Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Remember When...

I realize this is a bit late for Memorial Day, but it seems appropriate for any time of year these days.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Do You Really Want to Pick Fruit?

Immigration seems to be the topic of the hour on a lot of blogs so I thought I’d add my two cents. To be honest I have mixed feelings on the subject. I would like to see America secure her borders, mainly because I think it’s an obvious weak point in our national security and I do believe that illegal immigration at its current rate does/will hurt America by overburdening our schools and social systems. Having said that, I do not however understand or agree with the extremely harsh rhetoric I’ve heard from many Americans when it comes to what should be done with the illegal immigrants who are already here.

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard, “we should round them all up, they’re all criminals, and send them back where they came from,” or my favorite, “we should put them all in prison”. Frankly, I think this type of thinking is irrational, not to mention xenophobic. It’s irrational because it’s not in Americas best interest to spend billions of dollars and thousands of manpower hours trying to round up all of the illegals who are out there picking the fruit we eat, cleaning up the messes we make etc. These are the people who are doing the jobs that 99% of Americans don’t/won’t do. Should we round up illegal immigrants who commit crimes; robbery, rape etc., of course, but is it really in our interest to attempt to deport all of the honest, hard working illegals whose only crime is wanting a better life for themselves and their children? Is it in America’s best interest to build thousands more prisons, which would be necessary, to house these “horrendous” criminals?

Did these people commit a crime in coming here, yes, but let me ask you something, if our nation was suddenly dirt poor, there were no jobs and no opportunities, your family was literally starving and the only hope you saw to be able to feed your loved ones was across some invisible border, what would you do? Would you sit on your ass for the next ten years, watching your family suffer while you waited and hoped to cross the border legally or would you cross illegally and work yourself to death picking fruit or moping floors so your kids could eat? Personally, I would break the immigration law in a heartbeat if it was the difference between me and my loved ones starving or surviving and I’d bet my life that the vast majority of Americans, including the ones who want to throw these people in prison for trying to survive, would be right there beside me crawling over that border with hope in their eyes.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Memorial Day

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Cows & Politics Explained!

A CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

A COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

A FASCIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.AN

AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them World-Wide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. They are mad. They die. Pass the shepherd's pie, please.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation declares bankruptcy.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship both of them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported on them.

AN ISRAELI CORPORATION: There are these two Jewish cows, right? They open a milk factory, an ice cream store, and then sell the movie rights. They send their calves to Harvard to become doctors. So, who needs people?

AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION: You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute.

I found this hilarious!

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Our Leaders Have Failed America!

As frustrated as I am with President Bush and his whole retarded administration I’m twice as pissed at the mealy mouthed, cowardly Democrats in Congress. This country, in a sweeping referendum, elected our current Congress for one major purpose to stand up to the President and take the country in a different direction, most pointedly, out of Iraq. Early on Congress seemed to understand this purpose and talked a great game of how they we’re going to, “take a stand”, and not allow the President anymore blank checks to fund his insane war, but as usual with the Democratic party when it came time to truly throw down they threw their hands up instead, cried uncle and decided that it wasn’t worth the risk to their precious political careers to put the people and the country first.

Their defense of their actions is to claim that since they didn’t have the 2/3 majority needed to override another presidential veto of an Iraq bill which stipulated a time line for withdrawal, what could they do but cave and hand over another blank check?! The answer to that should have been self evident, take a page from our glorious leader’s handbook, dig their heels in and refuse to move. Send the exact same Iraq funding bill, (complete with time lines) that the Pres. vetoed the first go around right back to him and let him go on vetoing it over and over until he runs out of money for his precious war! The real problem here isn’t that the Democrats in Congress don’t have the power to change the suicidal course Bush has put this country on, they do, they’re simply too afraid to use it. They're terrified that if they stop funding the war Bush and his cronies will scream, “unpatriotic, doesn’t care about the troops etc” at them and that the American people will be too stupid or ignorant to understand that it would be Bush’s own refusal to compromise which was putting war funding in jeopardy, not the Democrats standing up for what the majority of Americans want, a time frame for withdrawal from Iraq.

I can understand the congressional Democrats fear. God knows, many Americans don’t pay much attention to the details of governing our nation, and are therefore woefully uninformed/under informed and prone to believe whatever the latest headline is. The truth is if the Democrats took a real stand and refused to fund the war without time lines for withdrawal in place, Bush and many Republicans would raise holy hell, would call them unpatriotic etc, and perhaps many clueless Americans would buy into the bullshit criticism and be angry at the Democrats. So are the Democrats political fears valid, yes, but to this I say, So What! No one ever said doing the right/moral thing was easy or without negative consequence to you, in point of fact it never is. Standing up for what you believe to be right and just is hard, it takes courage and in many cases self sacrifice. So yes, the congressional Democrats we’re in an unenviable position, but while it may have been a difficult road to walk it was also a necessary one for the good of the country and I have no sympathy for them in their refusal to do their duty. Many Americans, our military servicemen for example, volunteer to trudge a much harder path and willingly sacrifice their very lives for this nation, while our political leaders throw them and the rest of us to the wolves unwilling to sacrifice so much as an iota of their ambition. In my opinion only one word suitably describes their actions or lack there of; pathetic!

Friday, May 25, 2007

Report: Administration Was Warned of Iraq War Dangers

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report.

Officials familiar with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also say analysts warned against U.S. domination in the region, which could increase extremist recruiting.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report's declassification is not finished. It could be made public as soon as this week.

The committee also found that the warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President. It wasn't clear whether President Bush was briefed.

Asked to comment on Wednesday evening, the White House's National Security Council did not directly respond to the report's findings that intelligence analysts predicted many of the troubles ahead in Iraq before the invasion.

The Bush administration can't even plead ignorance when trying to explain why the hell they choose to invade Iraq and create this never ending quagmire! They have no rational defense for this or any of the completely innane decisions they've made since then. There is good news though, they've finally admitted that there is a civil war in Iraq---whoopdeedo!! It only took what a year and a half, two years of Iraqis killing each other in droves for our esteemed administration to recognize/admit what everybody else with even half a brain has known and been saying throughout the carnage. Of course in fairness, most of us don't live in the President's fantasy world where we believe something's only true if we deign to acknowledge it!

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Name That Animal!

It's been awhile since we played name that animal so I thought I'd give you guys a fairly easy one. Anyone know what this is?

Monday, May 21, 2007

What Brings You Joy?

I’ve noticed in the last few years that much to my dismay I seem to be getting more and more cynical and just plain disgusted by a lot of what goes on in the world. I’d like to believe that my more negative outlook is simply par for the course, a rather unfortunate side effect of aging (I’m 37), and seeing the world in a mature, realistic light. Perhaps that’s true, maybe not, the thing is no matter what the cause I hate it!
I don’t want to think or feel like the world’s going to hell in a handbasket, (one of my Moms favorite expressions-ha) or like lots of people are stupid or hateful or both. I want to believe as I did in my youth, that most people are good and that while there are many problems on this planet that there is hope and things will get better.

The only way I’ve found to combat my negative perspective is to try and pay closer attention and have more appreciation for the small joys life offers. I cannot recapture the optimistic, innocence I’ve lost throughout the years, but I can smile and feel a tiny thrill when the flowers I’ve nurtured so patiently bloom and thrive. I can make more of an effort to spend time with my family and friends and show them I care. I can sit back and lose myself in a great book. I can be more conscious of what I can do to better the world around me and bring whatever small amount of joy I can to others. I can make my dogs happy with a good neck scratching, or a long walk in the sun. It probably sounds stupid to other people, but these are the things I’ve discovered that make the days worthwhile and bring me joy when at times it seems the world is one giant shadow. What brings you joy/happiness?

Friday, May 18, 2007

Any Soldier Inc.

I stumbled upon a great organization that helps support our troops serving in Iraq. It's called Any Soldier Inc. and it provides Americans, or whoever, interested in helping to keep our soldiers morale high with contact info. to send care packages to soldiers, sailors, marines and airman serving in Iraq. If you're interested in learning more and possibly helping out, you can check out the website by scrolling down the right hand side of this webpage and clicking on the Any Soldier Inc. button ad, or you can just type into your address bar. Thanks!

Saturday, May 12, 2007


Tuesday, May 08, 2007

N.J. Considers End To Death Penalty

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- New Jersey lawmakers will consider abolishing the death penalty this week, starting a process that could see the liberal state become the first to scrap capital punishment since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976.
On Thursday, the judiciary committee of the state Senate will consider two bills calling for New Jersey to replace execution with life imprisonment without parole. Capital punishment in the state is already suspended under a moratorium passed by legislators in late 2005.
Sen. Ray Lesniak, a Democrat and sponsor of one of the bills, said he was confident that a combined bill would be passed by the panel and, while its fate in the full Senate was less certain, it was likely that the legislation would become law some time this summer.
Lesniak, a former supporter of the death penalty, said he had changed his mind largely because of the risk of executing an innocent person.
"We have seen so many cases of innocent people being sent to death row, it's just not worth taking the chance," he said.
But Sen. Nicholas Asselta, a Republican who supports the death penalty, argued that DNA testing eliminated the possibility of people being executed in error, and that capital punishment was a valid deterrent for the worst crimes.
"How can you not impose the death penalty on people like Osama bin Laden?" Asselta said.
Asselta predicted the full Senate would vote to abolish the death penalty because it was controlled by Democrats who wouldbe supported by some Republicans.
Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, is opposed to the death penalty, and has said he will sign any such bill after it is approved by the legislature, both of whose houses are controlled by Democrats.
Any decision by New Jersey to scrap its death penalty would likely encourage other U.S. states to take a harder look at the issue at a time when both death sentences and executions are at their lowest levels in a decade, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a group that campaigns for its abolition.
The hearing follows a report from a New Jersey legislative panel in January this year that recommended abolishing the death penalty, partly on grounds that it does not deter the worst crimes and is a greater burden on taxpayers than life without parole.
The New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission also cited increasing evidence that the death penalty was "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency."
New Jersey currently has nine people on death row but has not executed anyone since 1963. Nationwide, 53 people were executed in 2006 in the 38 states that have the death penalty, down from 98 in 1999, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
On May 4, the state of Alabama executed death row inmate Aaron Lee Jones by lethal injection.
His was the 17th execution in the United States this year and the 1,074th since capital punishment was restored in the United States, according to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

I know I'm in the minority in the U.S., but personally I think its about time. It's been obvious for a long time that the death penalty doesn't deter crime and is therefore being used for purely vengeful reasons. It seems to me that if we tell citizens as individuals that it is wrong to seek vengeance in the form of killing then the state should also have to live up to that standard. Especially since so many innocent people, in the last few years, have been found wrongly convicted and waiting on death row. My question for death penalty advocates is this, is one innocent life taken by the state acceptable to them? Because the percentages say that the U.S. has already executed innocent people and if we continue this practice we will surely execute more innocents. The Republican, in this article, arguments for capital punishment are completely innane and illogical, considering one we will not be able to use DNA in every case, because there is not always DNA evidence, and two if Osma Bin Laden were captured he would be tried either by the military or by the federal courts, not by freaking New Jersey.
eXTReMe Tracker