Little Boy [Lying in bed]: Dad, some kids at school told me Santa wasn’t real. Is that true?
Father: I don’t think it is, do you?
Little boy: I think he’s real, but sometimes I wonder. How does he get in when we don’t have a chimney? And how does he get all around the world in one night when it takes us 2 hours to drive to Grandma’s? And one bag carries all those toys? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Father: It’s magic, I think. I don’t really know for sure, but I suspect his sleigh is very fast and he can do things normal people can’t.
Little boy: He’s pretty special, isn’t he?
Father: Yes he is. He works all year long to prepare for this one night when he tries to make children all over the world happy.
Little boy: He makes me happy, and he teaches me lessons too.
Father: Santa teaches you lessons?
Little boy: Sure. He goes to all the children, not just some of them. And he goes to places where they are shooting and hurting people and he’s not scared. He’s strong and always wants to do what is right. He loves his children and always makes them do the right thing - that’s why he has his list. The only thing that scares me is I want Santa to live forever, but I don’t know if he can.
Father: When did I miss the moment you suddenly grew up and got so smart?
Little boy: I don’t know, Dad. I’ve always been smart, I guess.
Father: I suppose so. Ok, you have a big day tomorrow. Get some sleep. Goodnight…I love you.
Little boy: I love you too. [Whispering to himself] Santa
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
They're pissing me off again
Christmas haters and Christmas whores...things I hate about the holiday that was my most pleasurable both as a child and an adult. I still love it, but I'm mad about a few things.
Please feel free to add your own.
Please feel free to add your own.
- People who bitch about public nativity scenes and the like should remember it wasn't that long ago we were still doing public lynching's in the same town squares.
- Black Friday is an embarrassment. It has nothing to do with Christmas or what Christmas is supposed to be, and exposes tens of millions who have nothing better to do than get up at 3:00 am so they can go buy a TV that has been marked down to what they want you to buy it for anyways.
- If I see one more manger scene with a pop-up Santa in the middle of it waving...I'm stopping the car, getting out, and I'm tackling Santa like I'm Lawrence F'ing Taylor.
- Same thing goes for a Santa wearing a cross, or Rudolph bowing to the infant...stop it!
- Christmas is a day in December. Hanukah, Hannuka, Channuka, Chanukha, Banana-bofana-bu-hannuka, or however you spell it - is 8 days. In either case, it's not mid-September like Walgreen's drug chain would have you believe.
- Radio stations that play Christmas music 24 hours a day from November 23rd until after New Years should be sanctioned by the FCC. If they don't comply, we send Syrian Insurgents in.
- Speaking of Christmas songs...If I ever run into the jerk-off that wrote the "Mr. My momma is dyin' and she needs new shoes" song...he's a dead man.
Feel free to opine in an "Air-it-out-Tuesday" here on WJL4 radio, home of the 24/7 attitude, "If you don't like it, go piss up a rope."
When Timmy becomes Tammy, Part II Subtitled: Why Sigmund Freud would need therapy
About 10 years ago, I wandered by a TV set that was showing the old daytime Geraldo Rivera Show (now outlawed in 31 states). He had on his show "Transsexual Lesbians". These were women that were formerly men who dated women who had the sex change operation and appropriate hormone therapy and were now full-flegged women - who wanted to date - women.
So we had Betty, formerly Bob...now named Betty him or herself...who wanted to date Bonnie, and the bottom line here was Bob...errrrr...Betty...was having identification and identity issues.
Noooooooooo way!
Currently on the docket in New York State is a lawsuit filed by 7 people. Each of them has had the sex change operation, and of the seven you have 4 women that were formally men and three men that were formally women.
Their complaint? They are suing the state because the state says they have to register their gender as the gender they are currently at. Is your head spinning yet?
Ok, let me simplify it for you. Bob, formerly Betty, wants to be Betty but wants her gender to be listed as one of a Bob. Betty, formerly Bob, wants to be known as Bob but wants her gender to be known as Betty's. Go it now?
Look, the way I see it is this. You can be a bowling ball, or you can be an apple...but you can't be a bapple ball. I'm putting my foot down on this one Bob...what?
Oh. I'm sorry...Betty.
So we had Betty, formerly Bob...now named Betty him or herself...who wanted to date Bonnie, and the bottom line here was Bob...errrrr...Betty...was having identification and identity issues.
Noooooooooo way!
Currently on the docket in New York State is a lawsuit filed by 7 people. Each of them has had the sex change operation, and of the seven you have 4 women that were formally men and three men that were formally women.
Their complaint? They are suing the state because the state says they have to register their gender as the gender they are currently at. Is your head spinning yet?
Ok, let me simplify it for you. Bob, formerly Betty, wants to be Betty but wants her gender to be listed as one of a Bob. Betty, formerly Bob, wants to be known as Bob but wants her gender to be known as Betty's. Go it now?
Look, the way I see it is this. You can be a bowling ball, or you can be an apple...but you can't be a bapple ball. I'm putting my foot down on this one Bob...what?
Oh. I'm sorry...Betty.
When Timmy becomes Tammy
Anyone else notice the emasculation of the American male, or am I off onto some bizarre tangent? I think not, but I’ve been wrong before.
I was in the book store the other night Christmas shopping, and I came upon the “Parenting” section. I started to count the books on motherhood, and gave up at 3,564,231. Fatherhood was much easier to count. There was “Fathering for Dummies” and “Dad”, a retrospective by Nancy Grace. Both books were authored by women, as were the 3 million + on the other wall. So women tell women how to be mothers, then turn around and tell fathers how to be fathers.
On TV, all my children now has a trans-gender female (male?) character.
A woman I know has a son named Kinser, and at age 3 she has him in formalized ballet, interpretive dance, and art appreciation. She is deliberately gender-bending, and she started from the very moment he came out of the womb by giving him an androgynous name. “I want him to be ‘artsy’ and ‘liberal’”, she told me. When I asked what he wants, she fell silent. I can’t remember when I was 3, but I seriously doubt I was staring at a Monet and saying, “His brush strokes thoroughly exemplify his natural beauty and compassion for the common man.” And I certainly wasn’t taking interpretive dance. 50 years ago, boys were boys and girls were girls. It seemed to work fairly well that way.
Enter Gloria Allred, the famed feminist attorney who successfully sued K-Mart for committing the egregious crime of separating their toy section into girls and boys. Ms. Allred continued her trek towards emasculating the population by suing the boy scouts for not allowing a girl in, then turning around 16 months later and defending the girl scouts when a boy tried to enter their ranks.
Hollywood has played a significant role in the gender blur. Given the fact that being gay in the movie or TV game is considered fashionably chic, it comes as no surprise that we now have shows like “Queer eye for the straight guy”, “What not to wear”, “Why is that queer guy wearing sneakers?”, and “Spandex – America’s answer to leisure suits.” Okay, Okay….I made those first two shows up, but you get the idea.
Even when in the heterosexual mode, Hollywood passes on a pathetic message with 3 month marriages, 6th marriages, and having babies out of wedlock being a status symbol. If they just want to screw, why don't they just screw and leave the rest of us alone?
The 10th edition of the book, “Heather has two Mommies” was just published, and there are school systems all over the country clamoring to make this book mandatory reading in elementary school. Look, I’m not homo or gender phobic, but do we really have to go out of our way any further to confuse our youth? Goodness gracious, as if learning the three R’s and computer science wasn’t enough, now we want to make kids read about lesbian parenting when they’re still focusing on “The Little Train that Could.”
Is this trend dangerous for this country? Depends who you ask. I believe a lack of masculine role models might be the latest sway in evolution that brings about the demise of our nation. Others believe it’s perfectly acceptable to downplay and diminish the male’s impact in our society. I believe it is not only healthy to recognize boys as boys and girls as girls – I believe it’s downright necessary. But I'm somehow becoming the minority.
Just look at the newest show, “Fabric Matching with Kinser”, it’ll tell you all you need to know.
I was in the book store the other night Christmas shopping, and I came upon the “Parenting” section. I started to count the books on motherhood, and gave up at 3,564,231. Fatherhood was much easier to count. There was “Fathering for Dummies” and “Dad”, a retrospective by Nancy Grace. Both books were authored by women, as were the 3 million + on the other wall. So women tell women how to be mothers, then turn around and tell fathers how to be fathers.
On TV, all my children now has a trans-gender female (male?) character.
A woman I know has a son named Kinser, and at age 3 she has him in formalized ballet, interpretive dance, and art appreciation. She is deliberately gender-bending, and she started from the very moment he came out of the womb by giving him an androgynous name. “I want him to be ‘artsy’ and ‘liberal’”, she told me. When I asked what he wants, she fell silent. I can’t remember when I was 3, but I seriously doubt I was staring at a Monet and saying, “His brush strokes thoroughly exemplify his natural beauty and compassion for the common man.” And I certainly wasn’t taking interpretive dance. 50 years ago, boys were boys and girls were girls. It seemed to work fairly well that way.
Enter Gloria Allred, the famed feminist attorney who successfully sued K-Mart for committing the egregious crime of separating their toy section into girls and boys. Ms. Allred continued her trek towards emasculating the population by suing the boy scouts for not allowing a girl in, then turning around 16 months later and defending the girl scouts when a boy tried to enter their ranks.
Hollywood has played a significant role in the gender blur. Given the fact that being gay in the movie or TV game is considered fashionably chic, it comes as no surprise that we now have shows like “Queer eye for the straight guy”, “What not to wear”, “Why is that queer guy wearing sneakers?”, and “Spandex – America’s answer to leisure suits.” Okay, Okay….I made those first two shows up, but you get the idea.
Even when in the heterosexual mode, Hollywood passes on a pathetic message with 3 month marriages, 6th marriages, and having babies out of wedlock being a status symbol. If they just want to screw, why don't they just screw and leave the rest of us alone?
The 10th edition of the book, “Heather has two Mommies” was just published, and there are school systems all over the country clamoring to make this book mandatory reading in elementary school. Look, I’m not homo or gender phobic, but do we really have to go out of our way any further to confuse our youth? Goodness gracious, as if learning the three R’s and computer science wasn’t enough, now we want to make kids read about lesbian parenting when they’re still focusing on “The Little Train that Could.”
Is this trend dangerous for this country? Depends who you ask. I believe a lack of masculine role models might be the latest sway in evolution that brings about the demise of our nation. Others believe it’s perfectly acceptable to downplay and diminish the male’s impact in our society. I believe it is not only healthy to recognize boys as boys and girls as girls – I believe it’s downright necessary. But I'm somehow becoming the minority.
Just look at the newest show, “Fabric Matching with Kinser”, it’ll tell you all you need to know.
Monday, November 27, 2006
India revives "Millionaire"
NEW DELHI (AP) - Star Entertainment India television channel is reviving the most popular show in Indian history with top Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan as its new host, a news report said Sunday.
"Kaun Banega Crorepati" - based on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" - was scrapped in January following its famous host Amitabh Bachchan's illness. The program drew millions of viewers.
The channel will start shooting the program next month and expects it to go on air by the end of January, the Press Trust of India news agency quoted Samir Nair, chief executive officer of Star Entertainment India, as saying.
In the interim, three different shows aired on the network, but none of them garnered the same ratings:
"Kaun Banega Crorepati" - based on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" - was scrapped in January following its famous host Amitabh Bachchan's illness. The program drew millions of viewers.
The channel will start shooting the program next month and expects it to go on air by the end of January, the Press Trust of India news agency quoted Samir Nair, chief executive officer of Star Entertainment India, as saying.
In the interim, three different shows aired on the network, but none of them garnered the same ratings:
- "Kaun Banega Chuze Chikin" - "Who wants to eat a cow?" only lasted 2 nights.
- "Kaun Benega holeye Shoooot" - "Who wants to Nuke Pakistan?" was cancelled soon after its opening night.
- "Kaun Benega Aska Sherwina" - "Who wants to paint a dot on my forehead?"
Hang on a second, cowboy...methinks you're missing a fact or two
Congressman Charles Rangel of NY has recently come forward to say he is planning on reintroducing legislation calling for a draft. In a written article in the NY Times, Congressman Rangel made some good points about troop strength and lessening the burden on current active and reserve forces. Unfortunately, he went too far and proclaimed the military to be representative of the poor, downtrodden, and uneducated minority classes.
I myself have NO DESIRE to see a draft, as the institution of conscription is far too large a burden on volunteer Non-Commissioned and Commissioned Officers who would have to deal with a half million young people who for the most part wouldn’t want to be there. But in any case, they can debate whatever they like, I just wanted to set the record – the public record – straight. A public record that Congressman Rangel also could easily access with a click of his mouse.
The Heritage Foundation report on Demographics in the United States Military
Only 13% of all recruits in the United States Military come from an economic background designated “poor” according to national economic statistics, 6% below the national percentage of people classified “poor”.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the median income in the United States was $41,000.00 and change. 70% of recruits in the military come from homes right on this income, slightly below it, or slightly above it. The remaining 17% of all military recruits come from families well above the median national income level. Not rich by any standard, but certainly not poor.
Interestingly, after 9/11, the lower income enlistments plummeted to an all-time low, and the medium to higher than median income families made up the majority of the shortfall of enlistees.
98% of all enlistees have a high school diploma or higher (the other 2% attaining some sort of “Adult Certification” prior to enlistment, that is technically not a high school diploma). The national average for high school graduation is still an appalling 75%.
White Americans comprise 45.4% of the military population. Conversely, blacks make up 43%. The remainder is a blend of Hispanic, Asian, etc. What is important to note is this: Race is defined by the individual in this country, and not by the government or a statistic on a pie chart. A case can be made that any person may indeed declare whatever race they want, especially those of mixed heritage and lineage. In any case, the proclamation that the military is made up primarily of minorities – along with the claim that minorities are targeted for enlistment more aggressively than non-minorities – holds no weight when you look at the numbers.
Bottom Line?
The military looks just like what you’d see if you walked into a Sears, Target, or Denny’s restaurant most places in this country, most of the time. It is no more poor than it is rich. Its educational requirements exceed national averages, and it’s diversity is the most equal and balanced in its history.
Do I think they are currently overtaxed? Yes I do. But a draft will only serve to bring in its own set of issues, and it won't help to diversify a product that is already wonderfully diversified. Sure, a draft would bring in a few more people who grew up economically privileged, but because mom and dad have more zeroes in their bank account, doesn't mean the kid will make a better Marine, just as a kid being poor doesn't mean he can or even would - fight harder.
And what of young people who have committed crimes? A huge part of the late 1970's/early 1980's all-volunteer force was a crack down on criminals entering the service. No more judges saying "4 years in the Army, or 4 years in jail." A draft would bring back those undesirables as well.
Either way they debate it, Congressman Rangel's facts be a bit whatchoo call - wack - yooo hear what I be sayin', Dawg?
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Where is Santa?
A couple of Jehovah's Witnesses knocked on my door this past Saturday, telling me - once again - the world was coming to an end. My initial reaction was to close the door in their faces, but that would have been rude, so I told them I would give a dollar to their cause if they would answer two questions. They agreed upon two dollars, and I had to take their magazine "The Watchtower".
Ok, I said...question #1: Which iteration of "The world is coming to an end" are we on? I explained that I'd heard it in 1975, 1976, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2001, and now 2006. So was I up-to-date, or were there other world-ending scenario's that I was unaware of?
They declined to answer, but I gave them the dollar anyways. I moved on to my second question. "Have you seen Santa Claus?" This question seemed to set them on edge, and they explained to me that there was no Santa Claus...however, if you flipped the letters around, one could easily see the word Santa becoming S-a-t-a-n. Ohhhhhhh....so Santa is actually Satan?
"Yes" was their reply. Santa is actually Satan in disguise, henceforth the homonym...or is it synonym? Dammit, I haven't watched "Jeopardy" in a while, so I forgot the name of the category. "Potent Potables"?...Naaahhh, that's not it. "Flippety-Floppity words"?...ummmmm, maybe. Anagrams I believe is the proper term, but that always sounds like something you received from your Aunt in Iowa during the Second World War.
So I looked at them and said, "Do you believe in Angels?" They replied with a rather dull look in their eyes, "You mean dead people who look over the living?" I said yes, and they pondered this for a moment, then said "Yes, we probably do". This lead to me saying, "If I'm not wrong, Angels turned around is A-n-g-l-e-s, which means that geometry must be the subject of the Gods...which means since I probably flunked Geometry because I was more concerned with what was under Susan Schulteiz's skirt than the differential of the Isocelese Triangle and the obtuse non-sequitur squared, then I need to be saved, and I mean in a hurry. But in the meantime, have you or have you NOT seen Santa Claus?"
They left silently with their two dollars in hand, and I successfully proved that the difference between a Jehovah's Witness and a smart ass was simply a bundle of brain cells unused by one of the two...you decide which.
On the soccer field one day soon after, I looked at fellow parent - a Doctor named Schwartz - and asked him, "Have you seen Santa Claus?"
"Oh hell yeah", he answered. "Thank goodness for Santa Claus. He's all over the mall, and my cousin's business - down nearly 13% since July - is booming because of the big guy..."Have I seen Santa Claus?" "You betcha...last night on the NASDAQ report...I saw him totally."
I decided to go down to the Islam AlSalam - "Peace is Islam" Mosque. In there, I found an Imam willing to talk to me. At first, he thought I was going to ask him why so many Muslims profess peace but do so with the sword - or the car bomb in this case - but he was surprised when I asked him, "Do you believe the world is going in the right direction?".
He responded eloquently and at great length about the state of the world as he saw it. I then asked him, "Have you seen Santa Claus?", to which he got very agitated and said in no-uncertain terms that Santa was the Great Satan. I said to him, "I thought President Bush was the Great Satan?", and he replied that he was indeed, but during December, he was replaced as the Great Satan by the fat guy in the red suit. It was all becoming pretty clear now...Santa was the Great Satan, President Bush was the pretty decent Satan, and there wasn't much difference between a Jehovah's Witness and a Muslim, save for a few pounds of TNT and a '76 Datsun no one was using any more.
But the question still remained, where the heck was Santa?
I once again found myself on a sports field. There was a little girl trying her best to hit the ball off of a tee...try as she might, she kept swinging the bat in an awkward motion and hitting the tee...the ball falling harmlessly to the ground. Her mother and father were hiding their heads in their hands, afraid to acknowledge the child struggling was their own.
No Santa Claus here.
I was at a Friday night High School football game - a very exciting and stimulating playoff game - and I was seated next to two parents who didn't know the difference between an "first down" and a "first kiss". I asked them why they were there...and they told me "Their son was in the band and they were there to watch and support him." I asked how he was doing, and they told me they didn't care, as long as he was there and they were there to see it.
I couldn't help but wonder if I was getting closer to my answer.
A friend of mine owns a business. At the business, she puts up a tree each year, and on the tree hang small cards and the like with the names of poor children that have nothing. Also on the card is the individual child's wish from "Santa". The idea is employees take a name, and buy the gift the child wants, in essence becoming Santa to a child who otherwise would stop believing when he or she received nothing.
The United States Marine Corps has for many decades run a program called "Toys for Tots", in which Marines all over the country set up stations where old, broken, or long-forgotten toys are collected, repaired, repainted, and redistributed to needy children all over this nation. The repair work is done solely and happily by otherwise big, tough, Marine guys...who find a small part of their heart to soften to do such a task.
Where is Santa? Well, he's not necessarily in a song...but he could be. He for the most part is not contained in any religious atmosphere, which is astounding since peace, love, and compassion are Santa's greatest virtues, and this is what each church, synagogue, mosque, and temple is supposed to be about.
He's here alright, we've just lost sight of him in the Black Friday, political bs-ing, and gimme-that-Cabbage-Patch-doll-it's-the-last-one world we have created. Santa is out there, contained in each and every one of us....from Marines to Band parents, and everything in between...he's there, alive still - but on a bit of a life support system. It's up to all of you to bring him out. Instead of diving for the last HDTV on sale, hold the door for someone who may actually get there before you because of your act of kindness. Stop complaining for a few weeks and do something to bring about change. And speaking of change...the guy who sleeps at the 7-Eleven and hasn't bathed in 3 months? Give him some of your change, and if he decides to use it to buy a bottle of Boone's Farm wine, so what? Let him buy it and stop being such a moralist.
Yeah...honestly the question isn't, "Where is Santa?" The question is, "Why has he stopped being who he was supposed to be?"
Peace. No...seriously this time. Peace.
Ok, I said...question #1: Which iteration of "The world is coming to an end" are we on? I explained that I'd heard it in 1975, 1976, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2001, and now 2006. So was I up-to-date, or were there other world-ending scenario's that I was unaware of?
They declined to answer, but I gave them the dollar anyways. I moved on to my second question. "Have you seen Santa Claus?" This question seemed to set them on edge, and they explained to me that there was no Santa Claus...however, if you flipped the letters around, one could easily see the word Santa becoming S-a-t-a-n. Ohhhhhhh....so Santa is actually Satan?
"Yes" was their reply. Santa is actually Satan in disguise, henceforth the homonym...or is it synonym? Dammit, I haven't watched "Jeopardy" in a while, so I forgot the name of the category. "Potent Potables"?...Naaahhh, that's not it. "Flippety-Floppity words"?...ummmmm, maybe. Anagrams I believe is the proper term, but that always sounds like something you received from your Aunt in Iowa during the Second World War.
So I looked at them and said, "Do you believe in Angels?" They replied with a rather dull look in their eyes, "You mean dead people who look over the living?" I said yes, and they pondered this for a moment, then said "Yes, we probably do". This lead to me saying, "If I'm not wrong, Angels turned around is A-n-g-l-e-s, which means that geometry must be the subject of the Gods...which means since I probably flunked Geometry because I was more concerned with what was under Susan Schulteiz's skirt than the differential of the Isocelese Triangle and the obtuse non-sequitur squared, then I need to be saved, and I mean in a hurry. But in the meantime, have you or have you NOT seen Santa Claus?"
They left silently with their two dollars in hand, and I successfully proved that the difference between a Jehovah's Witness and a smart ass was simply a bundle of brain cells unused by one of the two...you decide which.
On the soccer field one day soon after, I looked at fellow parent - a Doctor named Schwartz - and asked him, "Have you seen Santa Claus?"
"Oh hell yeah", he answered. "Thank goodness for Santa Claus. He's all over the mall, and my cousin's business - down nearly 13% since July - is booming because of the big guy..."Have I seen Santa Claus?" "You betcha...last night on the NASDAQ report...I saw him totally."
I decided to go down to the Islam AlSalam - "Peace is Islam" Mosque. In there, I found an Imam willing to talk to me. At first, he thought I was going to ask him why so many Muslims profess peace but do so with the sword - or the car bomb in this case - but he was surprised when I asked him, "Do you believe the world is going in the right direction?".
He responded eloquently and at great length about the state of the world as he saw it. I then asked him, "Have you seen Santa Claus?", to which he got very agitated and said in no-uncertain terms that Santa was the Great Satan. I said to him, "I thought President Bush was the Great Satan?", and he replied that he was indeed, but during December, he was replaced as the Great Satan by the fat guy in the red suit. It was all becoming pretty clear now...Santa was the Great Satan, President Bush was the pretty decent Satan, and there wasn't much difference between a Jehovah's Witness and a Muslim, save for a few pounds of TNT and a '76 Datsun no one was using any more.
But the question still remained, where the heck was Santa?
I once again found myself on a sports field. There was a little girl trying her best to hit the ball off of a tee...try as she might, she kept swinging the bat in an awkward motion and hitting the tee...the ball falling harmlessly to the ground. Her mother and father were hiding their heads in their hands, afraid to acknowledge the child struggling was their own.
No Santa Claus here.
I was at a Friday night High School football game - a very exciting and stimulating playoff game - and I was seated next to two parents who didn't know the difference between an "first down" and a "first kiss". I asked them why they were there...and they told me "Their son was in the band and they were there to watch and support him." I asked how he was doing, and they told me they didn't care, as long as he was there and they were there to see it.
I couldn't help but wonder if I was getting closer to my answer.
A friend of mine owns a business. At the business, she puts up a tree each year, and on the tree hang small cards and the like with the names of poor children that have nothing. Also on the card is the individual child's wish from "Santa". The idea is employees take a name, and buy the gift the child wants, in essence becoming Santa to a child who otherwise would stop believing when he or she received nothing.
The United States Marine Corps has for many decades run a program called "Toys for Tots", in which Marines all over the country set up stations where old, broken, or long-forgotten toys are collected, repaired, repainted, and redistributed to needy children all over this nation. The repair work is done solely and happily by otherwise big, tough, Marine guys...who find a small part of their heart to soften to do such a task.
Where is Santa? Well, he's not necessarily in a song...but he could be. He for the most part is not contained in any religious atmosphere, which is astounding since peace, love, and compassion are Santa's greatest virtues, and this is what each church, synagogue, mosque, and temple is supposed to be about.
He's here alright, we've just lost sight of him in the Black Friday, political bs-ing, and gimme-that-Cabbage-Patch-doll-it's-the-last-one world we have created. Santa is out there, contained in each and every one of us....from Marines to Band parents, and everything in between...he's there, alive still - but on a bit of a life support system. It's up to all of you to bring him out. Instead of diving for the last HDTV on sale, hold the door for someone who may actually get there before you because of your act of kindness. Stop complaining for a few weeks and do something to bring about change. And speaking of change...the guy who sleeps at the 7-Eleven and hasn't bathed in 3 months? Give him some of your change, and if he decides to use it to buy a bottle of Boone's Farm wine, so what? Let him buy it and stop being such a moralist.
Yeah...honestly the question isn't, "Where is Santa?" The question is, "Why has he stopped being who he was supposed to be?"
Peace. No...seriously this time. Peace.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
College Football in Florida
What is the difference between UCF and Duke?
March
What is the difference between novocaine and the Hurricanes?
One numbs you and causes drool to run off of your mouth. The other runs off at the mouth which causes everyone listening to go numb. The second difference? After a while, novocaine stops.
And finally...
What is the difference between Cheerio's and the Seminoles?
Cheerio's belong in a bowl.
Say goodnight Gracie..."Goodnight Gracie..."
March
What is the difference between novocaine and the Hurricanes?
One numbs you and causes drool to run off of your mouth. The other runs off at the mouth which causes everyone listening to go numb. The second difference? After a while, novocaine stops.
And finally...
What is the difference between Cheerio's and the Seminoles?
Cheerio's belong in a bowl.
Say goodnight Gracie..."Goodnight Gracie..."
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Exit polls and Nancy
Remarkable things happened last night, the least of which was the Republicans getting spanked around as predicted - and in some ways - deservedly so.
The first is the story of the exit polls. 62% of all respondents to exit polls said Iraq was the reason they voted Democratic, regardless of their individual affiliation. That's where the mainstream media ended the story of the exit polls, and Keith Olberman and others are happy to report the story in this fashion.
However, the info from those polls is not quite the same as being reported. Actually, 40% of the respondents continued with their individual complaints about Iraq by saying it was the lack of a clear victory, the stagnant or perceived stagnant progress, and the lack of a quality end plan to get out that dictated their vote. Much like the reported polls story above, those are all legitimate reasons to vote for a change in the leadership, it's just that fine line between saying "Everyone wants us out of Iraq", and "Everyone wants a quantified resolution in Iraq" are two completely different things.
It's not semantics...Those two schools of thought are as opposite as apples and bowling balls.
Now for Nancy. In a speech given last night, Representative Pelosi was acknowleging her new role as the speaker of the house. She said, "The American people have spoken, and they want me and others to force a change. We're ready to govern".
I want you to think about this for a moment. Along with all the elections and proposed local policy changes, there were 9 more states who went to vote to amend their state constitutions definition of marriage as A union of one man and one woman. Eight of the 9 states passed the amendment, with Arizona saying "no" by a 51-49 margin. That brings the total to 26 states that have modified their constitutions.
Why do I bring up the marriage amendment after talking about Representative Pelosi? What do they have to do with one another? Hang on sparky, I'm getting there.
Representative Pelosi told us "She" was going to lead us down a new path. With all respect to Speaker Pelosi and her new position, the events of last night are very clear. Most American's didn't vote democratic because they wanted to be led by Ms. Pelosi. They voted for a change in personnel, not a change in ideology, and the marriage amendments passing is but one major example of that.
If Nancy really wants to affect change, she'll be wise to recognize this fact - as well as the fact that the vast majority of newly elected democrats are moderate centrist's - and make her moves from there. Not many people want to go down the road that Nancy would lead us, just as America is saying to the current Presidency "Your hard ass conservatism isn't doin' it for us, Mr. President, and we want a different philosophy".
So I hope in my heart of hearts there is change. But it will take foresight and intelligence to do it. I think the changes in power might be a good thing...we'll have to see.
Oh...and one more thing. I don't want to hear "It can't be any worse", because the minute someone says that - it falls even farther.
Peace.
The first is the story of the exit polls. 62% of all respondents to exit polls said Iraq was the reason they voted Democratic, regardless of their individual affiliation. That's where the mainstream media ended the story of the exit polls, and Keith Olberman and others are happy to report the story in this fashion.
However, the info from those polls is not quite the same as being reported. Actually, 40% of the respondents continued with their individual complaints about Iraq by saying it was the lack of a clear victory, the stagnant or perceived stagnant progress, and the lack of a quality end plan to get out that dictated their vote. Much like the reported polls story above, those are all legitimate reasons to vote for a change in the leadership, it's just that fine line between saying "Everyone wants us out of Iraq", and "Everyone wants a quantified resolution in Iraq" are two completely different things.
It's not semantics...Those two schools of thought are as opposite as apples and bowling balls.
Now for Nancy. In a speech given last night, Representative Pelosi was acknowleging her new role as the speaker of the house. She said, "The American people have spoken, and they want me and others to force a change. We're ready to govern".
I want you to think about this for a moment. Along with all the elections and proposed local policy changes, there were 9 more states who went to vote to amend their state constitutions definition of marriage as A union of one man and one woman. Eight of the 9 states passed the amendment, with Arizona saying "no" by a 51-49 margin. That brings the total to 26 states that have modified their constitutions.
Why do I bring up the marriage amendment after talking about Representative Pelosi? What do they have to do with one another? Hang on sparky, I'm getting there.
Representative Pelosi told us "She" was going to lead us down a new path. With all respect to Speaker Pelosi and her new position, the events of last night are very clear. Most American's didn't vote democratic because they wanted to be led by Ms. Pelosi. They voted for a change in personnel, not a change in ideology, and the marriage amendments passing is but one major example of that.
If Nancy really wants to affect change, she'll be wise to recognize this fact - as well as the fact that the vast majority of newly elected democrats are moderate centrist's - and make her moves from there. Not many people want to go down the road that Nancy would lead us, just as America is saying to the current Presidency "Your hard ass conservatism isn't doin' it for us, Mr. President, and we want a different philosophy".
So I hope in my heart of hearts there is change. But it will take foresight and intelligence to do it. I think the changes in power might be a good thing...we'll have to see.
Oh...and one more thing. I don't want to hear "It can't be any worse", because the minute someone says that - it falls even farther.
Peace.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Red
Back in a time when the National Basketball Association consisted of the best basketball players in the land...Translation...Back when the NBA was fun to watch...there was a guy by the name of Red Auerbach, and he was the coach/general manager of the team in Boston called "The Celtics"."
In a time - the 1960's - in our country, Red Auerbach was willing to put 5 black men on the court when no one else was. He won 9 straight NBA championships.
In the 1980's, he was courageous enough to put 5 white guys on the court, when no one else was. He ended up winning 7 more NBA championships.
Red Auerbach had passion and the courage of his convictions. On October 28th 2006, Red Auerbach died at the age of 89.
America has lost another person who stood for what he believed in, and was a success because of it.
Is there anyone out there like him? Please step forward, now.
In a time - the 1960's - in our country, Red Auerbach was willing to put 5 black men on the court when no one else was. He won 9 straight NBA championships.
In the 1980's, he was courageous enough to put 5 white guys on the court, when no one else was. He ended up winning 7 more NBA championships.
Red Auerbach had passion and the courage of his convictions. On October 28th 2006, Red Auerbach died at the age of 89.
America has lost another person who stood for what he believed in, and was a success because of it.
Is there anyone out there like him? Please step forward, now.
Rick Santorum
There is a man in Pennsylvania by the name of Rick Santorum. He has been a State Senator there since 1994, and rarely has one person elicited so much national attention as a junior Senator from a State like Pennsylvania. Not that I have anything against Pennsylvania, but on the national attention meter, it doesn't exactly ring the bell like California, Florida, Texas, Massachusetts, New York, etc.
Rick Santorum is a conservative Republican, and it looks right now as if he is probably going to lose his seat in the Senate, partly because of the backlash voting that everyone is predicting, and partly because of Senator Santorum himself. You see, Rick Santorum says what he believes, and stands for what he stands for, regardless of whether that is going to cost him his job. This past Monday, he said as much during a campaign speech he was giving. He told prospective voters that he "was not going to say to them what they wanted to hear just to get re-elected." He followed that with the daring statement, "and I'm ok with the fact you may not vote for me because of it."
Hmmmm. Interesting.
Rick Santorum believes in traditional marriage and family, and he said so several months back. He also made a strategic - and admittedly stupid blunder - by saying homosexuality is destroying the moral fabric and fiber of our society. Say goodbye to any possibles you may have had with that statement, Rick. The truth of the matter is homosexuality probably does not tear down the moral fiber of America, but plenty of other stuff does. We do just fine jacking things around all by ourselves, and one more thing isn't necessarily going to make it worse. But he said it, and now he has to live with it. And to his credit, he does.
In the same speech, Senator Santorum voiced his position that he was and still is in favor of the War in Iraq and the battles against terrorism in general. This of course is political suicide of the highest magnitude these days. Gay bashing and war supporting is not in the best interests of any candidate right now. In the speech, the Senator noted the following:
Since 2003, 4,500 schools have been reopened or built by coalition forces, and stocked with over 8 million text books. This number is up from less than 1000 schools during the Saddam regime.
Since 2003, 98% of the children of Iraq have been given the basic imunizations that we here in America get. That 98% is up from 1% during Saddam's time.
Prior to 2003, there was a cell phone or PC for 1 person out of every 1 million. Since 2003, 5 million cells are in use, and over 3.5 million Iraqi's own PC's.
There were 2 television stations from 1979 to 2003. They were silently dubbed "Saddam TV." Since 2003, there are now 150 local and satellite stations available, many of which openly talk and debate politics...something that would have earned a citizen a bullet in the head in another time.
Of the 18 provinces of Iraq, 12 or 13 of them are secure and peaceful. Strides are being made, and yes, lives are being lost in making those strides.
He said a lot more...which included his acknowledgement that there have been political and military blunders in Iraq as well... and he was roundly booed during the speech. Senator Santorum says what is on his mind, and that is where he declared he won't change his mind, his Senatorial duties, or his principles, for a vote. He was again booed.
I don't know about you, but I'm damn sure glad we are getting ready to boot this guy. Imagine what might happen to this country if we had a whole barrel full of politicians who said what they believed and stuck by their principles...regardless of which side they stood on?
Show me another liberal or conservative anywhere who has not caved to money or special interest groups. Show me another - again, liberal or conservative - who has not changed their mind and their statements when the situation fit.
In a few years, Pennsylvanian's are going to be kicking themselves for being blinded by anger. Perhaps luck will turn it around, and the entire nation will prosper from Pennsylvania's error in a couple of years.
Perhaps...
Rick Santorum is a conservative Republican, and it looks right now as if he is probably going to lose his seat in the Senate, partly because of the backlash voting that everyone is predicting, and partly because of Senator Santorum himself. You see, Rick Santorum says what he believes, and stands for what he stands for, regardless of whether that is going to cost him his job. This past Monday, he said as much during a campaign speech he was giving. He told prospective voters that he "was not going to say to them what they wanted to hear just to get re-elected." He followed that with the daring statement, "and I'm ok with the fact you may not vote for me because of it."
Hmmmm. Interesting.
Rick Santorum believes in traditional marriage and family, and he said so several months back. He also made a strategic - and admittedly stupid blunder - by saying homosexuality is destroying the moral fabric and fiber of our society. Say goodbye to any possibles you may have had with that statement, Rick. The truth of the matter is homosexuality probably does not tear down the moral fiber of America, but plenty of other stuff does. We do just fine jacking things around all by ourselves, and one more thing isn't necessarily going to make it worse. But he said it, and now he has to live with it. And to his credit, he does.
In the same speech, Senator Santorum voiced his position that he was and still is in favor of the War in Iraq and the battles against terrorism in general. This of course is political suicide of the highest magnitude these days. Gay bashing and war supporting is not in the best interests of any candidate right now. In the speech, the Senator noted the following:
Since 2003, 4,500 schools have been reopened or built by coalition forces, and stocked with over 8 million text books. This number is up from less than 1000 schools during the Saddam regime.
Since 2003, 98% of the children of Iraq have been given the basic imunizations that we here in America get. That 98% is up from 1% during Saddam's time.
Prior to 2003, there was a cell phone or PC for 1 person out of every 1 million. Since 2003, 5 million cells are in use, and over 3.5 million Iraqi's own PC's.
There were 2 television stations from 1979 to 2003. They were silently dubbed "Saddam TV." Since 2003, there are now 150 local and satellite stations available, many of which openly talk and debate politics...something that would have earned a citizen a bullet in the head in another time.
Of the 18 provinces of Iraq, 12 or 13 of them are secure and peaceful. Strides are being made, and yes, lives are being lost in making those strides.
He said a lot more...which included his acknowledgement that there have been political and military blunders in Iraq as well... and he was roundly booed during the speech. Senator Santorum says what is on his mind, and that is where he declared he won't change his mind, his Senatorial duties, or his principles, for a vote. He was again booed.
I don't know about you, but I'm damn sure glad we are getting ready to boot this guy. Imagine what might happen to this country if we had a whole barrel full of politicians who said what they believed and stuck by their principles...regardless of which side they stood on?
Show me another liberal or conservative anywhere who has not caved to money or special interest groups. Show me another - again, liberal or conservative - who has not changed their mind and their statements when the situation fit.
In a few years, Pennsylvanian's are going to be kicking themselves for being blinded by anger. Perhaps luck will turn it around, and the entire nation will prosper from Pennsylvania's error in a couple of years.
Perhaps...
Friday, October 13, 2006
Since when is criticism against the law?
From an on-line publication called "THE PROGRESSIVE":
Liberal columnist Steve Howards says he used to fantasize about what he'd say to President Bush or Vice President Cheney if he ever got the chance.
That opportunity arrived on June 16, the same day he says he read about U.S. fatalities in Iraq reaching 2,500.
"Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, I can't in good conscience let this opportunity pass by. So I approached him, I got about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, 'Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible."
Howards says he was taking two of his kids to their Suzuki piano camp in Beaver Creek, Colorado. They were walking across the outdoor public mall area when all of a sudden he saw Cheney there.
"I didn't even know he was in town," Howards says. "He was walking through the area shaking hands. Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, 'I can't in good conscience let this opportunity pass by. So I approached him, I got about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, 'Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.' And then I walked away."
Howards says he knew the Administration has a history of making problems for people who protest its policies, so he wanted to leave off at that.
But the Secret Service did not take kindly to his comment. "About ten minutes later, I came back through the mall with my eight-year-old son in tow," Howards recalls, "and this Secret Service man came out of the shadows, and his exact words were, 'Did you assault the Vice President?'
Here's how Howards says he responded: "No, but I did tell Mr. Cheney the way I felt about the war in Iraq, and if Mr. Cheney wants to be shielded from public criticism, he should avoid public places. If exercising my constitutional rights to free speech is against the law, then you should arrest me."
Which is just what the agent, Virgil D. Gus Reichle Jr, proceeded to do.
"He grabbed me and cuffed my hands behind my back in the presence of my eight-year-old son and told me I was being charged with assault of the Vice President,"Howards recalls.
He says he told the agent, "I can't abandon my eight-year-old son in a public mall."
According to Howards, Reichle responded: "We'll call Social Services." "Before that could happen, however, my son ran away and found my wife, who was nearby," Howards says.
"First of all, I was scared,"Howard recalls. "hey wouldn't tell my wife where they were taking me. Second of all, I was incredulous this could be happening in the United States of America. This is what I read about happening in Tiananmen Square. They hauled me away to Eagle County jail and kept me with my hands cuffed behind my back for three hours."
At the jail, the charge against him was reduced to harassment, he says, and he was released on $500 bond. The Eagle County DA's office eventually dropped that charge.
On October 3, Howards sued Reichle for depriving him of his First Amendment right of free speech and his Fourth Amendment right to be protected from illegal seizure.
Howards and his attorney, David Lane, have not demanded a specific dollar amount.
"We will go to trial and let a Colorado jury decide what type of damages are appropriate," says Howards. "This isn't about anything I did. This about what I said. There is a frontal assault occurring on our constitutional right to free speech. We brought this suit because of our belief that this Administration's attempt to suppress free speech is a greater threat to the long-term integrity of this nation than ten Osama bin Ladens."
Reichle did not return my call for comment. Nor did he respond to The New York Times in its article on this incident.
Lon Garner, special agent in charge at the Secret Service's Denver office, says he has "no reaction to the lawsuit. It's in litigation," he says. "We have no comment."
Before his encounter with Cheney, Howards says he had a clean record.
"I was never arrested before," he says. "I don't have so much as a speeding ticket."
If Mr. Howards' story is in fact 100% correct, I gotta go with "Lefty" on this one. It is not against our Constitutional rights to criticize, even in an off-hand way in a public setting. "Lefty" is correct on this one when he said, "If you don't want public criticism, don't go to public places."
Would I myself say something to someone like Nancy Pelosi? Probably not.
I believe ignoring those you think are stupid is the adult thing to do. However, we do live in the United States, and with that citizenship comes a certain amount of latitude...latitude provided by men far smarter than Vice President Cheney over 2 centuries ago.
With that said, don't any of you who've actually read my stuff think I'm jumping the fence - because I'm not. There was an incident in 1995 when President Clinton was shaking hands at a democratic fund-raiser in Louisiana, and one of the people in line refused. When President Clinton asked the gentleman why, he responded with, "Because I don't like your ass." Several minutes later, a Secret Service Agent warned the man that "one more derogatory comment will get you a pair of handcuffs and a trip to the county jail."
Soooooo, I guess the point here is this: If an American citizen - ANY American citizen - is not free to publicly criticize the highest officers in this country, I think it's high time you let us all know that. I do believe 99.9% of us had no idea speaking directly - and critically - to someone like Donald Rumsfeld was a crime.
Thank God I exercise restraint in my life. Nancy Pelosi IS a freaking imbecile, and I might have found myself so inclined to tell her.
Not any more.
Liberal columnist Steve Howards says he used to fantasize about what he'd say to President Bush or Vice President Cheney if he ever got the chance.
That opportunity arrived on June 16, the same day he says he read about U.S. fatalities in Iraq reaching 2,500.
"Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, I can't in good conscience let this opportunity pass by. So I approached him, I got about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, 'Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible."
Howards says he was taking two of his kids to their Suzuki piano camp in Beaver Creek, Colorado. They were walking across the outdoor public mall area when all of a sudden he saw Cheney there.
"I didn't even know he was in town," Howards says. "He was walking through the area shaking hands. Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, 'I can't in good conscience let this opportunity pass by. So I approached him, I got about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, 'Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.' And then I walked away."
Howards says he knew the Administration has a history of making problems for people who protest its policies, so he wanted to leave off at that.
But the Secret Service did not take kindly to his comment. "About ten minutes later, I came back through the mall with my eight-year-old son in tow," Howards recalls, "and this Secret Service man came out of the shadows, and his exact words were, 'Did you assault the Vice President?'
Here's how Howards says he responded: "No, but I did tell Mr. Cheney the way I felt about the war in Iraq, and if Mr. Cheney wants to be shielded from public criticism, he should avoid public places. If exercising my constitutional rights to free speech is against the law, then you should arrest me."
Which is just what the agent, Virgil D. Gus Reichle Jr, proceeded to do.
"He grabbed me and cuffed my hands behind my back in the presence of my eight-year-old son and told me I was being charged with assault of the Vice President,"Howards recalls.
He says he told the agent, "I can't abandon my eight-year-old son in a public mall."
According to Howards, Reichle responded: "We'll call Social Services." "Before that could happen, however, my son ran away and found my wife, who was nearby," Howards says.
"First of all, I was scared,"Howard recalls. "hey wouldn't tell my wife where they were taking me. Second of all, I was incredulous this could be happening in the United States of America. This is what I read about happening in Tiananmen Square. They hauled me away to Eagle County jail and kept me with my hands cuffed behind my back for three hours."
At the jail, the charge against him was reduced to harassment, he says, and he was released on $500 bond. The Eagle County DA's office eventually dropped that charge.
On October 3, Howards sued Reichle for depriving him of his First Amendment right of free speech and his Fourth Amendment right to be protected from illegal seizure.
Howards and his attorney, David Lane, have not demanded a specific dollar amount.
"We will go to trial and let a Colorado jury decide what type of damages are appropriate," says Howards. "This isn't about anything I did. This about what I said. There is a frontal assault occurring on our constitutional right to free speech. We brought this suit because of our belief that this Administration's attempt to suppress free speech is a greater threat to the long-term integrity of this nation than ten Osama bin Ladens."
Reichle did not return my call for comment. Nor did he respond to The New York Times in its article on this incident.
Lon Garner, special agent in charge at the Secret Service's Denver office, says he has "no reaction to the lawsuit. It's in litigation," he says. "We have no comment."
Before his encounter with Cheney, Howards says he had a clean record.
"I was never arrested before," he says. "I don't have so much as a speeding ticket."
If Mr. Howards' story is in fact 100% correct, I gotta go with "Lefty" on this one. It is not against our Constitutional rights to criticize, even in an off-hand way in a public setting. "Lefty" is correct on this one when he said, "If you don't want public criticism, don't go to public places."
Would I myself say something to someone like Nancy Pelosi? Probably not.
I believe ignoring those you think are stupid is the adult thing to do. However, we do live in the United States, and with that citizenship comes a certain amount of latitude...latitude provided by men far smarter than Vice President Cheney over 2 centuries ago.
With that said, don't any of you who've actually read my stuff think I'm jumping the fence - because I'm not. There was an incident in 1995 when President Clinton was shaking hands at a democratic fund-raiser in Louisiana, and one of the people in line refused. When President Clinton asked the gentleman why, he responded with, "Because I don't like your ass." Several minutes later, a Secret Service Agent warned the man that "one more derogatory comment will get you a pair of handcuffs and a trip to the county jail."
Soooooo, I guess the point here is this: If an American citizen - ANY American citizen - is not free to publicly criticize the highest officers in this country, I think it's high time you let us all know that. I do believe 99.9% of us had no idea speaking directly - and critically - to someone like Donald Rumsfeld was a crime.
Thank God I exercise restraint in my life. Nancy Pelosi IS a freaking imbecile, and I might have found myself so inclined to tell her.
Not any more.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Cruise
Went on a 5-day cruise this past week, and when I feel I can muster up the energy, I'm fairly certain I can post a typical JL4 sarcastic blog about it. It was indeed great fun and a wonderful trip.
First stop was Key West...the city, not the string of islands known as "The Keys". The ocean surrounding the Keys themselves is breathtaking, as I'm sure the islands away from the main poulation are as well. We didn't get to see any of the beautiful stuff though...we went to the city.
Key West is described as "historic", "quaint", and "a breath of fresh air away from modernism".
Hmmmm. The adjective I would have used is "dump".
There is the main drag (pun definitely intended for those of you who get the joke) called Duval Street. It has approximately 350 T-shirt stores, 280 phony jewelry stores, and 150 bong and water pipe stores. The truly wealthy and prosperous locals own the three-tiered T-shirt/jewelry/bong combination stores, clearly a cut above the other single-faceted establishments. And speaking of the locals...evidently having a job is waaaaaaay down the priority list, and I'm not talking retirees here. Thousands between the ages of 30 and 55 just walk the streets every day, a can of cold beer in their hand at 10 am on a Tuesday, looking as if they'd just left the South Florida bonging festival, which of course they probably just had. No one shaves, washes their hair, wears clean clothing, or owns shoes. They also are clearly perturbed at the cruise ship tourists being there. Little do they know their disdain for our presence is matched by our will to get back on the boat after about 30 minutes of walking their dingy streets.
As you walk down Duval Street and several of the side-streets, you're struck by three very distinct things:
1) About every 12th house or hotel is a beautifully restored and maintained bungalow in the best Key West traditions. These are what you see in the brochures.
2) The 11 structures that follow would make people in the South Bronx mutter, "Say Whaaa? I ain't not gonna live in that rat trap...nah ahhh....who you be bullshittin with dat $650,000.00 price tag for a 700 sq ft hurricane speed bump?"
3) Sweeping and otherwise cleaning the streets is apparently illegal in Key West. To be fair, there is no one to sweep the streets since the only people employed are working the T-shirt stores or selling you the newest version of a hash pipe. The majority of the potential work force is wandering around town drinking a Coors silver bullet and awaiting their next chance to twist one up.
In closing, I wanted to point out one other thing. In EVERY store, there was a variety of underwear for sale. All the male underwear had some sort of FART joke printed on the backside, while the female undies reflected what the other person was presumably supposed to do with what lay underneath them. Classy.
"Historic", "quaint", and "a breath of fresh air away from modernism". Ummm, not quite. To be honest, when you reside at a level beneath Wal-Mart and Spencers Gifts by a large margin, the quaintness kinda goes out the window.
Must be the constant farting.
First stop was Key West...the city, not the string of islands known as "The Keys". The ocean surrounding the Keys themselves is breathtaking, as I'm sure the islands away from the main poulation are as well. We didn't get to see any of the beautiful stuff though...we went to the city.
Key West is described as "historic", "quaint", and "a breath of fresh air away from modernism".
Hmmmm. The adjective I would have used is "dump".
There is the main drag (pun definitely intended for those of you who get the joke) called Duval Street. It has approximately 350 T-shirt stores, 280 phony jewelry stores, and 150 bong and water pipe stores. The truly wealthy and prosperous locals own the three-tiered T-shirt/jewelry/bong combination stores, clearly a cut above the other single-faceted establishments. And speaking of the locals...evidently having a job is waaaaaaay down the priority list, and I'm not talking retirees here. Thousands between the ages of 30 and 55 just walk the streets every day, a can of cold beer in their hand at 10 am on a Tuesday, looking as if they'd just left the South Florida bonging festival, which of course they probably just had. No one shaves, washes their hair, wears clean clothing, or owns shoes. They also are clearly perturbed at the cruise ship tourists being there. Little do they know their disdain for our presence is matched by our will to get back on the boat after about 30 minutes of walking their dingy streets.
As you walk down Duval Street and several of the side-streets, you're struck by three very distinct things:
1) About every 12th house or hotel is a beautifully restored and maintained bungalow in the best Key West traditions. These are what you see in the brochures.
2) The 11 structures that follow would make people in the South Bronx mutter, "Say Whaaa? I ain't not gonna live in that rat trap...nah ahhh....who you be bullshittin with dat $650,000.00 price tag for a 700 sq ft hurricane speed bump?"
3) Sweeping and otherwise cleaning the streets is apparently illegal in Key West. To be fair, there is no one to sweep the streets since the only people employed are working the T-shirt stores or selling you the newest version of a hash pipe. The majority of the potential work force is wandering around town drinking a Coors silver bullet and awaiting their next chance to twist one up.
In closing, I wanted to point out one other thing. In EVERY store, there was a variety of underwear for sale. All the male underwear had some sort of FART joke printed on the backside, while the female undies reflected what the other person was presumably supposed to do with what lay underneath them. Classy.
"Historic", "quaint", and "a breath of fresh air away from modernism". Ummm, not quite. To be honest, when you reside at a level beneath Wal-Mart and Spencers Gifts by a large margin, the quaintness kinda goes out the window.
Must be the constant farting.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Why?
I’ll be gone for a week, so this is my last post for a while. I have some questions I need answered:
- What do you call that little plastic safety ring that sits near the apex of a bottled soda after the seal is broken with the top?
- Why did birds suddenly appear every time Karen Carpenter’s former boyfriend came around?
- Why is it that a tele-marketer or your mother-in-law catches you every time, but that phone call you were waiting on for 3 hours comes 30 seconds after you’ve taken your seat in the bathroom?
- Have you ever known anyone who actually became rich off of a fortune cookie?
- Some studies have shown that more men legitimately qualify for the title “Genius”. If that’s true, how come its men who pull the pan out of the oven without the mitt, don’t know better than to simply ask for directions, and think a woman’s eyes are about 8 inches below her chin?
- If I can get a “Ronco Wiz-o-Matic” for three easy payments of $19.99, can I get it even cheaper for 3 really complicated payments?
- Why do commercials on both radio and TV still say things like: “Do you want a pain reliever that works?”…or…”Are you tired of paying top dollar for your home, car, or RV?”
- Why is this the only crap I could think of to write today?
Thursday, September 28, 2006
What I "get"
US Marines and Soldiers are stationed in and around Islamic Holy lands, playing Metalica, Godsmack, and Hip-hop artists on their iPods. This angers the Islamists...I get that.
Danish Newspapers publish a coupla cartoons depicting Muhammad and Islam in general as more a religion of violence than the peace verbalized by Islam's supporters. This angers millions of Muslims world-wide...and I get it.
The Pope quotes a 14th century Islamic scholar who stated 600+ years ago his opinion that Islam was about violence and conquests. This infuriates millions more....and I get it.
The response to the military in Iraq is to car bomb, ambush, and use IED's, killing thousands in the past 3 years.
The response to the Danish Cartoons is to have massive riots in the streets, where hundreds of thousands gather to chant, "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", and in fact dozens have been trampled to death during these demonstrations.
The response to the Pontiff's statements was to brutally gun down a nun at a Somalian hospital.
Like I said...I get it. Do you?
Danish Newspapers publish a coupla cartoons depicting Muhammad and Islam in general as more a religion of violence than the peace verbalized by Islam's supporters. This angers millions of Muslims world-wide...and I get it.
The Pope quotes a 14th century Islamic scholar who stated 600+ years ago his opinion that Islam was about violence and conquests. This infuriates millions more....and I get it.
The response to the military in Iraq is to car bomb, ambush, and use IED's, killing thousands in the past 3 years.
The response to the Danish Cartoons is to have massive riots in the streets, where hundreds of thousands gather to chant, "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", "DEATH", and in fact dozens have been trampled to death during these demonstrations.
The response to the Pontiff's statements was to brutally gun down a nun at a Somalian hospital.
Like I said...I get it. Do you?
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
One response
I asked a very intelligent friend who works in the same company as I, what she thought the answer to the question I posed in the post directly below this is. As a refresher, the question was:
Why are we (the United States) supposed to differentiate between Iraqis, Syrians, Hammas, Hizb Allah, the PLO, the PLFP, Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Iranians, and any number of extremist groups that have America - and OUR children - finely sighted in their rifle scopes, when the terrorists do not?
Her answer was immediate and short: "Because then we'd be like Bin Laden".
I though about that for hours and hours, running the potential this and that scenario's through my head. A book most military men and women are quite familiar with is Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", written over 2,500 years ago, and widely recognized as the world's oldest military treatise. In the book, Sun Tzu says the following:
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Heavy stuff from a guy who's been dead for 2 and a half millennia. Who knew he would still be pertinent and spot-on today? I believe the average American has little or no comprehension of our enemy, nor does the average person in our nation understand the true danger posed by that enemy.
"Then we'd be like Bin Laden". Yes, in some respects we would. In February of 1945, the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Corps spent 2 days fire-bombing Dresden, Germany...an extremely controversial attack even within the standards of that time. 3,900 tons of bombs were dropped between Feb 13th and Feb 15th. 12,000 buildings were totally destroyed, many of them part of a large German military industrial complex. Currently, historians list the death toll at between 25,000 and 30,000 military and civilians.
Controversial then...controversial now...the fact remains that the will to fight was sucked out of most of the German people and a large percentage of their highest military commanders. Was the attack immoral? Well, killing itself is somewhat immoral, even in war. Was the attack the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany? Yes, it was.
The question then remains: In the interest of self-preservation and national sovereignty, is adopting an equally brutal tactic necessarily a bad thing?
Why are we (the United States) supposed to differentiate between Iraqis, Syrians, Hammas, Hizb Allah, the PLO, the PLFP, Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Iranians, and any number of extremist groups that have America - and OUR children - finely sighted in their rifle scopes, when the terrorists do not?
Her answer was immediate and short: "Because then we'd be like Bin Laden".
I though about that for hours and hours, running the potential this and that scenario's through my head. A book most military men and women are quite familiar with is Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", written over 2,500 years ago, and widely recognized as the world's oldest military treatise. In the book, Sun Tzu says the following:
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Heavy stuff from a guy who's been dead for 2 and a half millennia. Who knew he would still be pertinent and spot-on today? I believe the average American has little or no comprehension of our enemy, nor does the average person in our nation understand the true danger posed by that enemy.
"Then we'd be like Bin Laden". Yes, in some respects we would. In February of 1945, the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Corps spent 2 days fire-bombing Dresden, Germany...an extremely controversial attack even within the standards of that time. 3,900 tons of bombs were dropped between Feb 13th and Feb 15th. 12,000 buildings were totally destroyed, many of them part of a large German military industrial complex. Currently, historians list the death toll at between 25,000 and 30,000 military and civilians.
Controversial then...controversial now...the fact remains that the will to fight was sucked out of most of the German people and a large percentage of their highest military commanders. Was the attack immoral? Well, killing itself is somewhat immoral, even in war. Was the attack the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany? Yes, it was.
The question then remains: In the interest of self-preservation and national sovereignty, is adopting an equally brutal tactic necessarily a bad thing?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
I need someone to help clarify things for me. I'm obviously confused.
Today in a White House press question and answer session, Afghan President Hamid Karzai responded to the question:
"Mr. President; There are many who think the Iraq war has become a recruiting tool and is fostering more terrorism throughout the world. Can you attest to the accuracy of that?"
To which President Karzai responded:
"Terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11 ... These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards," Karzai said. "They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan.
"Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or woman to jump from that high?" Karzai asked recalling some of the more shocking scenes from the World Trade Center bombing. "How do we get rid of them? ... Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?"
Why does it take the President of a back-water, third-world, hell-hole of a country to tell the American press corps - and the American people for that matter - that it's high time to stop the internal cat-fighting and get down to the business of planting these terrorists six feet under?
A question: Do you think there were people who died on September 11th who did not like the President and his policies? A betting person would say "yes".
Do you think there were anti-war, anti-destruction, people killed on 9/11? Again, most likely the answer is "yes".
This is a fact of life (or death in this case). The perpetrators of 9/11 didn't differentiate between conservatives, liberals, jews, muslims, gay, straight, black, white, hispanic, asian, tall or short, meek, aggressive, male, female, adult or child. All killed were American's, and that was ok with them.
Yet, according to nearly half this country, we're supposed to differentiate between Iraqis, Syrians, Hammas, Hizb Allah, the PLO, the PLFP, Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Iranians, and any number of extremist groups that have America - and OUR children - finely sighted in their rifle scopes.
For the life of me, I just can't see the logic in that. We're under attack from all sides; we're under the threat of attack from all sides; but half the country wants to split hairs on who is a legitimate target and who is not.
Are the ones out to get us splitting hairs on which element of American children they want to kill?
"Mr. President; There are many who think the Iraq war has become a recruiting tool and is fostering more terrorism throughout the world. Can you attest to the accuracy of that?"
To which President Karzai responded:
"Terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11 ... These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards," Karzai said. "They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan.
"Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or woman to jump from that high?" Karzai asked recalling some of the more shocking scenes from the World Trade Center bombing. "How do we get rid of them? ... Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?"
Why does it take the President of a back-water, third-world, hell-hole of a country to tell the American press corps - and the American people for that matter - that it's high time to stop the internal cat-fighting and get down to the business of planting these terrorists six feet under?
A question: Do you think there were people who died on September 11th who did not like the President and his policies? A betting person would say "yes".
Do you think there were anti-war, anti-destruction, people killed on 9/11? Again, most likely the answer is "yes".
This is a fact of life (or death in this case). The perpetrators of 9/11 didn't differentiate between conservatives, liberals, jews, muslims, gay, straight, black, white, hispanic, asian, tall or short, meek, aggressive, male, female, adult or child. All killed were American's, and that was ok with them.
Yet, according to nearly half this country, we're supposed to differentiate between Iraqis, Syrians, Hammas, Hizb Allah, the PLO, the PLFP, Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Iranians, and any number of extremist groups that have America - and OUR children - finely sighted in their rifle scopes.
For the life of me, I just can't see the logic in that. We're under attack from all sides; we're under the threat of attack from all sides; but half the country wants to split hairs on who is a legitimate target and who is not.
Are the ones out to get us splitting hairs on which element of American children they want to kill?
Monday, September 25, 2006
Is that so???
So often I hear about the political differences in our society. "We're so bi-polar", I hear a great deal. "We can't agree on anything", is another.
Of course we can't. Our differences are not political, they're philosophical. And philosophies are nearly impossible to change, especially if the opposite side offers nothing in terms of an alternative.
Let's start with something small, a friggin' movie. A TV movie came out a few weeks ago called, "The Path to 9/11". Hotly debated before it even hit the screen, this movie was derived from thousands of hours of research of the 9/11 commission's findings, as well as direct testimony and interviews. But lo and behold, anyone I've talked to who is against the current administration won't even discuss the movie. Apparently President Clinton said almost everything preceding January 2001 was a fabrication or someone's interpretation of the facts. Interestingly, the conservative right fought the 9/11 Commission from the beginning, and there was no doubt Democrat's were tickled to death with the commission's findings - until this movie did what most people did not do...show people what they found in a format that wasn't 19,000 pages of bureaucratic-speak.
Okay. He's (President Clinton) not only entitled to his opinion, he may actually be correct. But...
I'm not here to debate the movie. I don't even care about the movie. I'm here to make the point that our country is not bi-polar politically - we're bi-polar philosophically, and we are so by choice.
I am no more interested in hearing someone say that President Clinton never had a legitimate shot at taking out Osama Bin Laden, than a liberal is interested in hearing that Bin Laden fostered, built, and began deployment of his army during the 8 years President Clinton was in office. Conservative talk radio doesn't want to hear a liberal call in and make sense, and liberal newspapers like the Sentinel News Brand don't want letters to the editor with a conservative slant. And on and on. I don't believe in your shit, and you're under no obligation to believe in mine. That's the way it is.
We will not pull together; we will not band as one; and we will not speak with one voice. Our country is too large, too diverse, and both teams in the extreme left and right wars have perverted the freedoms of speech, liberties, and the right to pursue happiness that our forefathers so thoughtfully and carefully constructed. Just click on "Next Blog" and just keep clicking until you find some armchair conspiracy theorist, and in particular - arm chair physicist - who will tell you all about controlled demolitions and the fall of the towers. That'll provide enough information on the type of people I will never associate with or even give one second of my time to. And when you find out the guy with the 200-blog website on 9-11 conspiracy is actually the third-shift assistant manager at a Des Moines Burger King, and that he also possesses the largest collection of Star Trek and Dungeons and Dragons memorabilia in the country, don't say I didn't tell you so ahead of time.
Drawn are the battle lines, and verbal disagreement is our weapon of choice (except for the guy above, who would prefer "phasers on stun"). We use phrases like "religious right" and "left wingers" with such vitriol and voracity, they've become the rallying cries for millions on either side. If gay marriage is opposed publicly, liberal America accuses conservatives with muddying the "real" issues, oblivious to the fact that gay marriage agenda's are the exclusive property of liberals and are being pushed as we speak. If the left asks questions about Haliburton or wonders about the status of Iraq, the far right accuses them of a lack of patriotism. Both sides accuse the other of insensitivity, and both are correct. There are some out there that are so blind with their hatred, the mere mention of the word "Bush" sends them into a frenzy. Now, I myself could do without the Martin Sheen's and the Rosie's of our world, but I've never hated anyone who is willing to do public service for our nation, regardless of whether or not I liked them. Did you hear me? I don't hate anyone willing to do public service.
If YOU DO, then maybe you should drag your narrow-minded ass down to city hall and register to do it yourself. And that goes for you too, gay marriage bashers, bible-thumpers, and unflinching hard-asses. You too need a swift kick into next month as well.
In any case, we're not coming together, so forget about it. We need to figure out how to make it work like it is, with all the disparity. And we can start by forever eliminating the phrase, "In a perfect world", cuz there ain't no such thing, homeboy.
Oh, and somebody tell the conspiracy theory guy to go to the store and buy some shampoo.
Of course we can't. Our differences are not political, they're philosophical. And philosophies are nearly impossible to change, especially if the opposite side offers nothing in terms of an alternative.
Let's start with something small, a friggin' movie. A TV movie came out a few weeks ago called, "The Path to 9/11". Hotly debated before it even hit the screen, this movie was derived from thousands of hours of research of the 9/11 commission's findings, as well as direct testimony and interviews. But lo and behold, anyone I've talked to who is against the current administration won't even discuss the movie. Apparently President Clinton said almost everything preceding January 2001 was a fabrication or someone's interpretation of the facts. Interestingly, the conservative right fought the 9/11 Commission from the beginning, and there was no doubt Democrat's were tickled to death with the commission's findings - until this movie did what most people did not do...show people what they found in a format that wasn't 19,000 pages of bureaucratic-speak.
Okay. He's (President Clinton) not only entitled to his opinion, he may actually be correct. But...
I'm not here to debate the movie. I don't even care about the movie. I'm here to make the point that our country is not bi-polar politically - we're bi-polar philosophically, and we are so by choice.
I am no more interested in hearing someone say that President Clinton never had a legitimate shot at taking out Osama Bin Laden, than a liberal is interested in hearing that Bin Laden fostered, built, and began deployment of his army during the 8 years President Clinton was in office. Conservative talk radio doesn't want to hear a liberal call in and make sense, and liberal newspapers like the Sentinel News Brand don't want letters to the editor with a conservative slant. And on and on. I don't believe in your shit, and you're under no obligation to believe in mine. That's the way it is.
We will not pull together; we will not band as one; and we will not speak with one voice. Our country is too large, too diverse, and both teams in the extreme left and right wars have perverted the freedoms of speech, liberties, and the right to pursue happiness that our forefathers so thoughtfully and carefully constructed. Just click on "Next Blog" and just keep clicking until you find some armchair conspiracy theorist, and in particular - arm chair physicist - who will tell you all about controlled demolitions and the fall of the towers. That'll provide enough information on the type of people I will never associate with or even give one second of my time to. And when you find out the guy with the 200-blog website on 9-11 conspiracy is actually the third-shift assistant manager at a Des Moines Burger King, and that he also possesses the largest collection of Star Trek and Dungeons and Dragons memorabilia in the country, don't say I didn't tell you so ahead of time.
Drawn are the battle lines, and verbal disagreement is our weapon of choice (except for the guy above, who would prefer "phasers on stun"). We use phrases like "religious right" and "left wingers" with such vitriol and voracity, they've become the rallying cries for millions on either side. If gay marriage is opposed publicly, liberal America accuses conservatives with muddying the "real" issues, oblivious to the fact that gay marriage agenda's are the exclusive property of liberals and are being pushed as we speak. If the left asks questions about Haliburton or wonders about the status of Iraq, the far right accuses them of a lack of patriotism. Both sides accuse the other of insensitivity, and both are correct. There are some out there that are so blind with their hatred, the mere mention of the word "Bush" sends them into a frenzy. Now, I myself could do without the Martin Sheen's and the Rosie's of our world, but I've never hated anyone who is willing to do public service for our nation, regardless of whether or not I liked them. Did you hear me? I don't hate anyone willing to do public service.
If YOU DO, then maybe you should drag your narrow-minded ass down to city hall and register to do it yourself. And that goes for you too, gay marriage bashers, bible-thumpers, and unflinching hard-asses. You too need a swift kick into next month as well.
In any case, we're not coming together, so forget about it. We need to figure out how to make it work like it is, with all the disparity. And we can start by forever eliminating the phrase, "In a perfect world", cuz there ain't no such thing, homeboy.
Oh, and somebody tell the conspiracy theory guy to go to the store and buy some shampoo.
Friday, September 22, 2006
No, no...you got it wrong again
Armitage denies threatening Pakistan after 9/11
Former deputy secretary of state clarifies exchange with Musharraf
Richard Armitage denies threatening Pakistan with "bombing them back into the stoneage". MSNBC has confirmed that the list of "stan" countries we want to bomb into the stoneage does not include Pakistan.
The then Deputy Secretary clearly said we wanted to make a solid glass museum out of Uzbekistan, Turkmeninstan, Seanpennistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Sheehanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Saranistan, Tajikistan, and Belefontistan.
Not Pakistan.
Former deputy secretary of state clarifies exchange with Musharraf
Richard Armitage denies threatening Pakistan with "bombing them back into the stoneage". MSNBC has confirmed that the list of "stan" countries we want to bomb into the stoneage does not include Pakistan.
The then Deputy Secretary clearly said we wanted to make a solid glass museum out of Uzbekistan, Turkmeninstan, Seanpennistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Sheehanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Saranistan, Tajikistan, and Belefontistan.
Not Pakistan.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States....
What would it be like,how would it be?
If we all spoke like the Snoop,
Snoop Dogg Dee Oh Double Gee.
Would our culture rise,
or would it fizzle?
If every sentence
ended in fagizzle?
And what of the Doctor,
the one called Seus?
Would heezle beezle the neezle,
if let out on the loose?
With the song playing proudly,
Prez Snoop would declare loudly:
Weezle have to raizle the tax-o-pizzle,
to be able to snizzle wif da mizzles.
He's our man, the keeper of the plan.
Our Commander in Chief.
I just can't understand the guy,
when his bizzle meets da beef.
Peace - out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)