OK, I am going to start expecting y'all to weigh in on my posts, so that we can have a good argument. I'm sure that we have both sides of every fence that reads mine (and if not, I know 3 people that can always argue opposite of anything). I am purposefully NOT stating anything on the "other side" so as to make a valid argument.
Here goes.
In New York, there is a building, 1 block from Ground Zero, that Muslims want to turn in to a mosque. There are several people who do NOT want this to happen. They are right. It is too close to Ground Zero and is an insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11.
Those that want to construct this mosque have no sense of propriety. This seems almost like an invasion: Islam attacks and destroys our buildings, replacing them with their own. Now, I am sure this is not the case, but the implications are too close to that appearance. Can't the Muslims see this? Don't they realize how the families of the victims must feel?
I know that it is from a different faction of Islam (which brings to mind other arguments not mentioned here) that attacked us and that the claim is that Islam is a peaceful religion, but past events and actions indicate an opposition that this claim. Now, it seems they want a mosque to celebrate their victory. Can't they choose a different location for their religious site? They claim it's not a religious site, it's an "education" site. Yeah, right. A Christian education center promotes Christianity, we all know this. No religion builds an education center that's NOT designed to promote and teach about their religion.
It seems to me that after the victims' families complained about the mosque, they would have had enough empathy to say "OK, maybe we are putting it too close. But all they can say is "We need it here because . . ." Why? Why is it so vital that they can't put it someplace else? How many Muslims are living that close to Ground Zero that they need it there? Many people travel a long distance to get to church and even longer to get to (place religion here) learning centers. Just pick a different place. This isn't religious persecution, it's emotional. It's more of a "We don't want you rubbing our noses in it." Whether it is intended or not, that is the way it seems.
So, in conclusion, I feel that the Islam learning center should not be built where it is proposed, not matter what the President says (which adds to the claims that he is secretly a Muslim).
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nich verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Democratic Society vs State.
OK, here's a tricky topic for discussion. In California (again) they are fighting over the gay-marriage thing. Now here's the problem I see and it's becoming an argument topic in my house. It's the fact that the courts can overrule a lawfully elected piece of legislation.
On the one hand: (My argument) This country was founded on the principle (as everyone knows) of rule of the people, by the people and for the people. Since it came from a time in Europe when the common man had no say in the laws and stipends in the country they were living in, Our for-fathers decided that the people could and should help to decide what was best for behaviour. This, of course, created the democratic republic that we now . . . enjoy?
On the other hand: (My wife's argument) This rule of the people at the time was for white, landowners only. A court over ruled that decision giving first, all white men, then black men and then women the right to vote. The court (read state) has the right and obligation to decide what is best for the country in situations where personal rights are involved, particularly because of the "majority rules" situation.
By the first rule, majority decides which is proper. In the California case, the majority decided that gay-marriage is not to be. The majority of the population, in a legally held ballot, decided this. Another case is the situation in New York City concerning the construction of a mosque near ground zero: The majority says NO.
By the second case, because the majority voted negative (in both issues) the personal freedoms of those who believe in the affirmative are being neglected. That, because they are a minority, they have no chance of getting their decisions through and this is Constitutionally unfair.
OK, My argument (I'm sure Loretta will weigh in) is that by letting the courts decide what is legal or not, we are putting the power in the government into the hands of the state. In an admittedly slippery slope situation, this COULD set the precedent for the state to take over, nudging the common man out, leading to a dictatorial state. Some high mucky-muck (like an elected president) could get it into his head and start to dictate what we are to do, say, or even think. OK, not what to think. But the POTENTIAL is there, if we decide to let the state overrule the wants and needs of the majority. We could also have some minority group, such as the KKK, use the precedents (that are already out there, by-the-bye) to get the courts (a minority themselves that have been known to be controlled) to pass certain . . . resolutions, to protect THEIR interests. This latter example is not such a slippery slope as the former.
IF we are to allow the courts to overrule the decisions of the majority, then what is the purpose of having a democratic society. The minority can now begin to rule, pleading rights violations. If that is the case, there is no longer any need to put anything up to a vote. We might as well have our judges decide who joins them on the bench, what laws are what, and who leads this nation.
Time to weigh in, folks.
On the one hand: (My argument) This country was founded on the principle (as everyone knows) of rule of the people, by the people and for the people. Since it came from a time in Europe when the common man had no say in the laws and stipends in the country they were living in, Our for-fathers decided that the people could and should help to decide what was best for behaviour. This, of course, created the democratic republic that we now . . . enjoy?
On the other hand: (My wife's argument) This rule of the people at the time was for white, landowners only. A court over ruled that decision giving first, all white men, then black men and then women the right to vote. The court (read state) has the right and obligation to decide what is best for the country in situations where personal rights are involved, particularly because of the "majority rules" situation.
By the first rule, majority decides which is proper. In the California case, the majority decided that gay-marriage is not to be. The majority of the population, in a legally held ballot, decided this. Another case is the situation in New York City concerning the construction of a mosque near ground zero: The majority says NO.
By the second case, because the majority voted negative (in both issues) the personal freedoms of those who believe in the affirmative are being neglected. That, because they are a minority, they have no chance of getting their decisions through and this is Constitutionally unfair.
OK, My argument (I'm sure Loretta will weigh in) is that by letting the courts decide what is legal or not, we are putting the power in the government into the hands of the state. In an admittedly slippery slope situation, this COULD set the precedent for the state to take over, nudging the common man out, leading to a dictatorial state. Some high mucky-muck (like an elected president) could get it into his head and start to dictate what we are to do, say, or even think. OK, not what to think. But the POTENTIAL is there, if we decide to let the state overrule the wants and needs of the majority. We could also have some minority group, such as the KKK, use the precedents (that are already out there, by-the-bye) to get the courts (a minority themselves that have been known to be controlled) to pass certain . . . resolutions, to protect THEIR interests. This latter example is not such a slippery slope as the former.
IF we are to allow the courts to overrule the decisions of the majority, then what is the purpose of having a democratic society. The minority can now begin to rule, pleading rights violations. If that is the case, there is no longer any need to put anything up to a vote. We might as well have our judges decide who joins them on the bench, what laws are what, and who leads this nation.
Time to weigh in, folks.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Preposterous Police Pursuits Pose Peculiar Problems
While watching the news today, I saw yet another California police chase, LA of course.
I think that the best way to plan a bank job in CA is to have someone whose only job is to get the police to chase them. If they keep it going more than 5 minutes (and they don't even have to go that fast, they will have half the police force after them, leaving the bank unattended. This is because California has no problem squandering their resources. Yet they dare to call the rest of the US wastrels.
In this particular chase, a pickup was being chased, at high speed, down I10. In the end I counted 3 choppers and 24+ cars. WHAT!!!! The pickup had a flat tire and eventually stopped. Then started again. Then stopped, the driver got out and backed halfway to the police. The walked (I mean casually walked) back to the pickup, got in and started off again. Apparently 24+ police officers cannot keep 1 man from getting into a damaged car.
I get disgusted whenever I see these chases and am reminded, once again, why I will not live in CA. The CA police are so deficient in their jobs that they need 4 times the normal amount of people to do any particular job. I cannot understand why they could not pull some units in FRONT of the car and block it from continuing on. These officers should be ashamed of themselves.
Then again, it IS California. This is the state that has seen some of the some of most ridiculous things ever. The movies as example. one out of every 20 are good. Not a good sign of intelligence. Then there's the OJ trial. I hold that OJ isn't guilty because he was not proven so, that goes with the rules. But the prosecution SHOULD have been able to prove his guilt, except the fact that they are too inept.
Now, I know that it is probably like this because its "what the people want," but that is the stupid, "activist" people. The ones who try to change the US into a "kinder, gentler nation." Instead, we're changing it to a weaker, dumber nation.
So, I don't want to see any more police chases in LA, unless it's in a movie, where the cops are all gung-ho shoot-em-up, take-no-prisoner cops that actually get things done. The cops in the movies are more effective than the real cops in the very city the movies are filmed, go figure.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
I think that the best way to plan a bank job in CA is to have someone whose only job is to get the police to chase them. If they keep it going more than 5 minutes (and they don't even have to go that fast, they will have half the police force after them, leaving the bank unattended. This is because California has no problem squandering their resources. Yet they dare to call the rest of the US wastrels.
In this particular chase, a pickup was being chased, at high speed, down I10. In the end I counted 3 choppers and 24+ cars. WHAT!!!! The pickup had a flat tire and eventually stopped. Then started again. Then stopped, the driver got out and backed halfway to the police. The walked (I mean casually walked) back to the pickup, got in and started off again. Apparently 24+ police officers cannot keep 1 man from getting into a damaged car.
I get disgusted whenever I see these chases and am reminded, once again, why I will not live in CA. The CA police are so deficient in their jobs that they need 4 times the normal amount of people to do any particular job. I cannot understand why they could not pull some units in FRONT of the car and block it from continuing on. These officers should be ashamed of themselves.
Then again, it IS California. This is the state that has seen some of the some of most ridiculous things ever. The movies as example. one out of every 20 are good. Not a good sign of intelligence. Then there's the OJ trial. I hold that OJ isn't guilty because he was not proven so, that goes with the rules. But the prosecution SHOULD have been able to prove his guilt, except the fact that they are too inept.
Now, I know that it is probably like this because its "what the people want," but that is the stupid, "activist" people. The ones who try to change the US into a "kinder, gentler nation." Instead, we're changing it to a weaker, dumber nation.
So, I don't want to see any more police chases in LA, unless it's in a movie, where the cops are all gung-ho shoot-em-up, take-no-prisoner cops that actually get things done. The cops in the movies are more effective than the real cops in the very city the movies are filmed, go figure.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Crazy Crickets Crawl Creepily
OK, check it. I know I'm a grown man and should just suck it up, but I hate crickets. In my home, I kill or release all the bugs necessary into the wild, except crickets. I don't like them. I don't like looking at them, thinking about them, or eating them when they're covered in chocolate (yes, even in chocolate), I DON'T LIKE CRICKETS.
It started when I was young and staying at my sisters. My brother Ken and I were in a bedroom that was converted from a garage and there was a 1 inch gap between the floor and the door. Then one night, as we're getting ready for bed, thousands of crickets came pouring through the crack. It was like a horror movie come to life. The crickets were swarming and we were right in their way.
Yes, that is the nature of crickets and they are, relatively, harmless. Crickets are said to bring good luck and their chirping, to most people, is soothing. I don't mind the chirping, except when I'm trying to get to sleep and there are so many it sounds like the are hooked up to a 5 GW amp and pumped straight into my brain, HHREEK HHREEK HREEK. Other than that, when they are outside in their natural element, fine.
But let's face it, crickets in the house are just creepy. They crawl through the drain and pop up in your tub, sink and even toilet (I swear). And they jump, I mean they JUMP. You never know when a cricket is going to lift his massively mutant legs, press them against the floor and jump straight into your mouth. I know that when I die, it's going to be because a mutant Kentucky cricket (and those in Kentucky are mutant, more of this later) is going to jump into my mouth while I'm asleep and strangle me.
Even my cats don't like crickets. At first, the youngest one played with them. It was funny (and comforting knowing the little bug was gonna die) watching her chase, catch, lose, chase rinse and repeat the cricket, but today, there was a cricket in the tub, I put her there and another cricket assaulted her. She ran. I mean, this 7 pound pile of fluffy feline jumped and ran from a 1 oz. cricket. SEE!?! Even she knew that crickets are creepy. AND they were waiting in ambush.
Now, there are lots of types of crickets. There are the cute little things you see on TV that they have in California (it was California crickets when I was young, see above) but there you only see them like, one at at time because they're too creepy in a group. Then there's the eastern cricket (lighter color and overall smaller).
Then there's the Mutant Kentucky Cricket. These things are just freaky. Not only are they smart, they hide and wait until your poor cat or dog goes wandering by and then they attack him like some inner city street gang ("OK, here come da cat, you and legs jump from the left and me and legs [all crickets are known as Legs] gonna jump from the right") but they figure out how to get into your house/apartment when you have bug protection up. They also know just where to be to hit you with the ultimate psychological effect, maybe they're on the ceiling for when you yawn, etc. I think they learn this from cockroaches. They are also built differently from other chrickets. They have these HUGOGIANTAMOUNGOUS rear legs so they can jump across the holler. They probably developed this as a form of selective breeding by the Hatfields to get the McCoys in their sleep (see above) or something.
Also, crickets walk weird. They have this walk that's like left front foot, right front foot, left middle foot, right middle foot kick kick. What are they, in a dance routine? I mean, couldn't God have thought of a better way for them to get around?
In conclusion, I may have made some allusions to this, but I don't like crickets. I'm moving to Arizona, where the worst I have to deal with is scorpions in my shoes.
Ta
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
It started when I was young and staying at my sisters. My brother Ken and I were in a bedroom that was converted from a garage and there was a 1 inch gap between the floor and the door. Then one night, as we're getting ready for bed, thousands of crickets came pouring through the crack. It was like a horror movie come to life. The crickets were swarming and we were right in their way.
Yes, that is the nature of crickets and they are, relatively, harmless. Crickets are said to bring good luck and their chirping, to most people, is soothing. I don't mind the chirping, except when I'm trying to get to sleep and there are so many it sounds like the are hooked up to a 5 GW amp and pumped straight into my brain, HHREEK HHREEK HREEK. Other than that, when they are outside in their natural element, fine.
But let's face it, crickets in the house are just creepy. They crawl through the drain and pop up in your tub, sink and even toilet (I swear). And they jump, I mean they JUMP. You never know when a cricket is going to lift his massively mutant legs, press them against the floor and jump straight into your mouth. I know that when I die, it's going to be because a mutant Kentucky cricket (and those in Kentucky are mutant, more of this later) is going to jump into my mouth while I'm asleep and strangle me.
Even my cats don't like crickets. At first, the youngest one played with them. It was funny (and comforting knowing the little bug was gonna die) watching her chase, catch, lose, chase rinse and repeat the cricket, but today, there was a cricket in the tub, I put her there and another cricket assaulted her. She ran. I mean, this 7 pound pile of fluffy feline jumped and ran from a 1 oz. cricket. SEE!?! Even she knew that crickets are creepy. AND they were waiting in ambush.
Now, there are lots of types of crickets. There are the cute little things you see on TV that they have in California (it was California crickets when I was young, see above) but there you only see them like, one at at time because they're too creepy in a group. Then there's the eastern cricket (lighter color and overall smaller).
Then there's the Mutant Kentucky Cricket. These things are just freaky. Not only are they smart, they hide and wait until your poor cat or dog goes wandering by and then they attack him like some inner city street gang ("OK, here come da cat, you and legs jump from the left and me and legs [all crickets are known as Legs] gonna jump from the right") but they figure out how to get into your house/apartment when you have bug protection up. They also know just where to be to hit you with the ultimate psychological effect, maybe they're on the ceiling for when you yawn, etc. I think they learn this from cockroaches. They are also built differently from other chrickets. They have these HUGOGIANTAMOUNGOUS rear legs so they can jump across the holler. They probably developed this as a form of selective breeding by the Hatfields to get the McCoys in their sleep (see above) or something.
Also, crickets walk weird. They have this walk that's like left front foot, right front foot, left middle foot, right middle foot kick kick. What are they, in a dance routine? I mean, couldn't God have thought of a better way for them to get around?
In conclusion, I may have made some allusions to this, but I don't like crickets. I'm moving to Arizona, where the worst I have to deal with is scorpions in my shoes.
Ta
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
