in one of the last untouched spots in America is nothing but another federal giveaway to Bush administration cronies in an oil industry that is gouging consumers with $3 per gallon gas while it reaps record profits.
Think about this moronic email for a second. Putting aside their "one penny at the pump" reasoning (where did that statistic come from?), what they are saying is that we shouldn't let oil companies drill for more oil because they are already "gouging" us at the pump. Hello?! I smell the need for a short economics lesson. There is a rule of nature called supply and demand. If supply is low and demand is high, prices go up. Right now, for a number of reasons, supply of oil is low and demand is high. This equals high prices. If we drill in Alaska, demand of course remains high, but supply goes up, thereby prices go down. It's so simple, even a leftist can follow the logic... maybe.

Keep in mind that only the Senate has approved the drilling. Now the bill goes to the House of Representatives, where supposedly, the Republicans have enough votes to pass it to President Bush, who has said he would sign it. Let's see if the Republicans show a brief bit of backbone on this one, or will they wilt away at the first sign of criticism from the whining Democrats?

As a short aside, a couple of years ago, the subject of ANWR came up in an honors world history class I was teaching. I am of course in favor of drilling, but being the stellar teacher I am, I presented the arguments of both sides to the students. There was one girl in the class who was a total whacko environmentalist type who was already a devotee of all things lefty who got so angry that I dared present a position in favor of drilling in ANWR that I thought she was going to spit on me. Did it matter that I had just finished presenting the argument she favored? Noooooo, this girl and her ilk don't want you to hear both sides of the story. Why do you think the left hates Fox News so much? Anyhow, while explaining the pro-drilling view, I mentioned several facts that I will repeat here:

  • The area of ANWR that would open for drilling is not pristine forest bursting with green mountains and trees. It is a fairly flat and barren wasteland of tundra, or as I heard it described on the Hugh Hewitt show the other day: West Texas with ice. I find it amusing when the whacko environmentalists send out their "Protect ANWR" literature, the pictures on the literature show those green mountains and trees. You know the deal, I'm sure - If no one wants to protect a jungle, call it a rain forest. If no one wants to protect a swamp, call it a wetland.
  • The area of the entire ANWR is gi-freaking-normous; try somewhere around a million acres. The area that would be open for drilling is about 5,000 acres, or just one half of one percent of the total area of ANWR. It is the equivalent of a piece of printer paper on a football field.
  • Right now, 60% of our oil is imported. Believe it or not, Canada provides the most, but the price of the rest is set at the whim of OPEC, which controls about 40% of the world's oil market. Tapping the Alaskan oil would greatly reduce our dependence on OPEC oil and our vulnerability to OPEC's supply tampering.
The frustrating part folks, is that there is plenty of oil in the world; the issue is that most of it is not extracted from U.S. soil, so we can't control its output. Another frustrating issue is that even if we were to extract more oil ourselves, we don't have enough refining capacity to process it quickly enough. There has not been a new oil refinery built in the United States since 1975, even though our population and consumption of oil have gone up considerably since then. This is due to a combo of NIMBYism and radical environmentalism. The refineries that are operating also have to deal with producing all these special regional blends that have been dicated by state and municipal governments. For instance the gas used in Maryland may be unsuitable for use in Los Angeles. This means that if there is a shortage in one area of the country, you can't ship in any surplus from another area of the country unless the blends are the same. Even if we do start drilling in Alaska, the refineries are already working at capacity and would be hard pressed to handle this new oil coming in. Nevertheless, the action by the Senate on Thursday was a step in the right direction.

Good Day to You, Sir

God's Country

All this talk about family and children made me think about mine. If your own lush and green backyard with your happy and handsome child playing in it with some balloons tied to his overalls doesn't qualify as God's Country, I don't know what else would.

Good Day to You, Sir

Parenthood was Cheapened Today

From the state of Washington comes this disturbing news story about yet another blow to the sanctity of the family at the hands of radical homosexuals and the people who are influenced by them. You can read the story for yourself of course, but here is the digested version:

Two lesbians live together. Lesbian #1 gets pregnant via sperm donor and has the baby. Lesbians #1 and #2 jointly care for the child for six years, then the couple breaks up. During that six years, Lesbian #2 never adopts the child. Lesbian #1 (the mother), then marries the sperm donor and the three then live as a family. Yes, its a rather sordid affair, but it ends with mother, father, and child all living together. The catch is that the jilted Lesbian #2 sued for parental rights since she helped raise the child for six years, and the court found in her favor, granting limited visitation rights. On the surface, I'm sure many would think, "Well, what's wrong with that?", to which I say, "Plenty".

First and foremost, the child is in no way biologically or legally related to #2. As I mentioned earlier, #2 didn't even adopt the child. According to Washington state law, #2 has no parental rights.

Second, this court decision says to parents - especially single parents - that it would be unwise to ever get a roommate or allow your boyfriend or girlfriend to live with you and your child, because they just might get shared custody of your child, even if they are not biologically or legally related to the child.

Third, I want you to ask yourself honestly: Would the decision in the case have been the same if Lesbian #2 was a live-in boyfriend instead of a lesbian lover? Think it through - a woman with child lives with a boyfriend who is not the father. The boyfriend helps raise the kid for a few years until the couple breaks up and the mother marries the biological father. Do you actually think that a court would give the boyfriend any parental rights? I didn't think so.

Finally, this case serves as a textbook example of judicial activism, whereby judges make new law instead of interpreting cases according to the law as it is written. According to Washington's Uniform Parentage Act, the definition of who is a parent and who is not is described, and Lesbian #2 does not qualify. Is that wrong? I don't think so, but maybe someone else does. The point is that if people deem this unfair, then it is up to the Washington state Legislature, not their Courts, to change the law.

In the meantime, a family that just wants to get on with its life now has to deal with an unwelcome presence that has been forced upon them by the leftist activism of radical homosexuals and the judicial branch of the state of Washington. As the happily married father of one child, and another one on the way next year, I weep for this latest attack on the families of this country.

Good Day to You, Sir

Friday, November 04, 2005

How Ya Gonna Keep 'em in the Mosque when They've Been to Paree?

It has taken a week for the mainstream media to pay this any proper attention, but we are finally finding out more about the riots that have been raging in the suburbs of Paris, France that are being carried out by Muslim youths. Homes and businesses have been burned, police and firefighters have been shot at and had their vehicles torched, and a woman was doused with gasoline and set on fire. Why are they rioting? If you ask Associated Press and Reuters, they will tell you that it due to the fact that these "North African" immigrants (they dance around the word Muslim) are disaffected by racism, poverty and living in slums. Never mind the fact that they are Muslim fanatics who hate the country in which they live because it is not Muslim... not yet anyway. As for their poverty, aside from refusing to assimilate into French culture, how about the role of the socialist economic system that France practices? The native French aren't doing so hot either. The difference is that I don't see the native French rioting... yet. As for the Muslims? Again, they hate the infidel French anyway, so why not burn it all down man?

What is particularly laughable is the reaction of some French officials to these riots. I have been seeing a lot of self-hatred and self-flagellation by these officials who blame the French for the plight of these poor Muslim immigrants and first-generations who can't seem to accept the country in which they live.

Over the last couple of decades, countries in Europe have seen an explosion of Muslim immigrants - especially England, France, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Over the same decades, countries in Europe have seen huge increase in Muslim-initiated violence - especially England, France, the Netherlands, and Denmark. The European people are quickly discovering that they are becoming an endangered species. The Muslim immigrants continue to stream in and reproduce; the Europeans have had a negative birthrate for some time now. When events like these riots take place and begin spreading, how long will it be before the repressed nationalism becomes nascent and a backlash begins? If the backlash happens, it will be bloody. How do I know? I teach history folks. Read up sometime about the Battle of Tours in 732 when a Frankish Christian army took on a Muslim army invading from Spain. Read about the Battle of Hattin in 1187 during the Crusades. Muslims and Christians have been slugging it out on and off at least since the year 711, when Umayyad Muslims invaded Spain and kicked the Catholic Visigoths out of power. It will be interesting to see how the Europeans handle this virtual second Muslim invasion of the continent. What makes it so interesting is that in this second invasion, the invaders were invited. Considering the bombings and violence in England, the riots in France, the murders in the Netherlands, and the threats of violence in Denmark - all committed by Muslims - I would venture to say the invited party is beginning to wear out their welcome.

Good Day to You, Sir

Thursday, November 03, 2005

To an Insect-Free Iraq

A hat tip to Power Line Blog for providing this link to Big Lizards Blog, who did a wonderful write up on some of the bad stuff that has been found in Iraq before and since our invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The most interesting item was the apparent obsession that Iraqi soldiers had with keeping their ammunition dumps sans insects:

"At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large 'agricultural supply' area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex" that was shown to reporters - with unpleasant results. 'More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent,' Hanson says. 'But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into nonexistence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural-commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers 6 feet underground. The 'agricultural site' was also colocated with a military ammunition dump - evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG."

"That wasn't the only significant find by coalition troops of probable CW stockpiles, Hanson believes. Near the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin - a nerve agent. Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site. "Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.'" [Emphasis added]

I got into it with a left-wing blogger last week about WMDs. Of course he insisted that no WMDs have been found whatsoever. If by that, he means that no neon sign-adorned bunkers filled to the brim with neatly stacked caches, then he is right. But things are never quite that simple are they? Read the Big Lizards article I linked above for a true education. My question is, why in Sam Hill doesn't the Bush administration point any of this stuff out? I will admit, it frustrates me to no end when all this WMD information is out there, and I am asked by those on the left, like my blogger friend, "Why doesn't President Bush point this out?" You know what? He has a point, and I don't have an answer. I have never been accused of being President Bush's biggest fan. One of my biggest complaints about him is that when it comes to communicating with the American people, he is the anti-Reagan.

Good Day to You, Sir

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

WMDs? What WMDs?

This article about Iraq's WMD program is just too awesome to ignore. It is by law professor Glenn Reynolds, the author of the famous and stellar blog known as Instapundit. I have been in discussions before with people on the left about WMDs, and when you spring this information on them that is mentioned in the article, they lose all sense of rationality, because they have no retort.

My favorite part is this little gem from a law passed and signed in 1998 by Bill Clinton:

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Gosh, isn't that exactly what President Bush is trying to do? Enjoy the article.

Good Day to You, Sir

Another Update on the Party of Racism

I found this Washington Times article that lays out some of the leftist vitriol that has been directed toward Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele who is running for a Maryland Senate seat.

In related news, an editorial in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel was lamenting the fact that with the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the diversity of the Court would be diminished because a woman (Sandra Day O'Connor) was being replaced by a white male. The editorial then went on to lay out the diversity that is left on the Court, such as only one woman (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), and only one black person (Clarence Thomas). Here is where things get interesting. The editorial then qualified Clarence Thomas's status as a black man by stating,

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

So, Clarence Thomas is not a "real" black man because he dares to disagree with the leftists and the Democrat Party to which the majority of blacks in America still belong. I get it now - race isn't based on the color of your skin nor is your sex based on your bodily equipment; it is based on your politics. Funny, I don't see conservatives telling leftist white men that they aren't really white. Just another example of the left's inability to separate race from politics. Conservatives look at you as an individual person who always has worth in God's eyes. Leftists look at you as a cog in a monolithic racial category.

Good Day to You, Sir

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

God's Country

Located in northeastern California, in volcano country about one and a half hours from the town of Redding, Burney Falls is 129 feet tall and is truly one of the most breathtaking and awe-inspiring locations that can be found. Starting from this vantage point, there is a paved trail that zig-zags its way down the hill to where you can stand at the edge of the pool into which the Falls empty as the mist from the falls turns you clammy in not time. I never get tired of visiting this place, and no matter how many times I have taken its picture, when I go back, I always have to do it again.

Good Day to You, Sir

Lord, Help This Generation

The numbers are in, and it doesn't look good. According to this article in USA Today, the year 2004 saw over 1.5 million babies born to unwed mothers.

In the wake of the countercultural revolution of the 1960s, the trend was for couples with children to get divorced. I actually feel lucky that my parents stayed married (and will have been married for 40 years next March). So many kids from my generation came from divorced households. Couples in the 1970s would be married when they had the kids, but then they would divorce and share joint custody and so on. That is bad enough. What often happens nowadays is that Dad never even enters the picture in the first place, or will be there for a short while and then move on. As a teacher, I have taken part in numerous IEP meetings and parent conferences. The majority of the time, only the mother shows up, because there is no father at home. Whereas my generation came from split homes where the parents still took part in the child's life, today's generation, as you can see from the numbers, often comes from a home where there was only one parent to start with. As much as it pains people to hear it and no matter how much people disagree with it, the optimum situation for a child to grow into a healthy and adjusted adult is when he or she lives at home with both parents. As you can see from the USA Today article, this isn't happening so much. One only need look at the crime-ridden areas of our country where the majority of households are headed by a single mother for one to see that the presence of a father is so important. Does this mean that all single mothers are bad parents? Of course not. The problem lies in the fact that to support her family, single mothers have to work, and when they are working, they are not at home to monitor their children, leading to what George Will calls "lightly parented" children. More often than not, it is single mothers who live in poverty, and unfortunately, it is in the poverty-ridden areas of our country that have the highest crime rates. Does poverty cause crime? No. There wasn't any crime wave during the Great Depression was there? However, in our day and age, poverty has been come to be accepted as an excuse for abberant behavior, and plenty of people in poverty take full advantage of that acceptance. Once upon a time, families in poverty were just as stable as more well-to-do families. How many people know that up until the 1940's blacks, whose poverty rate far outdistanced the white poverty rate, tended to be married at a slightly higher rate than whites? I bring up the racial angle, because the black community in the United States currently has a 70% illegitimate birth rate. It pains me to think of all these children growing up without fathers, especially when I grew up with both a loving mother and father, so I know what these kids will be missing. When it came time to have kids, my wife and I took this undertaking very seriously. Aside from first being married, we first made sure that we could afford to take care of our little guy, not just financially, but also emotionally. We have talked about how cheap it feels to contemplate the gravity of our procreation, and then watch other people have children and act like it is no bigger deal than buying a puppy at the mall. During her pregancy, my wife was in an Internet chat room one day for expectant mothers. One of the other women posting was a 14 year old girl, whose post started with, "My boyfriend and I are trying to get pregnant right now...." That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the state of child bearing and rearing in our country today.

Good Day to You, Sir