Reponse to comments on previous "Dean and TV" blog posting

I felt this important enough to devote another posting to. In my previous post on Dean feeling the most important issue on the minds of America is TV, Mike V made a comment as follows:

According to this exit poll, people who voted in the last election felt these were the most important issues:

• Moral Values (22%)
• Economy/Jobs (20%)
• Terrorism (19%)
• Iraq (15%)
• Health Care(8%)
• Taxes (5%)
• Education (4%)

Personally I think Americans are a bit misguided based on these poll results. The chances of dying in a terrorist attack are very, very, very slim. However the chances of getting ill are very, very, great and more of a priority should be placed on ensuring health care for Americans.

Once again I feel the need to set the misguided liberals straight, hopefully on the right path. This list is actually interesting. I will deal with that and healthcare in future postings.

Mike, Health Care is an important issue. But above terrorism? About your comment about your chance of dying in a terrorist attack being very, very, very slim; Terrorism is not totally about death. Actually, quite the opposite.

Terrorism:

• Is about life. It is about the quality of life we wish to live in this country.
• Is about fear. Having to live under the constant fear that you or someone you know of love may just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
• Is about love. Your love for others, even beyond yourself and loved ones. It is about love for Americans, and humans all over the world. It is about love for this country. The country that allows you to have what you have where we don't stand for this kind of nonsense.
• Is about death. The death of even one person, whether you know that person or not. Because that one person could be anyone. You may or may not know, but why does that matter?
• Is about terror. Because you know that somehow, someway, more attacks will come. Maybe killing 5 in a car bomb. Maybe killing 5 more in another and another. Maybe 3000 by flying a plane into a building of innocent hardworking Americans. Maybe 10,000 by some dirty nuclear device in NYC or LA or Chicago. And when it happens the terror this country will live in, as we did before, for days, weeks, months, years, will only build. And your life will change.
• Is about anger. The anger we feel that we could have done something to prevent it, but didn't. The anger that we can no longer lead our lives as we once did. The anger that the very thing that makes this country so great, is supposedly the excuse used to want kill us.
• Is about hate. The level of hate that others in this world have for freedom, because they don't have it. The hate for the pure evil in this world. The hate I have for myself because I hate those cowards who are evil enough to prey on those who can't defend themselves and for no reason at all, and in the name of something that is supposed to be pure love.
• Is about change. The change in our economy. The change in how we live. The change in our outlook.

So, do I think I will die in the next attack?

Honestly, I don't know. The chance is slim you say, but I am not so sure that to be the case. I knew someone who was coming out of the subway, and almost got hit by a falling wheel from the plane. I knew a few personally who got out alive, but we didn't know it for quite some time. I knew people who lost their jobs and whose lives were turned upside down. I knew people who's families were torn apart because a spouse or parent died. I know how I felt that day watching it on TV and knowing my wife was stuck in the city and fearing other attacks near where she was. I know the sadness I felt for the world. I wasn't worried about myself that day. I felt fairly safe where I was, I wasn't worried about me. I was worried about others, and I was worried about the unsecure future of my family, my state, my country, and my world.

Perhaps you are right. The odds of me dying in a terrorist attack is probably slim. Let me tell you a little story that hit me pretty hard a fairly long time ago:

I always assumed this was an episode of the twilight zone. Turns out after some research it wasn't. Instead it was from a similar show that I still haven't found the name of. But here is the story.

A man knocks on the door of a couple's home. Seems like a door-to-door salesman (for those of you old enough to know what I am talking about) and he starts his pitch. He hands the couple a box. Very plain, with nothing on it except a button. No wires, nothing. (Remember, this was black and white, before wireless anything).

Anyway, the couple is asked if they want to be rich. They say yes of course and the man tells them they can be millionaires. They will receive 1 million dollars. All they have to do is press the button on that box. The catch? If they press the button on the box, someone they DO NOT KNOW will die, but they will receive the 1 million dollars.

The man departs and tells them he will be back in 1 week to pick up the box. Explains if they press the button, they will know and there is no way to unpress it. But he reassures them not to worry, they will not know the person who dies.

The couple argues for a week about pressing the button. The wife wants to, but the husband doesn't. You see the torture on her face each night as she tries to convince herself, and him, it would be ok. After all, what do they really care, it isn't anyone they know. The night before the man is scheduled to return, she presses the button. Nothing seems to happen that she can tell so she rationalizes that she did the right thing. The husband is furious.

The man returns and hands her a check for 1 million dollars and starts to leave. She stops him and asks what will happen to the box now? His answer: "Well, it will be given to someone else. I can assure you, it will be given to someone you don't know!"

So, Mike. Healthcare? An important issue, I agree. Above terrorism? I may have a greater chance of getting sick, but I will take that chance.

My chance of dying in an attack slim? Yes, probably is. That doesn't mean others won't and therefore I should not be concerned. If you want to look at is as which has the greater impact, which is really what your point is, I think I answered your question.

Quote of the week: 4/14/05 Howard Dean on Fear

A quote from USA TODAY Article:

"People in economic distress and harmed by the economic policies of the Republicans continue to vote Republican," he said. "It's because we're not addressing the central underlying fears of people" when it comes to the pressures they feel in raising families.

"Most of the people I know with children are worried about what's on television," he said, including the "appropriateness of time slots" for certain shows. "We need to be concerned" about that.

Really? Way to stay in touch with America there Howie. TV Times Slots certain tops my list of "fears"!!! Of course numbers 2 - 6 would be in no particular order:

• Terrorism
• Inflation
• Education
• Social Security
• Border Control
• Gangs
• etc. etc. etc.

But absolutely, TV would be at the top of my list... PLEASE PLEASE LIBERALS, ARE YOU LISTENING... NOMINATE DEAN ON '08, OR EVEN A CLINTON/DEAN TICKET WOULD BE GREAT!

Thanks to Mike V for point out this nonsense to me on his liberal blog. Credit where credit is due...

USA Article is here.

The Fear of Fox! Oh, PUHLEEEEZE

Fox's Sandstorm

By William Raspberry

Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A17 - The Washington Post

The in-your-face right-wing partisanship that marks Fox News Channel's news broadcasts is having two dangerous effects.

What? The truth may be heard? Free speech may mean hearing an opposing viewpoint?

The first is that the popularity of the approach -- Fox is clobbering its direct competition (CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc.) -- leads other cable broadcasters to mimic it, which in turn debases the quality of the news available to that segment of the TV audience.

WELL!!! How dare they, we can't have that now can we?... Oh, no! Competition for the left wing bias of the "real" news media!

The second, far more dangerous, effect is that it threatens to destroy public confidence in all news.

Huh? I thought Dan Rather did that? Hmmmm... Call me crazy! ( I know, I am setting myself up... go ahead, take the shot! )

Read the full article if you must read this dribble! Notice, I am telling where to find the full story, not just giving you my side. I believe we all should get both sides of a story, research, and draw your own conclusions... Of course the left just thinks you should hear their side. No need for an opposing viewpoint.

Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany Is New Pope

On second day of the conclave, a new Pope is chosen...

Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany Is New Pope

Rangel - WRONG: Rangel: Bush 'Impeachable' for Social Security 'Fraud'

This is absolutely Rangel at his worst.

The top Dem said that Bush's suggestion for social security reform is an "Impeachable offense"!

Since when is a suggestion and plan impeachable? At least he has a plan Mr. Rangel. What is your plan? I vaguely remember you thought SS needed reform when Clinton was President? But I see no plan, only lies that now it is suddenly not in need of repair. Could it be because congress is not part of the SS System? What a shock. See how fast SS Reform happens if we lump congress into the system.

His plan may not be perfect, but it is a plan and gives people a choice. No one will force anyone to use the new benefits if they want to stay in the old plan. So how is this "a fraud"?

Even worse, Rangel is playing the race card. This new plan is racist according to Rangel. Hmm... Let's help the minorities AND whites get more money for retirement OR keep the minorities on the welfare roles by keeping them down and not changing anything. Mr. Rangel, how about we spend some money on helping them get off welfare instead of just giving them money without help of improving their lives... I know, we can't have that happening now can we, you may lose some votes.

See the full story...

Filibustering - hypocrite of the week award: Chuck Schumer

The obstructionist movement by the left is unbelievable, and has no merit according to the constitution when it comes to nominees. But aside from that, I can not tell you how many times I ran into someone on the left who during the election had an "anyone but Bush" attitude and couldn't even tell me who John Kerry was! But, they were voting for him. "Anyone but Bush" they would say.

Then I started meeting people who were actually made the countries economy was turning around. They didn't want Bush getting the credit. Now there is the difference. The Left will sacrifice us all for the sake of a vote. Unreal really!

Back in 2000, Clinton complained because the republicans didn't like one of his court appointees. He blamed the fact that the guy was Hispanic. First, this is a sad excuse. Bush has tried to appoint more minorities into high positions then any other president. The left are the ones who are now blocking those. No one is saying you should vote for and approve unqualified people. You don't like them, argue, and vote against them. But this filibuster thing is wrong. America voted, republicans are in the majority. If the constitution calls for a majority vote and not 2/3, so be it. Americans have spoken and elected those they wanted to represent them. We are a representative government.

This brings us to the Senior Senator from my home state of New York being my vote for hypocrite of the week!

Senator Schumer's Hypocritical Protest
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Tracey Schmitt
202-863-8614

"Senator Schumer's unequivocal support for Democratic efforts to filibuster qualified judicial nominees is nothing more than partisan politicking. When President Clinton sent a nominee to the Senate, Senator Schumer cited the Senate's Constitutional mandate, to provide a vote. It's disappointing that Senator Schumer's correct interpretation of the Constitution only applies when it suits his political agenda."

- Tracey Schmitt, Press Secretary

The Proof...

My Basic Philosophy

Because of my recent "enlightenment", my dear cousin is a hard core liberal, I decided it was time to lay out and explain my basic philosophies. I think it will help all to see where I am coming from. I will constantly update and repost this as my general thoughts change or I think of something new to say.

Yes, I consider myself a conservative. Technically, I would say I am a "compassionate conservative", but I hate that term. It implies conservatives are not compassionate and that is simply not true. With that said, I do not just spew forth conservative viewpoints just because they are conservative, nor do I agree with everything President Bush, Republican pundents, or Conservative talk show hosts say or do.

I take each issue on its own merits. To be honest, I consider myself more moderate leaning to the right. It just happens that my general philosophy puts me with the conservatives most of the time. With that in mind, I don't like extremism in any direction. I don't like black and white answers. Some, like Rush, considers that thinking weak and having a lack of conviction. I consider it not being a stubborn bore.

Some philosophical examples:

• I don't agree with Bush on stem cell research.
• Although I am against abortion, I don't take the cut and dry stance of "no abortion ever for any reason."
• The gay issue is a tough one. I honestly am not sure where I stand because I don't have the answers to the questions I need answered to make an informed decision. From a Christian point of view, I don't agree with gay marriage. Strictly biblically speaking, homesexuality is a sin. From a personal point of view, I don't see how it really affects heterosexuals much either way. I think that people should be able to live life as they wish without interference as long as they aren't hurting anyone else or themselves.
• When in doubt, err on the side of life.
• Seperation of Church and State means there is no state sponsored religion, NOT that one can't be free to pray in school or display religious items in public area's. If that offends you, tough shit, get over it.
• Atheists have a right to not believe just as much as we have a right to believe. However, just as they do not want us preaching to them, don't come preaching to us.
• I am a Christian, (Lutheran) and as such believes in helping others. Most Christians (and conservatives) believe that. Contrary to popular believe. Where we differ is HOW to help them. One example, do I think we need a welfare system to help the poor, YES, but it should not be a life long hand out. Money should be spent to help the poor get out of that position rather then keeping them dependant on the money.

OK, there is more, but I will leave it at that for now and leave you with this. Part of the lyrics of Billy Joel's song "Shades of Grey"

Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
Black and white is how it should be
But shades of grey are the colors I see

Now with the wisdom of years I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
Ain't no rainbows shining on me
Shades of grey are the colors I see

Castro: Bush's Vatican Trip an Outrage

Here is today's hypocrisy, coming from none other than Mr. Castro of Cuba...

He calls President Bushes trip hypocritical.

Castro: Bush's Vatican Trip an Outrage

In a speech eulogizing Pope John Paul II as a fierce critic of "savage capitalism," Cuban dictator Fidel Castro said it was hypocritical of President Bush and the rest of the U.S. delegation to attend his funeral, according to a Reuters report.

Fidel calling us hypocritical is beyond hypcritical... Hey Mr. Castro, in case you don't remember, the Pope hated communism and dictators and helped Reagan defeat them. You eulogizing anyone, especially the Pope, is absurd at best.

I am doing something wrong

On a lighter note for a change... I must be doing something wrong!

The Wiggles Named Australia's Wealthiest

Interesting articles about Pope John Paul II

The first on bias in the media:

Leftist Media: Pope Getting 'Reagan Treatment'

The other just plan wierd yet something to ponder!

Prophecy on Pope Fulfilled by Eclipses?

Article of the week - Reagan on Iraq

Echoes of the Gipper
What would Reagan say about Iraq, Ukraine and President Bush?
BY PETER ROBINSON
Saturday, April 2, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Lie and Cheat of the Week - Memogate

The Liberals will stop at nothing!

Was the Schiavo memo a fake?
By Brian DeBoseand Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Can you say Dan Rather?

Zogby Poll Shows America in a Different Light

Well well well, So much for the "unbiased" media!

This weeks Media Bias Watch must go out to all the media polls showing how America thought Terri should die of starvation... Looks like when you ask the right question, you get the right answer...

In a latest zogby poll...

80%: Non-Terminal Patients Should Not be Denied Food, Water;
Three-to-One: Feeding Tube Should Stay in Place When Wishes Unknown;
Americans Divided on Intervention by Elected Officials, Christian Defense Coalition
Zogby Poll of Likely Voters Reveals... (4/6/05)

God Bless Pope John Paul II. May he rest in peace with the risen Lord! 

Michaels True Colors

As you can tell from my previous posts, I have my opinion of Mr. Schiavo. However, even the blind must agree this guy and his lawyer are pure evil. Trying to hide the burial plot of his ex-wife from her family is totally uncalled for. Thankfully, I believe the courts finally got this right and are making him disclose the plot. However, I would not be surprised if he lies!

As for the autopsy, I truly hope it shows the right thing was done and there was no abuse of Terri as some have said. I am not sure it would change my mind about Michael, but I will hold my opinion until after the autopsy results.

My posts will now focus on other topics. But Terri, I will not forget and I will certainly write more as details in the case occur.

For now, my final thoughts are that the judicial system in this country is going to be the downfall of this country. How dare they lean to the side of death over life. If her wishes were truly to die, so be it. But I don't see the evidence. Quite the opposite. This was a decision by agenda, nothing more.