Sahara Sucks

I had a chance to see the movie Sahara. Don’t waste your time. It had a great idea (it was based on a Clive Cussler novel), but the acting was way too cutesy, and the action was way over the top.

Please understand, I like fictional movies. I thought National Treasure (similar film) was cool. I was also ready for some things to be a little weird walking in to that movie. The things that happened in the Sahara movie were not as far fetched as National Treasure. The action scenes were just dopey. It was like watching an episode of the A-Team where Hannibal and Face spray a bunch of bullets and kill no one. Then a bad guy truck flies up in the air when Murdock shoots it with a shotgun. Ugh!

There’s one point in Sahara when they’re speeding along in a speed boat in a river as a big jeep with a big mounted gun (50 caliber maybe?) is shooting at them. A few bullets hit the boat here and there, but none stop the boat engine or hit any of the three guys on the boat. Why would it, they ducked about 3 inches lower than if they were standing straight up. Anyway, the hero (Matthew McConehey or however you spell it) tosses a flare gun to this other guy, who is a geeky scientist. He yells, "Shoot the Jeep with the flare gun". Suddenly, the geeky scientist becomes a flare gun marksman and shoots the flare right into the jeep and blows it up! Whatever!!!!

Little Addendum to Back peddling

What did I tell you? Check out this article. Watch Pelosi backpedal, mates.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050421-115645-8030r.htm

-RF

Back Pedaling and Wimping Out

I had this one boss who it was easy to freak out. He would know what was correct to do in a situation, and then totally backpedal his way out when the going got tough. It seems like a lot of people are doing that these days.

Arnold: The Governator recently said we should “close the borders” and control who comes in to the country. Well, the Austrian said “close” instead of “secure”, which the liberal intelligencer infer means he said he wants to stop all immigration. Instead of calling the liberals morons and laughing at them, he quickly backpedals and apologizes. Yikes. Get a little backbone and call them retarded.

RINOs: The Republicans In Name Only crowd is starting to back away from a real tough prick in the House, Tom DeLay. Yes, he’s an A-Hole. We need an A-Hole to get the $h!t out, don’t we? So this guy plays tough with people and pushes a successful agenda in congress. Well, we can’t have that! Progress in congress?!?! So the Dems explain how he paid his wife and daughter $500k through a PAC (Political Action Committee, dumb-ass) to work on his campaigns. He also flew to different places with special interest people on their dime. What does that mean?

Well, it means he did things that if you look at logically, were just fine. Over 5 years he paid his wife and daughter $500k. That means, if they both earned the same amount, they each made $50k a year. Wow, they are in the money! Yikes…I would not work full time (probably 80 hours a week knowing how those campaigns go) for a crappy wage like that. They are both college graduates (Masters) for crying out loud. They could easily make more, but they’re helping out the family.

What about those trips? Well, when someone wants to bring a situation to your attention about AIDS in Africa or inner city decay in Detroit and you are not from that area but represent a large legislative team, these interest groups will pay for your flight and stay in the area to ensure you can get there and see what’s going on. And what happens if his trip results in a better piece of legislation, or even helps a group of people that need it?

BTW: Not that this is an excuse, but both are common practices in the House. Ask Nancy Pelosi if she ever did either and see what the reaction is.

Cafeteria Catholics: So I’m watching the Cable News Shows and this one clown is concerned about the picking of the new Pope, Benedict XVI (or PBXVI for sake of brevity and cool abbreviation-ness). This guy whines that PBXVI will not like priests getting married of female priests or gay marriage or anal sex or abortion. The whiner continues by saying that the church needs to change to keep up with the times.

What?

Hey, dumb-ass, this isn’t a TV show or a novel, it’s a religion. There are two parts to Catholicism: Bible rules and doctrine. When Bible says you are not supposed to lay with other men and have relations as you would with a wife, then YOU DON’T. It is unacceptable, and considered a sin. Murder is also a sin, according to the Bible and the fifth commandment. That extends to euthanasia and abortion. Write me back if you want to lose that debate. I won’t dwell on it now.

Now, I have sinned. What I do is think it over, realize I was wrong, and I ask for forgiveness. I also never do it again, or try hard not to do it again. Can we say the same for those who abort a child or commit sodomy with someone of the same sex? I hope so, but sometimes these are habits and we do not want to embrace our mistakes and do something about them.

Doctrine, on the other hand, can change. Maybe it will, and married men will become priests. There are already two exceptions to the rule now. First, if you are a married Protestant Priest and you convert to Catholicism, you can continue to be a priest and stay married. Also, if you are a widower, you can become a priest. Maybe women can too someday with a change of doctrine. But the real issues aren’t with doctrine. There with the Church not bending in the wind about gays and loose sex and the aftermath sins of depression, suicide, abortion, drug abuse, etc.

Cafeteria Catholics like to go to the moral buffet and pick what they want to believe. That’s not the deal in Catholicism. You’re either in for every course or you don’t get dessert.

I know one guy who said to me “Yep. I’m Catholic. But I think abortion is all right. And I do not believe I have to do what the Pope says regarding moral issues.”

I responded “Well, if you don’t believe in those things, how can you claim to be Catholic? There is no Catholic Light. There is no Catholic democracy. These are things that are wrong and you must do your best to stop, through deeds and advice to friends.”

“You can’t tell me I cannot be Catholic.”

“I didn’t. I said you are not Catholic if you believe abortion is fine and you do not have to listen to Papal Edicts. You can call yourself ‘Catholic’. Hell, I can call myself ‘King’. That doesn’t mean I am. That doesn’t mean you are Catholic, either. Perhaps a discussion with your priest in a confessional would help, slick.”

“How dare you judge me!”

“Well, I dare because I know what I’m talking about and you are lacking. You should be judged and I can do that since I know what I’m talking about. You are not a practicing Catholic. You are a guy who sits in the aisles and eats a wafer every Sunday, but does not embrace the grace of God through his sacrifice. He calls to you to sacrifice and structure yourself according to teachings. You refuse. That wafer is only a wafer, not the Eucharist, not the covenant between you and God.”

The guy walks away.


Oh well…can’t win them all over.

I can, however, judge the morally weak and the wimpy and the back pedaling bastards that betray their original intent because things get uncomfortable. The right way is seldom the easy way. Stop being a wimp and try being something more!

Minute Men…but not like that….

I would not want to be called a “Minute Man”. I would be mocked for some perceived quickness with my Mrs. People would point their finger at me and laugh, not because of my funny three cornered hat either. I guess Paul Revere didn’t worry about ridicule with a label like that. I guess they just didn’t talk about that stuff in public. The media had other things to communicate. Thomas Payne had other things on his mind I suppose.

So I was reading about some guys who are “patrolling” the border with Mexico.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050405/ap_on_re_us/border_volunteers_5

Wow! I thought we paid taxes to have the federal government do that….

So GW implies they are “vigilantes”. The Mexican military are on their side readying their troops for “action”. Homeland Security sent another 2000 troops to watch the Minute Men, who watch the boarder and illegal immigrants that cross the border.

What does all this mean?

Everything goes back to slavery if you reason it out.

We want cheap labor in the USA. That’s no crime.

Before, we held people against their will and forced them to pick our stuff. That was no crime…until we amended the Constitution.

Before, we raided orphanages and poor children would work 16 hours a day with minimal breaks, wages, safety concerns. That was no crime…until child labor laws came about.

Before, we used women in industrial mills and other tedious jobs and paid them less then men. They weren’t heads of households, and didn’t need as much money as men, right? That was no crime…until we made it illegal.

Now, low and behold, we have found the perfect angle. Let’s get Mexicans to pick our stuff! I love my fruits and veggies cheap! We do not need to pay these Mexicans minimum wage, since they are here illegally. They do not get benefits, etc. They really aren’t Americans…they’re different. We do not have to worry about their safety, their equitable pay, their health or their future. They should be glad we allow them to pick our elitist yummies!

Sounding familiar? The illegal immigrant is this century’s slave.

Vicente Fox (the President of Mexico, dumb-ass) doesn’t care. Illegal Immigrant money that is sent back to Mexico is the #2 contributor to the Mexican economy. Even if his people are treated as second class and slaves, he still gets his big cut.

GW doesn’t care. All those Border States need their stuff picked! And we also love the cheap construction costs, housekeeping, etc. All those industries would have to raise their pay if illegal immigrants went away. Hell, they may have to treat the people doing these jobs with respect! Not in my country, damn it!

I remember Cruz Bustamante, the Lt. Governor of California speak to the illegal immigrant question. He called them “undocumented workers”. This of course, is an attempt to manipulate the problem by changing the label. That is just atypical propaganda.

Cruz asked, “Who will pick our crops? Who will do our manual labor?”

FUCK YOU!

Do you wonder what Jefferson Davis said when the issue of the abolition of slavery came up? I bet it sounded like this.

“Who will pick our crops? Who will do our manual labor?”

Answer: Somebody will, or nobody will, or smart inventors will figure a way to do it.

How do we still get our cotton picked and cleaned and spun and made into the clothes you have on right now (at least I hope you have clothes on, you sick freaks!)? We no longer have slaves doing it. How does it get done?

Holding on to the slavery of illegal immigration hurts us in many ways. Please consider each I offer.

1) We treat an entire group of people as less than human. Don’t give me this voluntary garbage, either. We established a minimum wage, a retirement and insurance safety net, a medical assistance plan, OSHA, DOL, and the other alphabet soups to ensure all men (in the gender neutral sense) were treated fairly and equally. This does not happen when illegal immigrants fall under the radar. They are slaves, and don’t mince words.
2) Emergency systems such as hospitals and other government sponsored systems like schools get short changed when tax dollars from legal workers and allocations from government programs do not recognize illegal immigrants’ existence. All our services drop in quality when an unknown drain occurs.
3) We subjugate a group of people, and in the end get something for nothing (or less in this case). Where then is the motivation to invent a new more efficient system if we already do well in the present state? Look at cars. We’re doing just fine right now with internal combustion engines. Why don’t we have alternative fuel cars right now? NO, big business isn’t stopping it. Our demand (more over our lack of demand) stops it in its tracks. It’s the same with a different and fairer way to pick crops. Things are so cheap now, why change?
4) Mexico needs to either become more self sufficient as a nation or its people need to overthrow their current system and change. As an example, why is Castro still in charge of Cuba? It is not because he’s doing such a swell job. They live poorly. They have medical problems. They drive around in ancient cars and rely on 1950s and 60s technology to get by. I submit to you the real reason is America’s immigration policy with Cuba. Any Cuban that can make it to our shores can automatically stay. So, instead of disgruntled Cubans staying in Cuba and getting pissed off and knocking Castro out of the picture, they come to Florida. What if Mexicans stayed in Mexico and had to fend for themselves? Do you think the corrupt system presently in place would exist for very long? It doesn’t take Che Guevara to figure out the Mexican people are being cheated by the Fat Cats and that changes are necessary to assure Mexico’s future.

So a bunch of pot bellied guys in their forties sit in lawn chairs near the Arizona/Mexico border and call the cops when people try crossing over. OK. If anything, they serve as a symbol to make us think, even if it is for just a minute.

Yes, the people cross over for a better life. Yes, they try to escape corruption and poverty. I await them with open arms, right after they register legally and gain the rights every other worker in the USA has. I do not want the slave trade that has been sneaking over my border anymore.

Shadows of Life

I was reading Pat Buchanon's latest online and I liked this quote he mentioned from Hubert Humphrey. For those of you who do not know, Humphrey was a Senator from Minnesota, then a Vice President under LBJ, and always a passionate liberal.

"The moral test of government is how [it] treats those who are in the dawn of life ... those who are in the twilight of life ... and those who are in the shadows of life."

Wow. Would he be considered pro-life, or pro-abortion/euthanasia?

How about this one?

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."
-Joseph Stalin

Since 1973 (after Roe v. Wade), it is estimated that 20 million babies have been killed. Would that be 20 statistics, or such a ridiculous and awful number to think about that we dismiss it. Is that what Stalin meant?

How about an oldy?

"Death is not the worst; rather, in vain
To wish for death, and not to compass it."
-Sophocles

Perhaps he who embraces death, worships it, excuses it, allows it unnecessarily, is worst? Do we worship the words of judges, or judge the words they proclaim? When do we say stop? Do we say stop?

I am getting obsessed with the subject. Tomorrow will be better. It's just that Schiavo died and then the Pope. Who's next, Johnny Cochran?

What? Oh no!

Why the Resistance to Existence?

Ms. Terri is now gone. The Pope was just reported dead as well. There sure is a lot of death these days. I find it a recurring theme in my thoughts and its physical representation (this blog). Please indulge me a little while longer on this subject.

The Schiavo case is such an anomaly in regards to coverage and content. It stopped being about the legal rights of a human in America. It became this ridiculous tug-of-war between the wishes of relatives. That’s not what this should be about. I could give a shit about what Mike Schiavo or the Schindlers or Sean Hannity or Chris Matthews thinks. Fuck them! None of them have a say. Only Ms. Terri does. She could not speak for herself, so a dumb-assed all important judge “rules” off a 6 year old recollection from an old husband who has all but remarried to another woman he has 2 kids with.

What?!?

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Life is the important result, not death or a government's ruling on it!

Thousands of people are in similar physical conditions. Some will live on, and their families will take care of them. Some will die as loved ones unplug them from machines that extend their silent days. Some believe these families have a terrible burden and choice to make. I do not. Sorry, there is no choice. Sorry to get theological on you, but the Higher Power, the Creator makes these calls already. This is true both legally and morally. Let me expound.

“…all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

It’s simple. Our right to life, our life is endowed by our Creator, not a judge or a law. This is true especially in the United States. Our founding fathers made sure that they recognized God as giving out the rights. You and I and Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer do not have the power to make the decision to pull feeding tubes from other people, PERIOD. Our responsibility and duty is to connect those feeding tubes and extend that person’s life. We’re talking about food and water here, team, not an Iron Lung or a dialysis machine. This wasn’t a body being pumped and jolted and manipulated to continue to live. This is about starvation. For crying out loud, we hand out sandwiches to people. Are we saying if the person can no longer chew they deserve to die?

She was alive. Yep, that life looked pretty darn shitty. Yep, we did not know if she recognized her surroundings or family or that she was even alive. That does not matter. We are not entitled to judge the value of life in different stages per the Constitution. Read the Constitution. It is not about what rights people have. It’s about all the things the government better not do unless they want the people to rise up, destroy that government and start again. It keeps the government in line, not the people. Some perceive this government has a “right” to decide whether or not a comatose person should be allowed to live, or to mediate the decision between family members. This is only a recent “right” given to those with an opinion by Judges who “interpret” their opinions from plainly written documents that make no mention of their conclusions. Heck, they can even ignore plainly written laws if they “feel” like it.

What’s the truth now? A husband that does not want the wife to live can have that wife killed, as long as that wife is incapable of saying otherwise.

Compare it to an analogous situation. If your brother is an extremely ugly person that looks miserable because he is so ugly, why can’t you petition the government to save him the pain of living a life you would not wish to live?

Well, because he can speak for himself and say he wants to live.

So, as long as you can represent yourself, you deserve to live, right? That means the weak that cannot represent themselves have no right to live.
-Euthanasia of the comatose is OK since they cannot complain.

Another analogy:
-Abortions are OK since they cannot complain.

This is, in fact, law. An unborn child is a human life…unless a “mother” (I cannot believe I have no other choice but to use the term “mother”) says they are not. An 8 month pregnant woman drives down to the abortion clinic with the intent of destroying that child. She is hit by a drunk driver. The unborn child dies from the accident. That drunk driver can be charged with murder. Scott Peterson is another example. Why was he charged with second degree murder for his unborn son Connor if Lacy could have gone down to Planned Parenthood that day and had little Connor killed?

What’s the truth now? A mother that does not want the child to live can have that child killed, as long as that child is incapable of saying otherwise.

If the mother dislikes that silent life, that human life is not a person.
If the husband dislikes that silent life, that human life is not a person.

Our courts are imperfect. They need to realize this, or they need to go away. They do not have the legal power to rule on these subjects. Life is already the rule. And yet, these courts are all0wed to make these rulings with nothing more than a wimper.

I feel the anger well in my fingers as I type this.

I’m done for now. My fingers hurt from digging deeply into my keyboard.