I was really going to just let this one go without comment since I do think it's become a way bigger story than it needs to be.

You can read the whole story here.. To summarize for you, Cynthia McKinney is a member of the House of Representatives and as such is allowed to bypass standard security checkpoints when entering Congressional office buildings....provided she is wearing her Congressional pin. Well, last Friday she was not wearing a pin and was stopped (rightly so, I think) by a Capitol Police Officer while attempting to bypass security. After being called out to, McKinney ignored the officer and continued on her way, at which time the officer grabbed her arm to take her aside and talk to her. Then apparently she hit the officer in the chest with a cell phone, maybe more than once.

So over the weekend McKinney said the officer knew who she was and had let her pass many times before, and was claiming she was stopped due to racial profiling. I really don't know how she could have expected anyone to automatically recognize her, what with the drastic new dew and all, but still...the point is...SHE WAS NOT WEARING HER CONGRESSIONAL PIN. From what I understand it's protocol to stop anyone bypassing security that does not have a pin. McKinney made no apologies.

But then....the incident was taken before a grand jury to determine if charges should be filed against her for assaulting a police officer (with her cell phone). And wonder of wonders....today McKinney made a public statement apologizing for the incident and in support of the Capitol Police. Hey, I saw it live.....if you saw the look on her face you would say (like I do) it was the most fake "sincere apology" I have ever seen. Clearly she thought she had to do this to defray bad press over playing the race card over the weekend - especially given that she got no support on that from anyone in her party.

Although McKinney does not claim this to be the case (racial profiling idea aside) I do think this comes down to a sense of entitlement and privilege that she (and I'm sure many others) feel is their due as they are elected officials in the House. It's the whole "do you know who I am?" mentality.

And then today I caught a segment on one of the news channels where a democratic operative was claiming that the police officer had not done what he should because it was "his job to recognize members of Congress on site" - completely brushing aside the fact that MCKINNEY DID NOT HAVE HER FRIGGIN' CONGRESSIONAL PIN ON!!! Which is part of why I"m writing this.

I just wish for once everyone on both sides would forget about the spin and look at the facts. The officer's required to stop anyone that's not wearing a pin, with force if necessary. I think he was rather gentle with McKinney considering the circumstances. Her whole "he had no right to touch me" reasoning for striking a police officer is total and complete garbage.

I say if she hit the guy for whatever reason, she should be charged with the same crime any average citizen in that line would be charged with under the same circumstances.

And that...is all.

Everyone has an opinion on this, it seems. You didn't ask for mine, but this is my site so I am going to give it to you anyway.

First, we can't deny that there are millions of undocumented people living here that over the years have found a way to enter the country illegally. We MUST find a way to deal with this issue. Simply calling them felons and either jailing them or sending them back to their own countries are not the answers. First, because we simply don't have the means to find everyone, and punishing a few thousand a year just for form seems a bit ridiculous. Second, because we don't have the jail space to house the new felons that would be created by such a law. True, fully 20% of the people caught committing crimes and currently in our prison system are illegal aliens and there is no doubt that there are crimes committed by this "unseen" population, making every illegal alien a felon is not the answer.

Even though...they DID commit a crime and I believe they should be penalized for it.

Okay, so we all know there are issues and now you know I think that making them felons is not the answer. The resource drain that would result would deplete much needed manpower and funds from National Security.

So here's what I think, in a list (I like lists):

1. If illegal aliens honestly are here just to work, let's let them. Work, that is, not continue to come here illegally. However, let's require that they register and get a card saying they're allowed to work here legally. Then, if they can show they are working toward citizenship, learning how to speak, read and write English, are paying their taxes and keeping out of trouble, let's continue to let them work.

Note: Here's why I don't think this will happen even though it should. Business leaders don't want this to happen because they are currently getting hard work out of these people, paying them a very low wage, and they don't have to pay medical or workers comp for this unseen workforce. Shame, really. Because not only would we increase tax revenue from those that make enough to pay them, we would also defray health costs for illegal aliens currently taking advantage of free health care.

2. As these people entered the country illegally, they should be penalized for that. How about making them wait a certain number of years extra to gain their citizenship so they have to get in line behind those who enter the country legally and play by the rules? Seems fair to me. A good middle ground. We don't ruin people's lives by jailing them or deporting them, but we do ensure they are not put before law-abiding green card-carrying citizens.

3. Kids should not be penalized for the decisions made by their parents. I say it's OK to give kids that entered the country illegally with their parents a free education, free school meals, and free medical care. However...this should be given with getting something back....like getting their parents registered, making sure they pay taxes if they can afford them, and ensure they are working toward their citizenship. Also, all non-English speaking kids should be REQUIRED to learn how to read, write and speak the language so we can redirect resources currently being used for bilingual education elsewhere. We are setting these kids up for failure if we don't force the issue and ensure they know the language when they the enter society as an adult.

4. People with expired visas? They need to be found and deported. End of story. If they were legitimate they would have done the proper paperwork to get their visas extended so they could continue their education or work or whatever it is they're doing here. I really don't understand why we don't keep better track of visa-holders. We don't know where many of these people are living or what they're doing, even when the visas are current. Something should really be done about that.

5. A big fence? When has this EVER worked, anywhere? People always find a way around them. A bigger challenge, for sure. But desperate people somehow always find a way overcome these types of challenges if they really want to. Besides, even if we build the fence we can't monitor it. So why waste the money and manpower to build it? Other than for politicians to show they're "doing" something?

So there's my take on what we should do with the illegal aliens, their kids, and people with expired visas who really shouldn't be here.

But this is a highly politicized issue. It is certain that whatever solution they come up with it will not please anybody 100%. However, it's my hope that the solution at least addresses some of the issues and moves us a step further toward a more secure country.

I'm sure you've heard a lot about this story. We all know that France is a socialist state and as such they do try and make sure that the needs of everyone are taken care of - including health care, child care, living expenses...and yes....employment for life. From what I've read and seen on this subject, the current French law allows for an average 35 hour work week, a very generous minimum wage, and many other benefits...including almost insurmountable roadblocks that make it impossible to fire anyone once you've hired them.

Jobs for life....man, that would be sweet wouldn't it? To know that once you have a job, no matter how incompetent you are, your employer can never fire you? Sweet.

Great idea, right? But what has this system brought with it? Unemployment among young people averages nearly double what it is in the U.S. (up to 40% in some areas). Almost too late, the government has seen what free handouts and guaranteed employment for life have brought to society. Business owners are weary of hiring younger workers because they do not have the ability to fire them if they do not work out. They will be stuck with them for life. So rather, they hire older, more experienced workers - leaving the younger workers unemployed and on the dole with nothing better to do than cause trouble. You can read a really good article on this subject here.

The new measures proposed by the French government make sense to me...but then again I don't live in France. Here, we are used to a probationary period after gaining employment; we know that in a sense we have to prove our worth to keep the job. It's expected that you will need to show you can do the work to stay on with the company.

However...if you are French and have been given everything your whole life without ever having to prove yourself and there is no competition....then you react in the ways we've seen recently. Any proposed changes to this free handout system will bring large-scale unrest among those who feel their free ride is being threatened.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. In the mean time, I am glad I live in a society where competition keeps the playing field open to as much success as a person strives to achieve rather than a culture where it is acceptable to skate through life without ever having to contribute anything useful to the job or to society as a whole.

That is all.

that Russia was in bed with Saddam. We've already uncovered bribes to Russia, France and others......now there's proof Russia was actually providing intel on U.S. troop movements and plans during the opening days of the war in March 2003.

...the Russians collected information from sources "inside the American Central Command" and that battlefield intelligence was provided to Saddam through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad.

Lovely. I'm sure we'll uncover similar news on France, China and others who fought so hard against taking action against Saddam based on the resolution they had ALL already agreed to.

And to think there were those who thought and still think we should have continued efforts on the diplomatic front with those dirt bags. Seriously.....

Let me start off by saying that I am no expert on immigration policy or how work visas are obtained and monitored. I am just one of many people in our area of Texas that has experienced what it is to be in the same area as day laborers who are looking for a job.

Today I dropped Buffi off at a car rental place that is in one of the main areas of town where men congregate to look for day jobs. Let me paint a picture for you....you pull in to the parking lot, and then all of a sudden a gang of five to 15 or more shabbily dressed men chase you down, surround your car, and make it damn near impossible for you to open your door. They did this to a van that pulled up just as we were getting out of our car (we must not have looked like we were hiring).

This can be a very intimidating experience, especially if you are a woman alone. It's so bad that I won't drop my car off for service at the dealership behind the car rental place unless Tommy is with me. These workers chase cars down, scaring the shit out of any potential employer. When they are not doing that, they are laying around (literally laying) on any grassy area they can find so they can sleep until the next "potential employer" pulls into the driveway.

Let me say this....those workers would NOT be congregating and aggressively chasing down vehicles if it weren't for the fact that at least SOME of those vehicles are there for the sole purpose of hiring cheap labor to do yard work, painting, moving stuff, whatever...for a day. And let's face it...the workers are not hurting anyone. Just scaring the hell out of them. They have set their own rules that the first ones to the car get dibs on whatever the potential job is. They are not out selling drugs, beating anybody up, or robbing people. All they want is to do an honest day's work and receive an honest day's pay. No matter if the pay is well below any American would accept for that kind of work. They accept the low pay so they can remain off the books and send as much money possible home to their families in the country they are from. I don't think anybody would argue that it is almost certain these are illegal aliens and that's why they work for cash at a low wage.

The people that hire them are the ones we should look at. I believe they prey upon these day laborers, getting hard work out of them for far less than they would have to pay a legitimate citizen. And let's face it...few legitimate citizens would even consider doing the type of work these day laborers happily do in order to support their families back home.

There are no easy answers here. But I am left thinking that if we could somehow get these guys on the books so they can be paid a fair wage, provide a centralized location for them to find work that could be more organized and fair....then the work could be done, the employers could be held accountable for how they treat and pay these workers, and we could maybe even get some tax revenue from these people that (let's face it) suck our system dry for medical expenses, bilingual education, etc. in various government programs meant to look out for their well-being.

I'm just sayin'...there's a way to fix this. But I fear that politics has and always will get in the way of solving this problem. In the mean time, I will still take Tommy with me when I get my car fixed and run for my life into and out of the dealership to avoid these aggressive, yet harmless day laborers.

By now I'm sure you've all heard about this high school teacher in Colorado who compared Bush to Hitler. The teacher is currently on leave pending an investigation by the school, and the teacher had filed a 1st Amendment suit to protect his right of free speech.

While I respect everyone's right to free speech, I do draw the line at proselytizing any view to a class without FAIRLY presenting the other side so then there can be a discussion of the issue at hand. But in this case from what we've been told (and I'm sure we haven't been told everything), it appears this was more of a 20 minute Bush-bashing rant by a liberal minded high school teacher made in a persuasive way so as to ensure maximum agreement with his view.

I think many teachers are very careful about how they approach highly volatile issues in the classroom, such as politics, religion, right to privacy issues, etc. But I also think like in any profession there are those that will use this platform of authority to mold eager young listeners to their view and add boots to their army of activists.

If this guy had made a similar speech about, say,.....Hillary Clinton for example. I might agree with him, but I would still think what he did was wrong. School age kids are highly impressionable and it is ALWAYS WRONG when teachers take advantage of their positions to further their own political agendas.

Not on this scale, but when Scytheboy was in elementary school during the last election, the principal played Kerry's concession speech throughout the school, interrupting classes so all could hear what he had to say. But when it came time for Bush to give his acceptance speech....no televisions were on and not one word of what he had to say was heard in school. In this subtle way and in the Colorado teacher's very outspoken way, some of the mainly liberal contingent of teachers and administrators will use different methods to ensure the students "understand" their view.

This is the way it has always been. It is probably the way it will always be. I find the majority of teachers to be very giving, altruistic people and I do believe they think they are doing the right thing by (in their view) teaching the kids what their very idealistic view of the world is to "make them better people". I don't think this is ego-driven in most cases when it does happen.

But I still think it's wrong. It's our job as parents to teach our kids about the way the world IS (on all sides), not the way we would like it to be. We must remain engaged and discuss with our kids why the education establishment presents things in one way and what that view is, then explain to them what our view is (whether we agree or if it is different) and why. And if you do agree and find through your discussion with your kids the other side has not been fairly presented, then you need to explain the other side to them so they clearly understand the differences. And THEN...only THEN....can your kids form their own opinions on the issues.

And...it's the job of educators to at least make a minimal attempt to explain the other side in a factual, untainted way so there can be an open discussion so the kids can expand their capacity to understand the issues.

At least...that's what I think.

Many others seem to be chiming in on this one, and I've put comments on the posts on their sites. But I thought I might as well tell you what I think about the whole deal.

First, I agree with Tommy. A guy should probably not shoot his friend during a hunting trip. Just not a good idea, ever, especially if you're in the public eye or represent the country in some capacity.

Having said that, I don't think this incident deserves the kind of attention it's receiving from the press and pundits. Look...the guys were on a hunting trip. Every hunter knows there is some risk involved in the activity. They had lunch around noon...and they all had a beer with lunch. Big deal. It was more than four hours later that the accident happened (or that "Cheney shot his friend" as some people like to say - whatever). The point is they were hunting, and Cheney was looking into the setting sun while he was shooting at a quail and his friend (who he didn't see standing there) go sprayed with some little round buckshot (not pellets as many are saying inaccurately).

Medical attention was given, Whittington was taken to the hospital, law enforcement was called, and questioning occurred. I'm sure everyone was pretty shaken up by the whole thing and alerting the Washington press probably wasn't the first thing on their minds. It should be noted that the Sheriff ruled this an accident and NO charges are being filed against Cheney. End of story. No wrong doing. Accident. Not planned. An accident. Not malicious. Not a felony. An accident. An accident that was NOT covered up with the police or anyone else.

Now....do I think having the ranch owner call a local paper to get the news out was a good strategy. Absolutely NOT. I have some experience with crisis communications (not on the political front but in business) and I can tell you this was a bad idea. And I think Scott McLellan would agree if he could actually tell us what he thinks...but it's his role to communicate what happened, not what he thinks.

Anyway....a better way probably would have been for the VP's press office to issue a short statement - after the Sheriff was done questioning everyone - with a brief quote from Cheney saying how horrible he felt about the whole thing...and a quote from the ranch owner, and probably one from the Sheriff doing the investigation - over AP. Then they should have made the VP's press people available for questions and provided the ranch owner's and Sheriff's contact info. for follow up questions.

But hindsight is 20/20. The point is Cheney did NOT cover this up....it was less than a day later that the ranch owner was talking to the press...as soon as they had clear status on Whittington's condition and his FAMILY HAD BEEN NOTIFIED.

I think this is more the Washington press having their egos bruised by not being the "first to know" and dem operatives and minority members of congress pouncing on even a glimmer of perceived scandal to use for their own political goals.

At least...that's what I think.

Some people are for the death penalty, and some are not. Personally, I think if someone kills a person they should be removed from society - permanently. Especially if that someone killed a child.

Today I noticed a story where a judge has ruled that California must change its mix of lethal injection drugs because they could constitute a "cruel and unusual" method of administering the death penalty.

I am left wondering....did this convicted person consider whether or not his rape and murder of a 17 year old girl was cruel and unusual when he committed his crime?

You know what I say? When someone is convicted and given the death penalty, they should be killed in the same way in which they made their victims suffer. Gunshot, beating, whatever. Maybe THEN people will reconsider when committing such awful crimes. I just think people should be given the same treatment they gave their victims.

Sorry if you think that's callous, but it's the way I feel.

First, let me say that I am now officially out of painting hell. The small bathroom is as finished as it's going to get, and we have a contractor coming in to take care of all the major painting that needs to be done next week. And...the headache is gone.

Now that I've had time to sit down and catch up on the news, I caught the story on 12,000 government paid-for hotel rooms that FEMA will no longer be responsible for.

You all know that I am a Republican so I am for limited government and all that goes with it. I do believe that there are some things that should be seen to, such as school vouchers, school lunches, food stamps, etc. to help people get back on their feet once something happens that precludes their ability to take care of themselves and their families, or in the case of school vouchers to aid them in ensuring the best education possible for their kids.

Having said that....I do NOT believe the government should be responsible for supporting people 100% for the rest of their lives, or even for years - if they are physically able to work. What we've seen happen in New Orleans and other gulf states is horrible, to be sure. And I do believe those people needed to be helped for a few months until they could get their bearings and come up with short and long term plans for how they would find housing, get jobs, and take care of their families.

But come ON, people! It's been more than five months. The nation's unemployment rate is very low. There ARE jobs to be had. And FEMA is providing money that victims can use to fix their homes or rent new ones. What we are seeing here is the result of a highly flawed welfare system. It's my guess that at least some, if not the majority of, those families still living on the dole in hotels come from generations of welfare recipients which have never worked a day in their lives. Grandparents, parents, children and grandchildren...none of whom have ever had to do an honest day's work. And our flawed system has given these people absolutely no incentive to get off the dole - in fact, they are penalized when they do manage to find gainful employment to subsidize welfare and in some cases lose assistance when they find even just a low paying part-time job to help make ends meet and put food on the table.

We need to fix the system, that is not in question. But also....at some point if we don't start requiring able-bodied people to take personal responsibility for their own destiny by requiring them to work for the assistance they receive, or limit the time they are eligible to receive assistance, or at least make sure welfare recipients are seeking to better themselves by taking advantage of education assistance so they can move out the the system, the problems we see with hurricane victims looking for unlimited handouts will continue to get worse and worse until we eventually become a socialist welfare state where nobody is given any incentive to try and do better for themselves because it's too easy to just live off the dole.

(Deep breath).

There's my two cents.

I usually try to stay as far away from politics as I can, as the subject is volatile and there are a lot of angry people out there.

But I will say this about what I saw last night during The State of the Union speech. I could not believe that certain people chose last night to so freely show their true colors with regard to how they feel about obstructing any and all reform to Social Security. I mean....I always figured that any time they were able to stop reforms, cuts, or new programs proposed by the other side they were pleased with themselves...this is how politics has always been.

However....to gleefully stand up, laugh, and applaud themselves for letting Social Security languish in an antiquated system that will not be able to accommodate the many Baby Boomers whose retirement is just around the corner is truly beyond me.

When the Social Security system does go bankrupt....I wonder how those people will feel when their gleeful cheering is replayed in front of the millions of people that will be negatively effected by their lazy inaction.

All I can say is...if you don't agree with the Republican plan, then at least bother to try and come up with an alternative instead of just doing nothing and then cheering about it.

Here's one for you. I know whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you feel strongly that your view is correct and that others need only be educated about the facts in order for them to see the light.

But guess what? According to a new study, researchers found that test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, no matter what the researchers had to say. Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making. Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.

I...am not....surprised. Are you?

This article just leaves me speechless (and you can ask Tommy - this rarely happens).

He's certainly free to say what he wants, but I can't help but think that perhaps...just maybe....he would be happier living south of our borders.

That's all I'm going to say.

I try not to post about politics unless I have something I think is useful to read. I've been on a few other sites where this subject has been discussed lately, and I've found that there are a lot of really angry, bitter people out there who are having a hard time directing that anger toward something useful.

You can read some comments from these people here. As I said on Jack's site, I completely understand why some on the left who don't believe in the current war and don't back the current administration are angry. I understand that anger because I've felt it too in past years.

However, the point should be made that standing around berating the president and his policies with personal attacks is not all that productive. In fact, it is a very real possibility when these comments are made in a public forum, verbally or written, the enemy will use them to gain new recruits and drum up support for their cause. I understand people feel like they are just exercising their constitutional right to dissent, but screaming their dislike for what's going on will not change who we have as President or the fact that we are currently at war.

In deference to our troops, instead of spewing out all that hatred and frustration, would it not be better to use all that energy to actually work toward a change? Why not volunteer for the candidate of their choice in the 2006 elections and try and make a change in numbers at Congress? Join a grass roots campaign and make sure your message gets out there in a classy way, talking to the democratic base and making sure they realize how important you think it is to see a change in Washington?

Let me be clear...I think it's everyone's right to speak out when they don't agree with what's going on in Washington. However, we need to be sure that we do it in a way that is productive and does not effect how our troops can do their job and makes the problem worse. That is all I was saying at Jack's site. I don't think those that don't agree with Bush should just "shut up and take it". I think they should stop whining and if they really care about what's going on and would like to see a change they should do something useful to help make that change happen.

As a side note...while we were in the airport last October waiting to fly to Dublin, we were immersed in a sea of Army personnel waiting on their charter to Iraq. The CNN airport news channel ran a story about some protester (can't remember which or what group). What I do remember is the reactions of the soldiers...they ranged from downcast faces and hunched shoulders to people shaking their heads in disbelief to jaws clenched in outright anger. Remember...the troops can see and hear you when the news covers this....and so can the enemy.

It is my sincere hope that those that still hold onto their bitterness and anger with such fervor can turn that energy toward actions they can take that might actually make a difference.

We received a very special package in the mail today. For background, a few months back, Scytheboy corresponded with a Staff Sergeant on an Apache helicopter in Iraq. To show our support, Tommy and I also sent a letter and a care package to our lonely soldier working hard to protect all of our freedom.

This very special soldier, who had been away from his wife and kids for almost two years in September when the letter was dated, went to great effort to show his appreciation of our support. He sent us a thank you letter for our support, AND a U.S. flag that actually flew on the helicopter with him and the crew during a successful mission as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition, we received a letter of appreciation from the aircraft commander and a picture of the entire crew holding the very flag we now possess with a certificate of authenticity that the flag actually flew on the mission.

Our soldier was 40 days out from returning home when he sent us our very special memento of his time in Iraq, and it is our hope that by now he is home safe and sound. I'm sure all of us appreciate the sacrifices he and his family have made for our freedom and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Hoo-Ah!!!

Yes, I've filed this under politics and ridiculous items, because it's one of the most ridiculously politicized items I've seen in a very long time.

Today as I'm sure you're aware, a vastly liberal judge in San Francisco ruled that reciting The Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. Because of the phrase "one nation under god". Wait...what? Let me get this straight...many of our founders fled to America to ensure their right to religious freedom, and then many years later we referred to such religious freedom in the pledge to our country's flag by including this universal phrase to remind us that all can worship or not worship as they please. Now, suddenly reciting this phrase in the pledge has been deemed "unconstitutional"?

P-u-leeze. All this is is an activist judge that is doing his level best to help remove all widely accepted references to a higher being from all facets of our society. This case was brought before the court by the same spotlight-seeking idiot that tried to get "In God We Trust" (yet another universal reference to the belief of your choice) removed from our currency.

To judges and people like this I say only this......clearly, you do not like America. There are PLENTY of countries (France for one) that would be glad to have you. You are free to go there any time you choose. Please go, and leave the rest of us that love our country and everything that it was founded upon and stands for alone.

Last year as part of their "Support our Troops" program at school, Scytheboy wrote a letter to "any soldier" stationed on the front lines in the War on Terror. It took a few weeks, but he did get a reply over the summer.

As of June, Scytheboy's soldier was stationed somewhere north of Baghdad. He is a crew chief on an Apache helicopter. I won't give you his name, rank or unit to protect his identity.

With all the ink the war protesters/pacifists have been getting lately from the mainstream media, I feel it's necessary to share with you part of our soldier's letter. His thoughts reflect the tenacity and dedication the troops on the front line still have in the face of constant danger, and I think this letter written from the front lines is more indicative of how the troops fighting this war for ALL of us (including the protesters) feel about where they are and what they're doing. Also, his closing thoughts to our son reflect the goodness and leadership of our military members everywhere.

".....Believe me when I say that we here were happy to receive your letter. By we I mean the "(unit nickname here)". This is our unit's call sign. We are a flight company. Which means we spend a lot of time in the air flying over Iraq. We keep long work hours. But it is for a good cause. For the very most part the people of Iraq are really grateful..........Well....it's back to work for me. Again, I truly appreciated your letter. And for the time you took to write it. Take care of yourself and always do your best in school."

Scytheboy will be writing a letter back to his soldier, and I am also including some much needed items in a care package for him in the event his unit is still stationed in Iraq. If you would like to send your own care package and/or letter to the front, you can find more information here.

I'll post again on this if we hear back from our soldier. In the mean time, we'll pray for his safety and for the safety of all our troops stationed in harm's way protecting us here at home.

You knew I had to chime in on this one, right? Those on the left, it won't be as bad as you think (my opinion, that is).

Personally, I believe that Cindy Sheehan has every right to protest the war, as does any other American citizen. She suffered a horrible, horrible loss in Spring 2004, more than a year ago. And I know when you lose a loved one suddenly like that it takes a long, long time to work through the grieving process. Especially if that person volunteered to go fight for a cause and a President you don't agree with. We get all that.

However...(and you knew there had to be a however)....I really wonder if Casey Sheehan would want his name to be used by the left-wing hard liners to protest a war he signed up to fight?

And I wonder if the left has less than pure motives for supporting this one woman in such a public manner? What better way to further their cause than to train a grieving mother gaining much publicity for camping out on the President's lawn on their speaking points to ensure their voice is heard through her? They couldn't have asked for a better poster child.

I find this surge in Sheehan's vigor interesting. After all, Sheehan was part of a larger group of grieving family members who met with Bush at Fort Lewis in Washington state. After the meeting, she was quoted by the newspaper in her hometown of Vacaville, Calif., as saying that the president seemed sympathetic. Subsequently, she has said that Bush treated her callously during the meeting. One cannot but wonder why the sudden change of heart regarding the meeting and her impressions of it?

Her own family members said, "We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation," said an e-mail sent to the Reporter newspaper, in Vacaville. The e-mail was signed by Casey Sheehan's aunt Cherie Quartarolo on behalf of his paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins (see full article in the The Washington Post).

There is no doubt this woman feels strongly that we should not have gone to war and needs to blame someone for her son's death - the possibility of which her son was aware of when he signed up.

You know, I can excuse a lot of things. But, like Jane Fonda's actions during the Vietnam War, I cannot excuse the lengths to which this woman and her oh so supportive hard left "friends" have gone to denigrate our President, those valiant members of the military who chose to lay down their lives for our country in the interest of freedom, and those courageous young men and women who continue to fight for a cause they believe in. Ms. Sheehan, your fifteen minutes of fame are up. You've made your point. Now, get off the stage.

I don't know if you have seen this story where you live or via news sources you watch or read.

Here's the deal...from what I can glean from this article and TV wrap-ups I've seen regarding this incident, some boys threw water balloons at this 11 year old girl on more than one occasion. Well apparently she'd had enough and grabbed the nearest rock and threw it at one of the boys throwing the balloons. Unfortunately the rock was big enough to cause a pretty big gash and the boy had to have stitches. Oh, well. Shit happens. He provoked her and she retaliated with the nearest object she could find (I'm guessing).

So the police were called and the girl freaked out and scratched one of the officers. Not good. I do believe she should have been taught a lesson and they probably should have taken her to juvie - for a few hours. Someone should have had a very serious talk with her about what COULD have happened injury-wise to the boy and also talk to her about respecting the authority of a police officer, etc.

BUT FELONY CHARGES? AND AN OPEN TRIAL? I thought juvenile cases were supposed to be private and the court records sealed? Now this girl is going to be publicly humiliated, the case has already been written about and reported on in the press, and no matter what happens she will NEVER be able to put this behind her because now it's a matter of public record.

Now of course I am assuming this girl has not been in trouble with the law before. There very well could have been some incident in the past we're not aware of because it's being kept sealed. But let's consider that this is the only incident. Is this really fair? Is the D.A. not dropping the charges or not doing a deal just to prove he and his people are "right"? I look at this as a "punish the victim" type case. In our society, it seems school authorities and law enforcement are increasingly leaning toward punishing the victim for defending him or her self rather than addressing the root cause of the incident - the provokers, more often than not lately, are being seen as the victims rather than the attackers whose victims fought back.

Even in Scytheboy's school, there was one bully in particular who never got caught provoking the other kids, but when his victims fought back THEY were the ones who received punishment from a principal who believed they should just sit there and take it rather than defending themselves. Her view was they could only fight back if they felt they were on the verge of being killed. What IS that? People are making policy based on a belief that violence is NEVER the answer. Well, sometimes it is...especially when a bully has gone after you and the people that are supposed to be watching things either turn a blind eye or don't bother to intervene. Fact of the matter is, if the kid doesn't fight back then they will ALWAYS be a victim and things will get worse until they really get hurt some day - no matter what the "politically correct policy" is.

While I do believe some punishment must be given to this girl to ensure she realizes she can't assault a police officer and the rock could have caused much more serious damage, I believe the boys who threw the water balloons should ALSO be punished in some way and then they can call it a wash. Kids are kids. Kids will do what kids do. No matter how "politically correct" authorities try to be in punishing the victims for defending themselves.

Okay, so the dems are pissed they didn't succeed in blocking the Bolton appointment. We get it. Senators Dodd and Kennedy have come out again today with more negative statements about Bolton and President Bush. I would like to know....what are they so afraid of? Why do they insist on trying to set up Bolton for failure at the U.N. by casting doubts on his ability to get the job done? I think it's not Bolton they're pissed about...it's the fact that no matter what they do Bush seems to be succeeding in completing the agenda the American people elected him to accomplish during his time in the white house.

Let's face it. They were against tax cuts. But Bush got them through. Now the economy is steadily growing at a more than acceptable rate, new jobs are being created, and they have MORE money from the rich to play with than they did with those oppressively high Clinton tax rates. Not less. Fact. Not fiction. Tax cuts = more tax revenue from the rich, not less.

On Social Security, the dems seem intent on making sure that the working middle class get NO ownership of the dollars they put into the system. They are so afraid of letting people have some control over their OWN retirement money they will do anything to block Bush's plan to give at least some ownership of retirement dollars back to the people. How demeaning is that anyway? Telling people that they're not capable of handling their own nest eggs, the government can do a better job? Of what? Spending the surplus on pet projects to ensure their own re-elections? Total hogwash. I don't know about you, but I have absolutely zero confidence we will get anything at all back from Social Security. We are making our own plans, with what money we have left after paying into a failing social security system we are sure will be bankrupt by the time we retire....under the current setup anyway.

You know, I have not heard one single positive word come out of any democrat's mouth for a very, very long time. They have truly become the party of doom and gloom. They spend all their time trying to make our President look bad, instead of coming up with a plan - any plan - that would show us they can do better like they say they can. Put your money where your mouth is, dems. Come up with a plan and plead your case as to why it would be better. Otherwise, just do your jobs and stop trying to make America look bad. You have a job to do. Now go do it and shut up unless you have something useful to say.

So now we finally have a Supereme Court Nominee. And naturally, no decision Bush made would have brought a positive reaction from those on the left. Today we hear that liberal dem's on the hill have brought together a six-pronged strategy for defeating Roberts. While this was expected, it is still disappointing that in some respects Roberts will not be given the same consideration as Clinton's nominees in the 1990's. While Ginsburg was allowed to argue that she could not provide her positions regarding any areas that she might in the future have to rule on (in an effort to remain impartial) it seems that some on the hill will not be giving Roberts that same option.

Regardless, all the political wrangling the dem's on the left are attempting will not succeed. Bush chose well. There is little, in my opinion, that could stop the nomination from going through the process and accompolishing a positive result for Roberts. Tom Curry of MSNBC actually has a balanced look at both sides of this issue and I've provided both links in this post. Of special note is the fact that I haven't seen anywhere that Roberts' demeanor in the courtroom or professional background/education give the dem's cause to worry. And from all I've seen and read, even though they "say" they are prepared to confirm a conservative choice it appears the only thing that would make them happy is another assured vote on the left of certain issues brought before the court.

It's my hope that common sense will prevail and we will go through this process with dignity. And when the court convenes in October Judge Roberts will be seated among those prepared to rule on cases in a way that reflects the true intent of the Constitution - NOT our ever-changing cultural climate.

So I've been watching and reading all the stuff on the Karl Rove/CIA-Gate(esque) investigation. Here are the few things I have gleaned from all the coverage:

1. It's illegal to name a CIA operative for up to five years after they were actively engaged in covert operations in the field. All the conversations Rove had with the media (that have been leaked from the grand jury testimony) happened AFTER this five year period when this particular person was moved to a desk job.

2. Rove (again, from what's been leaked from the grand jury testimony) never referred to this woman by name in any of his conversations with the media on background for their stories...he simply stated that he "heard that too" or mentioned Joe Wilson's wife, or words to that effect.

Like all political operatives on BOTH sides of the fence (red or blue), I'm sure Rove has done some things that could not quite be called ethical. And I'm sure that if I was privy to everything behind the scenes I would not approve of everything that's transpired.

I know it's all a game and people are just coming out against Rove to score brownie points for their party and eliminate a huge threat to them in the 2006 campaign and upcoming 2008 presidential election. However, all the public bashings and pre-judgments a lot of these senior democratic officials in congress and the senate have taken part in are an embarrassment to America. They need to can it....until a decision is made on whether or not an actual, no-kidding crime has been committed. THEN they should have free reign to say whatever they want to say about the findings in the case - good or bad, right or left.

I know, I know. If you are on the left Rove is evil. And if you are on the right Rove's a saint. But the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. Give the investigators a break and let them do their jobs, will you?

I woke up today greeted by the news that there were several bombs that went off throughout London's transit system during morning rush hour. I know many of you haven't been personally affected by terrorist activities, and it's hard to realize the enormity of the hatred these people harbor for all peaceful nations until you've been through something like what happened today. I can clearly remember on September 11th how many people I worked with at the time seemed almost uncaring for what had happened because they either had no military members in their family, did not know anyone who worked in the towers, or both. I wonder....how many more times does something like this have to happen before people realize there is actually a War on Terror and these people will not stop attacking peace?

So maybe I'm taking this a little personal. I mean after all, my hubby over at Striving for Average was at the Khobar Towers bombing, three buildings away from where the truck bomb exploded. I heard the news from a temp at work, and I had to drive home with a friend not knowing whether or not I would be greeted by an Air Force vehicle in my driveway - filled with people there to notify me my husband had been killed or injured in action. Communications from the base were dismal, and I finally had to call the Flight Commander's wife to find out if my better half had survived. I did hear from him later that night, but all he could tell me was that he was okay. When he got home a few weeks later, he brought pictures with him. Horrible, horrible pictures.

So when something like this happens I have a really, really hard time with the people out there who still say these animals are "misunderstood" and they're "acting out because they have no other way to deal with their anger". It's good and noble and all to believe that people are good and that somehow you can reason with them or negotiate with them to achieve a peaceful solution. But when you're dealing with people who hate peace that's just not a logical or realistic goal. These people are evil. Pure evil. And I support whatever means necessary to eradicate them from the face of the earth.