Here's a L2E (Letter to the Editor) about abortion, the response form one of the bloggers whom I usually agree with, and my response to it.

The original L2E:
Regarding Ross Douthat's column "The Paradox of the Unborn" (Jan. 4): Will we ever have enough of clueless commentators opining about abortion? Triggered by the recently aired MTV special "No Easy Decision," about a young couple's decision to end a pregnancy, Mr. Douthat is struck by "the paradox of the unborn. No life is so desperately sought after ... yet ... so legally unprotected."
It's only a paradox if you completely ignore the woman's perspective. If instead you remember that every pregnancy occurs in the body of an individual woman, it is not paradoxical at all that some women are happy about it and some are devastated; that some want to have a child and others do not.
The law, thank god, still protects these individual choices to some extent.
Is Mr. Douthat actually suggesting that the solution to his "paradox" is for the unhappy pregnant women to just be good sports and supply the unhappy infertile couples with enough babies to go around -- never mind the multitudes of kids already waiting to be adopted?
SUSAN FRIETSCHE
Senior Staff Attorney
Women's Law Project


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Response by PghGirl412:
written by PghGirl412, January 18, 2011 - 08:28 AM

I've always found it odd that the pro-life crowd grants autonomy & protection to the unborn but then takes away those rights as soon as the "fetus" develops into an adult woman with ovaries; Then suddenly she doesn't deserve to have those rights any longer.

While I personally don't believe in abortion, i do believe it should be legal for adults. It shouldn't be paid for with my tax money through Medicaid, welfare, etc. It's largely unnecessary in our society due to the complete access of affordable birth control so there's no excuse for "needing" one therefore nobody should get public assistance to have one.

But ultimately, women get the last say on what to do or not do with their bodies (as they should) so until every pro-lifer has adopted & raised a couple of unwanted children into a happy, healthy adulthood, they should all shut their mouths & keep their opinions to themselves.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My response:
written by mcgraneb January 18, 2011 - 06:18 PM
PghGirl:
For the first time ever since joining this blog, I disagree with your logic on abortion. If a woman is pregnant, regardless of whether it was wanted or unwanted, consensual or rape, it doesn't change the fact that the fetus is a human life. It is not a case where during the first few weeks it can be a dog, a horse, or a bird and then at some specific point in development it attains the attributes of a human. It is a human fetus from conception!

We have laws (unassociated with abortion) that unequivocally state that the taking of a human life is considered a crime, regardless of who is the actor. We even consider suicide as a crime and that's a major reason why insurance companies don't pay out in those circumstances.

A law against abortion is a law against murder. It is not a law that takes away the rights of a woman--it is a law that takes away the rights of a killer. A person who chooses to take the life of another person is, in essence, is choosing to give up the right to their own life. Even in the event of accidental death, we take away some of the freedoms of the perpetrator in the form of incarceration because it is still considered a crime.

I have two female siblings who have experienced rape, one resulting in a pregnancy. She could have chosen abortion; she could have chosen adoption; she chose to keep the child and raise it, at much sacrifice and hard work on her part I might add. That child is now an active member of the armed services serving her country. Who knows what great future or contributions lay ahead for her? We don't know, but certainly we know that she would have had no future if she had been aborted.

PghGirl, I admire you a lot, so I'm not going to dis you, call you stupid or say that you must agree with me, but I am asking that you re-think the line of logic that has brought you to your current position on this particular subject. And if you make a strong enough case, I may be tempted to reconsider my own position. Nevertheless, 99 agreements out of 100 is a good percentage! :)

On the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette blog site, there's a blogger named "Big Guy". He says some of the most idiotic ...   more »

I'm not a gun owner, and never will be because I just don't want one around, but I have been ...   more »

I was reading an article about Kwanzaa today and contained in it was this passage:

"The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of BOND (Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny) and author of "SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America" believes the holiday is racist. He advocates for blacks to see themselves as Americans — not African-Americans, thus no separate holiday."
"Get rid of it," said Peterson, who is black. "Reject it completely. Just as we would do if a white racist came up with a false holiday to celebrate whiteness." So it's not so much a religious holiday as it is a sociopolitical movement.

Exactly. Kwanzaa was established by convicted felon and woman-torturer Maulana Ron Karenga (a black nationalist and ex-con — he was convicted of torturing two women) in 1966 as a response to the rise in the Black Power movement of the 1960's.

The term "African-American" in the way it is used in today's culture is interpreted as meaning the color of one's skin, i.e. a black person. But it is really meant to reference the person's non-American heritage. I am of Irish descent, although some have said that McGrane is actually Scottish. But add in my mother's definitive Irish heritage--Buckley of County Cork--and it's a toss-up. But really, it doesn't matter. I do not refer to myself as Irish -American. My parents were born in the United States and I was born in the United States, so I'm an American (except on St. Patrick's Day when everyone is 100% Irish!). My race is white. My heritage is Irish. I am an American.

Europeans who's family history includes migration from one country to the other don't refer to themselves as German-French or Italian-British. They are French or British. They live in the now. People who use the term "African-American" when describing a person's skin color are not only misusing the term, but they are living in the past. People, Blacks in particular, should make note of that.

Kwanzaa as a holiday is a hoax. It is neither religious nor secular. It is racial politics. Get rid of it.

The Daily Beast blog reports that the Norwegians and the Nobel prize committee are upset that President Barak Obama is "snubbing" various protocols that are normally pre-acceptance activities (see .

The article states; "Prize winners traditionally open the exhibitions about their work that accompany the Nobel festivities." Well, duh, it would be quite embarrassing for Barak to sit through the presentations of the works of the other winners, then stand up to the podium and have to admit that HE HASN"T DONE ANYTHING YET!!!!!

To top it off, Barak has turned down an audience with the Norwegian king. Public-relations expert Rune Morck-Wergeland is quoted as saying “In Norwegian culture, it’s very important to keep an agreement. We’re religious about that, and Obama’s actions have been clumsy. You just don’t say no to an invitation from a European king. Maybe Obama’s advisers are not very educated about European culture, but he is coming off as rude, even if he doesn’t mean to.”

Well, I'm not surprised. Not only is the Obama administration uneducated about European culture (i.e. remember the "gifts" he gave to England's prime minister earlier this year?), but I believe that the president has a personal disdain for Europeans, even though they love him.

The next 3 years can't go by fast enough for me.

My response to an opinion piece in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette 30 Oct 09 titled "How can such a large home be truly green?" This was in response to a PG article "Extreme Green Makeover" about a couple who spent enormous amounts of money making their large, 8,678 square foot home as ecologically efficient as possible.

Dear Jennifer Schnakenberg:
You ask how such a large home can be truly green. The answer is: the question is irrelevant! Setting aside the fact that the issue of “climate change” (aka, the weather, formerly known as global warming in the 1990's and early 2000's, and previous to that known as “the coming ice age” according to TIME magazine in the 1970's) is a hoax or, at the least, not settled science, it appears that your real concern is over the fact that the owners of that home “live as kings” as long as they can afford the right (“politically correct”) technology. In other words, you’d rather see them living in a smaller home because you think their extravagant lifestyle takes up too much energy to sustain, regardless of the home's "greenness". Frankly, your comment reveals not so much a concern for the global ecology, but more so it is a reflection of your jealousy over their economic success.
You have no idea about their lifestyle. Perhaps they entertain large numbers of people and need a larger space to do so. With a smaller home, they would have to rent a large hall for such entertainment, and that hall would likely not be as eco-friendly as their home. Or what if they have or planned to have several children, either their own or adopted? How do we know that they will stay in that home indefinitely? Perhaps they will sell it in the future to a large family. Will that make you less worried about sustainability?
I’m all for being a responsible user of the earth’s resources, but I am not about to tell someone how big their house can be, how much energy they use, or how to live their lives. If energy and resources were limitless, which is theoretically possible, would you then be okay with people “living like kings”? Or are you just jealous?

My response to a Letter to the Editor in today's Post-Gazette:

I've had it, too
So Barbara White ("Conservatives Have ...   more »

I saw a blog today ("LEFTAKE" if you must know) stating the if you Google "Sarah Palin" + "Author" + "Incoherent" you will get 20,000 hits as opposed to "Sarah Palin" + "Author" + "Shakespearean" which would only get just over 5,000 hits.
The inference then is that Palin, is an incoherent writer who does not possess any "Shakespearean" literary abilities.

This is illogical left thinking at its best (worst? I can't tell!). Just for fun, I inserted "Harry Reid" in to that equation and got 30,000/55,000.

So I tried Harry Reid + Senator + Idiot and got over 1, 080,000 hits. I guess that means Harry Reid is more of an idiot than he is a writer.

Okay, I'll agree with that.

This is my Letter to the Editor of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that was chosen and posted for publication. This ...   more »

Pennsylvania House Bill 300, which would add language to the existing PA Human Relations Act making discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens illegal in Pennsylvania, should not be supported. It is bad legislation.
HB 300 is bad legislation because the language is discriminatory in itself. Although not mentioned explicitly, the addition of the phrases “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression,” presupposes that the discrimination is being done by someone not identified as a member of those groups, namely heterosexuals. If a gay manager fires a transgender employee or if a lesbian manager fires a heterosexual employee, would these firings be considered discriminatory? Maybe yes, maybe no. The language in HB 300 assumes that since gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders are within the same identity group (sexual preference or expression), then it couldn’t be discrimination. However, in the second example, the heterosexual being fired by the lesbian manager would not protect the heterosexual on an equal basis because they are outside each other’s group definition. A law that does not apply to all people equally is unfair and unconstitutional.

The Editor

Dear Rush Limbaugh haters:

Please stop with the incessant bickering about Mr. Limbaugh’s wish for President Barak Obama to fail. It’s his opinion and he’s entitled to it. Mr. Limbaugh believes, as do I, that the new administration’s fiscal policies will destroy the American economy; therefore, he hopes that the president fails in implementing those policies. I’m sure that if the president expressed his intent to solve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, that Mr. Limbaugh would hope for his success.

When President George W. Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, the opposition (left-wing politicians and people like you who support them) hoped for the failure of that policy. Your hope that George Bush failed is the same as Rush’s hope that Obama fails. Both opinions are based on the belief that success would spell disaster for the United States. So, what’s the difference? None. Go find something important to worry about—like the legalization of spending federal funds for using intentionally-aborted babies’ stem cells for medical research.

Below is a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (Let's Be Honest) which is a letter to the editor in response to a previous letter. My subsequent response to Mr. Manel's letter is printed below. My letter must have been coherent and well written......because the PG chose not to publish my response.

Let's be honest
I would like to respond to the Oct. 17 Picking Sides letter for John McCain by Mary Beth Cirucci of Monroeville. Ms. Cirucci fears any redistribution of wealth as socialism. Well, I hope, that to remain intellectually honest, she has never participated in any tax-supported program designed to "redistribute the wealth."
I am sure when she comes of age, she will not cash her Social Security check or register for Medicare. I am sure that if laid off from her job, she will decline her unemployment benefits. I am sure that when she makes a contribution to her IRA, she dutifully writes a check to the Treasury for her due share of her taxes. I am sure she would shudder to think that she might actually send her children to a tax-supported institution of learning like a public school, community college or state university.
Keeping people out of poverty and providing them with opportunity is not only human; it benefits us all by making our economy and polity stronger.
DAVID MANEL
Shadyside


Now for my response to his response:

Let’s Be Real
I would like to respond to David Manel’s letter (Let’s he honest).
A constitution is “the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed” (Dictionary.com). Our U.S. Constitution defines the principles by which our country is to operate. Having read it several times, I still have not found the language in it where it is the government’s responsibility to provide financial supplements for retired citizens (Social Security), provide financial assistance for medical treatment (Medicare, Medicaid), or provide financial support for educational institutions (Public schools). What our government IS responsible for is to “provide for the common defense [and] promote the general Welfare”. The key words in that statement are “provide”, “promote”, and “welfare”. “Provide” means to give or supply. “Promote” means to encourage. “Welfare”, in its’ original meaning at the time the Constitution was written, means getting along well. So, the only things our government should be doing for us is maintaining a military and encouraging each other to get along for the general benefit of all. Those are the only things for which we should be paying federal taxes.
Imagine how much more money we’d have in our paychecks if we only had to pay for the military and a few policies that promote “getting along”. No payroll deductions for health care, welfare programs, education, or most other government expenditures. That extra money in your pocket could go to your IRA or investment portfolio, to your favorite school, or even a charity that helps those who are less fortunate. And it will all be of your own choice. Free-will giving is always more satisfying to the soul than compulsory redistribution.

The following is my comment on an article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Sunday Edition, January 25, 2009. in which the reporter presented a fair and balanced story about a local conservative talk show host who finally showed up on the national radar of Media Matters, the liberal, George Soros-funded media watchdog.

What an epiphany it was to read this quote from by Julie Millican, Media Matters senior researcher in the article titled Jim Quinn lands on media watchdog's radar, explaining her organization’s purpose regarding conservative talk radio: "It's important to keep an eye on what's being said on the public airwaves. People should be aware of what's out there. They [talk-show hosts] can say whatever they want to say. But people are entitled to know that's what being said on their airwaves, and they're entitled to be offended about it." (bold type my edit)

Apparently, I’ve been denying myself a basic human right.

I am so glad that there is an organization out there dedicated to finding offenses to which I am entitled. If it weren’t for Media Matters, I would have lived my life in blissful ignorance of this right. I haven’t felt offended in a long time, primarily because a long time ago, I decided not to be offended by stupid comments made by stupid people. I simply considered the source. But now, with the help of Media Matters, I can start wasting spending time being offended.

We need a government agency which would guarantee everyone’s right to being offended. Programs could be developed with tax dollars to encourage those who have not been offended enough get their fair share of offended-ness. Those who are overly-offended would be required to share some of their offense with those of us who are under-offended. No one should have less offenses than those to which they are entitled. Spread the offense around, if you will.

All those hours of listening to liberal TV news and talk radio—wasted because I wasn’t allowing myself to be offended by their stupid remarks. As I said, I was simply considering the source. But no more. I am grateful that Randi Rhodes, Alan Colmes, Mike Malloy, Thom Hartman and Air America use “our” airwaves to do their part in providing a rich source of statements with which I can claim my right to be offended. And here, all along, I thought they were just being stupid.

Reference:
Voices of a Nation

The articled linked above appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on Octboer 30, 2008. Here is my analysis and response to it, indicated in the bold typeset.

The author writes:
“Ed Schultz is…a fresh contrast to the conservatives who dominate today’s airwaves.”
Fox is a fresh contrast to the liberals who dominate virtually every major television and print media outlet, including the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

“…too few voices like Mr. Schultz’s are carried by radio to offer a different point of view to the same old right-wing tripe.”
…Too few? The reality is that too few voices like John Stossel and Jim Quinn are carried by television and radio to offer a different point of view to the same old left-wing media feces. (Which is what’s left after something passes through the tripe. Go ahead, look it up.)

“… a diverse lineup is likely to attract more ears, hence more advertisers and more dollars. And isn’t that what the radio conglomerates want anyway?”
I suspect that the writer has no concept of how the radio business works. Diversity does not create or entice a larger audience. If, by decree, each radio station was equally diverse in its programming, then no station would be unique. Cookie-cutter programming is not appealing to the listener or the advertiser.

“Pittsburgh listeners recently lost the on-air zing of liberal Lynn Cullen, whose show ended…because of a format change at former talk station WPTT-AM. That void is a micro version of what moderate–to-left listeners face nationwide due to an industry that believes only conservative talk sells.”
First of all, I’ve listened (and watched) Lynn Cullen’s show several times, and “zing” is not an adjective I would use to describe the show. It was the most boring and painful-to-listen-to talk show on the airwaves, second only to Al Franken's show on Air America.
Second, the owner of the station is allowed to change the format if he (or she) wants to. It’s their station, after all. Why was the format changed, anyway? Most likely because it wasn't producing enough advertising revenue in such a competitive market. The owner saw an opportunity to provide a product to an untapped audience in a market over-saturated with talk shows. Niche programming is how diversity in a market is achieved.
Finally, it is not “the industry” that determines what sells, it’s the consuming public that determines what sells and creates the demand for a product. Advertisers want to reach the most consumers per dollar spent as possible. Advertisers spend millions of dollars for a 30-second commercial during the Super Bowl because the game (the product) is something that millions of people find entertaining.

Which brings me to the over-arching bottom line: radio is, when all is said and done, entertainment. If a program is not entertaining, it won’t hold the interest of the listening audience and they will change the dial to something else. We need to remember that radio is still free to the listeners, so stations depend on advertising revenue to survive. The fewer the listeners, the fewer the advertising dollars and the less revenue for the station. Without revenue, the station owner can’t pay staff or operating expenses. So the owners have a choice: either change the format to something more profitable or shut down and put people out of work.

New federal rules against national concentrations of ownership (whatever that means) will not create a variety of voices. We don’t need laws or regulations in order to create diversity. Diversity is a result of the freedom to pursue excellence. We are already a nation of many voices. Allowing people the freedom to choose what to listen to and how they want to be entertained liberates the diversity that already exists.

Why same-sex marriages are not real marriages.
Earlier in this blog, we were discussing the subject of homosexuals. As is often the case,   more »

I laughed, I cried, my head nearly exploded.
Ellen Goodman, opinion columnist for the Boston Globe, should be a comedian. ...   more »

If you’re looking for some inspiration, try this little book called “Bits & Pieces”, published monthly by www.motivateandinspire.com.

It’s full of little gems of encouragement, motivation and thought-provoking insights. The one that stuck with me today is this: “Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because it happened.”

It brought to mind a long-ago relationship I had with someone whom I dearly loved. I truly believed that this person was the love of my life, my soul mate. I was totally, captivatingly in love and was eager to make the relationship permanent. Then, one day, it was over. Sure, I saw it coming, but it happened very quickly. It was a very sad time for me. I cried, literally, for hours on end, every night for several weeks. I cried because it was over. There seemed to be no satisfaction for the pain. Thinking of it only made the pain worse.

Then one day, a close friend who knows me better than I know myself, quietly and casually mentioned one day that it’s okay to be sad for the loss, but I should consider the many good and happy things from the relationship. It will always be with me in my memory, and so I should be happy that the relationship happened at all, for if it had not, then I would have missed experiencing that love and joy.

That one bit of advice changed my entire outlook on the relationship and how I deal with other disappointments in my life. Today, when I think of that relationship, I smile because I realize that I was blessed to have known and loved that person.

This concept works with anything in our life that goes away or dies. When the great Ray Charles died, I was sad at the loss to the world of music. Nevertheless, I am happy that he lived at all and made such a magnificent contribution to the world of music. I will always smile when I hear a Ray Charles song.

Have you been crying over a lost relationship, the death of a friend, a loved one or an admired person in the world? It’s okay to cry a little at the loss, it’s natural to respond that way. But let’s not cry because it’s over, but rather smile because it happened at all. You’ll be glad you did.

I just needed to share this with all my readers. The creativity of the human mind never ceases to amaze me! Enjoy!
--Editor

The Washington Post runs a weekly contest in its Style section called the "Style Invitational". The requirements this week were to use the two words 'Lewinsky' (the Intern) and 'Kaczynski' (the Unabomber) in the same limerick. Now, remember, the following winning entries were actually printed verbatim in the newspaper, no bleeps or xxxs:

Third place:
There once was a girl named Lewinsky
Who played on a flute like Stravinsky
'Twas "Hail to the Chief"
On this flute made of beef
That stole the front page from Kaczynski.

Second place:
Said Clinton to young Ms. Lewinsky,
"We don't want to leave clues like Kaczynski,
Since you made such a mess,
Use the hem of your dress
And please wipe that stuff off your chinsky."

And the winning entry:
Lewinsky and Clinton have shown
What Kaczynski must surely have known,
That an intern is better
Than a bomb in a letter,
When deciding how best to be blown

Facetious Statement #12: "Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet."

Right on target!
A Republican should believe that government be limited to the powers named in the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of giving government the responsibility of:
-banning gay marriage
-censoring the internet
-providing healthcare for it’s citizens
-providing unemployment benefits to laid-off workers
-providing free education for all children
-controlling the price of anything (oil, gas, milk, cigarettes, minimum wages, etc)
-creating "economic social justice" (a/k/a communism) and jobs for everyone

If it ain’t in the Constitution, then the government shouldn’t be doin’ it.
If you want the government to do it, get the Constitution changed.

It's bad enough that we've circumvented the last statement above by creating agencies (VA, FHA, Medicare, Medicaid, FCC, FDA, EPA) that are completely autonomous, allowing un-elected buereaucrats to make regulations ,which have the same impact as laws, applicable to the entire nation without regard to the desires of the constituents.
That's called Socialism!

Facetious Statement #11: "A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy."

Bill Clinton lied to our faces and said he didn’t have sex with Monica Lewinski. It was a lie, he was the actor in the situation, and he didn’t have to depend on reports from someone else to help him decide if he had sex with her. He knew it for a fact that he was lying. He was there, he was the “perp”! Knowingly lying in under oath is perjury, and perjury can lead to jail time. Clinton KNOWINGLY committed a crime and that IS an impeachable offense.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, had to rely on the veracity of reports given to him by advisors and other third-party individuals who claimed to have accurate information. President Bush was not the actor in this event. In other words, he was not a witness to the situation, so he had to trust the information given to him from someone else (British, Russian, Israeli, and French Intelligence—by the way, do you really think it possible that they were ALL wrong??). Saddam Hussein had demonstrated in the past of his willingness to use WMD on his own population, thus it was likely that he wouldn’t think twice about using it on the U.S., it’s regional assets, or it’s allies. Bush had to rely on the testimony of other people since he wasn’t in Iraq himself. It was better for him to err on the side of believing that there were WMD, rather than not believing it and running the risk of finding out that he was wrong after more innocent non-combatant Americans died from an attack on our own soil.
Unknowingly repeating false information from another source is not perjury and thus not impeachable.

And by the way, it turns out that the information was true after all, and that Joe Wilson is a big egomaniac. We have since learned from the “Scootergate” trial that a previously undisclosed CIA document confirmed that Joe Wilson’s oral report to the CIA on his visit to Niger did NOT deny that Saddam had tried to acquire yellow cake uranium. In addition, Wilson himself reported 2 years previously that there WAS evidence that Iraq approached Nigerian officials for the purpose of buying uranium. So who’s lying now? (I’ll have more to say about Joe Wilson in another column)

Now that I'm older, these are some of the things I wish I had known when I was younger:

1. Faith is the ability to not panic.
2. If you worry, you didn't pray. If you pray, don't worry.
3. As a child of God, prayer is kind of like calling home every day.
4. Blessed are the flexible, for they shall not be bent out of shape.
5. When we get tangled up in our problems, be still. God wants us to be still. So He can untangle the knot.
6. Do the math. Count your blessings.
7. God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.
8. Dear God: I have a problem. It's me.
9. Silence is often misinterpreted, but never misquoted.
10. Laugh every day, it's like inner jogging.
11. The most important things in your home are the people.
12. Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional.
13. There is no key to happiness. The door is always open.
14. A grudge is a heavy thing to carry.
15. He who dies with the most toys is still dead.
16. We do not remember days, but moments. Life moves too fast, so enjoy your precious moments.
17. Nothing is real to you until you experience it, otherwise it's just hearsay.
18. It's all right to sit on your pity pot every now and again. Just be sure to flush when you are done.
19. Surviving and living your life successfully requires courage. The goal and dreams you're seeking require courage and risk-taking. Learn from the turtle, it only makes progress when it sticks out its neck.
20. Be more concerned with your character than your reputation. Your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.

A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!!
It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders,
might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests:

Let's say I break into your house.
Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house)."

According to the protesters:

You are Required to let me stay in your house.
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan.
You are Required to Educate my kids.
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family. (my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself.
I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.
And what a deal it is for me!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE so you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America

I've been remiss in meeting my publisher's deadlines, so I'm cramming the latest three lessons into one. Besides, two of them are rather short, so that makes up for the lateness.

Facetious Statement #8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Countries that condemn our enemies and promise to support us and then renege on their promises deserve to be belittled.
If they want to support us, but they don’t want to send their troops, then they had damn well better deliver on cash and cooperation.

Facetious Statement #9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
The statement is misleading in that the inference is that the U.S. government is providing free healthcare for all Iraqis. This is simply not true. The U.S. government, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), and other non-profit organizations are providing grants and other financial assistance in rebuilding the devastated Iraqi medical system. This includes not only subsidized (but not totally free) heath services, but also infrastructure improvements. Over 130 for-profit medical businesses have won contracts in the medical industry in Iraq. Government-provided healthcare is socialist. Free-trade, for-profit healthcare is not. Those medical businesses in Iraq are looking to make a profit.
Of course, the statement is facetious, with the real underlying meaning that HMOs and insurance companies do NOT have the best interests of the public at heart. Well, they do and they don’t. They do because they really do want to provide a service to the public that people will like and can afford. Businesses survive this way. However, they don’t because they don’t have to. As long as people don’t care what healthcare costs as long as they don’t have to pay for it, the HMOs and insurance companies rape the federal health programs. And the federal government gets it’s money from us in the form of taxes, so what do they care if our taxes and insurance premiums go up?

Facetious Statement #10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
Global warming: yep, junk science. Tobacco and cancer: True, but with caveats: read John Stossel’s book “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity”. You’ll find the answers there.
Creationism (and Darwinism): read Ann coulter’s book “Godless: the Church of Liberalism”. This nails it.
Besides, why shouldn’t creationism be taught in schools? Darwinism and Creationism are both theories, so why not discuss both? Not a problem for me. By the way, why wasn’t Intelligent Design included in the list of theories?
And while we’re at it, try to convince the Midwestern United States that we’re in a “global warming” situation (referring to the ice storms and blizzards of 2006-07).

Facetious Statement #7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
Drug stores and pharmacies make a profit selling condoms, and I don’t have to pay for them. That’s a good thing.

Schools get them for free from the federal government, or my school district. Either way, I’m paying for something I don’t want. That’s a bad thing.

Republicans aren’t stupid about sex (otherwise, how could we propagate the species?) We know kids are going to have sex, we just don’t think it’s a good idea to take the fear of pregnancy out of it.

Schools are for dispensing knowledge and information, not condoms. That’s what drug stores and pharmacies are for. Period. (no pun intended)

Facetious Statement #6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
I work for the military, so I think I can speak with some authority on this one. Yes, praising the troops in speeches in one way of improving morale. Another is to support their mission and their commander in chief. You don’t have to like him or agree with everything else, but support their commanders. And you can improve their morale by NOT telling them that what they are doing is wrong, a quagmire, ill conceived or badly executed. They are in the trenches and they can figure that out all on their own, thank you very much. Let THEM complain about it, not the people safe and warm back home.

Veteran’s benefits and military pay have traditionally been incredibly low, however it must be said that today, our active-duty military and vets have higher pay and more medical benefits than any time before in world history. Military personnel get subsidized housing, healthcare and other benefits, not to mention the paid education up to the doctorate level, and the base pay, low as it is compared to the civilian world. You must remember, however, that the kinds of people who VOLUNTEER for military service, even if it’s just for the free education, are not like us. Their motivation is not financial or job security. Their motivation is an acknowledgement of their internal need to serve and protect their country, it’s citizens, their families, and the world in general. They are a breed apart from us, thank God.

This week's lesson is kinda lengthy, but (1) its been a couple weeks since the last lesson (due to the thanksgiving holiday) and (2) this is a really important issue. (The catholic feast day of the Immaculate Conception is coming up next week, so I thought this topic would be appropriate.)

Facetious statement #5: A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

This is another example of associating two items with each other that have no logical relationship to each other. A woman’s decision to have an abortion is a moral decision. Decisions of multi-national corporations are financial. Moral and business decisions are not the same, although moral considerations can and do impact business decisions. It's not clear also what effect these corporate decisions are having. The decision to have an abortioin ALWAYS results in death. In fact, death is the desired result of an abortion. Death is never the intent of corporate business decisions.

Keep in mind that abortion is legal in the United States, so apparently we do trust women to make decisions about their own bodies. The person not being trusted in the decision here is the father of the child. The child (fetus, if you must) was created not by the woman’s body alone, but by the contribution of the male’s sperm. The woman may carry the child in her womb, but the fetus is constructed of matter from both woman and man, and thus the man is equally responsible for the creation of the pregnancy and should have equal input as to the decision to abort or carry to term. We never hear about the right of the man to choose.

Most of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian legal thought. In this tradition, killing a human is a sin, or at the very least, not a nice thing to do, and so a law was created to punish those who chose to kill someone else (outside of the rules of war). Since Judeo-Christian tradition believes that life begins at the moment of conception inside the womb, then intentionally terminating that life is murder and so that act must be punished.

Laws do not prevent people from doing bad things, but laws do address the community’s response to it (cause and effect). Despite having laws against murdering people, that doesn’t stop someone from choosing to murder. It only makes the perpetrator pay a penalty after the fact. So, despite the law, the killer has total control over his body’s actions. Having a law against abortion will not stop women from having abortions. Abortion law only addresses the community’s response to her choice (see, women DO have a choice!) to terminate the life of the child within her womb.

Let’s stop here a moment and address the “you can’t tell if it’s a human fetus until x-number of weeks of development” argument used by “pro-choice” advocates. If a man impregnates a woman, the result is always going to be a human being. It can become nothing else. Has any woman (or man, for that matter) ever asked her doctor, “Well, Doc, what will I give birth to this time? A cat? A horse? A pig? (I know, men are pigs, but let’s not go there right now!) Pretending that abortion is not killing a human because it’s “too early in the pregnancy to say it’s a human baby” and it could be anything prior to a certain number of weeks of gestation is absurd. Please, it’s a human and we all know it. Killing humans is against the law in this country. So should be abortion.

Notice the specific phrase “multi-national corporations” is used. Are only the multi-nationals evil? So, little corporations are not? What makes multi-nationals evil? How do their decisions affect all mankind? Don’t decisions by individuals also have an effect on all mankind?

Consider the decisions of Hitler. He wasn’t a corporation, he was only one man, yet his decisions had an impact on all of mankind.

So, what does corporate decision-making have to do with abortion? Nothing. A corporation consists of people; owners, employees, investors, and organizations like union pension funds who invest in the corporations. Does that mean all of these people—or union trust funds-- are evil? Hardly. The inference is that corporate industries are evil and must be regulated and controlled. I find it curious that the abortion industry is almost totally unregulated. They are making decisions that affect the lives of people, too (literally!). And the women who are making the decision to abort or not are also affecting all mankind.

Consider the decisions of Mary, mother of Jesus. She was not a corporation, she was only one woman, yet her decision had an impact on all of mankind.

As you all know by now, Best Buy has decided NOT to learn the lesson that Wal-Mart had to learn the hard way last year in deciding to replace the official store holiday greeting of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays". (FYI, Wal-Mart has stated that it will return to using "Merry Christmas" for it's holiday greeting. Kind of an "in your face" turnaround!)

Look folks, the ONLY reason there is a huge retail shopping spurt at this time of year is due to the commercialization of the Christian holiday of Christmas. Even if you despise the commercialization, you must admit that Christmas IS the "reason for the (shopping) season".

When I go to a synagogue, I am not offended when a Jew says to me, "Shabbat Shalom". They don't know me, and thus don't know that I am a Christian, but I can appreciate that they also wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to bestow well wishes to me on the chance that I was a Jewish bretheren.

We claim to be a "tolerant" society, but it amazes me how easily many people are offended. Tolerance is putting up with other cultures' idiosyncrasies. Jews, Christians, Atheists, and every other religion all tolerate each other fairly well. Muslims are another story, however. Muslims insist that "non-believers" have three choices: convert to the true religion of Islam, remain an infidel but subjugate themselves to second-class social status (where's the ACLU when you need them?), or be killed by the sword of Allah (or whichever Muslim has a sword at the time). Yet Christians are often tagged as "intolerant" for wanting to hear "Merry Christmas" for 40 days out of the year.

Okay, so I digress. Here's the motivation for today's lesson. Following is a copy of my e-mail sent to the president of Best Buy:

To: Mr. Schulze, CEO, Best Buy

Mr. Schulze:

I am another person among the many whom have likely contacted you to encourage you to reinstitute the use of “Merry Christmas” in our holiday store promotions. This holiday shopping season is predicated solely on the historical premise of the Christian holiday of Christmas.

It was not predicated on Hanukah. Hanukah came eons prior to the birth of Christ, yet there has never been a “Hanukah shopping season”.

It was not predicated on Kwanzaa. The Christmas season existed long before Kwanzaa was invented by a California educator in the 1970’s.

The “reason for the season” is Christmas. Using “Happy Holidays” in an effort to be inclusive or less offensive accomplishes neither. It is historically illogical and culturally offensive to those Christians who are going to be the main source of business during this season.

Make this majority of customers happy by promoting the use of “Merry Christmas” in your stores this year.

Regards,

Bill McGrane
Pittsburgh, PA

Facetious Statement # 4: The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority was enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

Yes, the United States should get out of the U.N.
As long as any dictatorial country is a member, the concept of the United Nations is a useless and ineffective farce. And we consider enforcing U.N. resolutions quite low on our list of national priorities. It’s just that nobody else seems willing to actually take on that responsibility, so we end up doing it. It’s called backing up your words with actions so that your words actually mean something.
The U.N. has it’s own “peace-keeping force”. Let them take care of enforcing those resolutions.

Facetious statement #3: Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
This is word play, comparing apples and oranges. Trade with Cuba isn’t necessarily wrong; it’s just that right now, it’s illegal. We don’t trade with Cuba for two main reasons:

Trading with Cuba will provide cash to the Cuban government (remember, in a communist or socialist society, the economy is controlled by the government and pushed down to the citizen level, so the money is not going into the general Cuban economy and thus not directly benefiting the general population). Cash to the Cuban government will enable military build-up and—because of its close proximity to the U.S. mainland--will be a military threat to the United States. Therefore, as long as Cuba remains a Communist dictatorship, we will not trade with them.

Cuba really has nothing much to offer us economically, anyway. Cuba has virtually no industry other than sugar, cigars and tourism. Moreover, the economy is a command economy, run from the top down. There is no freedom of opportunity for anyone but the already privileged class.

Vietnam and China are indeed communist countries. However, there are differences from Cuba. After the U.S. pull-out of support at the end of the Vietnam War, the Communist-led North Vietnamese overran South Vietnam in 1975 and implemented typical restrictive communist economic policies. After a decade of failures, Vietnam began experimenting with free-market economics in the mid-1980s, and today is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, much like it’s neighbor, China. China is experimenting with a unique hybrid of communist and free market economies.
At least these countries are trying, and they actually have something to offer of real commercial value in return for our trade dollars. Think of the vast variety of retail items available throughout the United States that have stickers on the bottom that say “Made in China” or “Made in Vietnam” on them. There are not only manufacturing quality consumer goods. China and Vietnam now produce some of the world’s finest computer and electronics engineers (many of whom I work with in the Department of Defense; whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is another issue altogether). These people are coming into the U.S., not illegally on homemade floating death traps as is common for the Cubans, but legally through immigration and customs, and on work or study visas. And they are here to work and assimilate, not suckle off the government teat of social programs. I’m not saying that Cubans are not hard-working and interested in making a contribution. But those governments which portend to provide for the needs of their people rarely encourage self-sufficiency.

Would Americans be happy to open legal trade with Cuba? You bet, as long as it’s also in our country’s best interests (see last week’s lesson). Cubans export great food, cigars, ballplayers and musicians. We’d also like to see Cuba give capitalism a try, like China and Vietnam. Politically, they are Communist, but they are finding that free market capitalism is better for the economy.

Facetious statement # 2: Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Response:

On Sept 26, 2006 a North Korean official said, in referencing the current reversal in their policy to consider ending their nuclear development, that “alliances come and go, only interests remain the same”. Korea apparently has found something of common interest with the United States—like the preservation of Kim Jong Il’s life!

Now, I’m not going to delve into a detailed history of U.S. foreign policy. Suffice it to say that, in the world of international diplomacy, each country aligns itself with whoever advances their own political agenda at the time.

During the Revolutionary War, England was our mortal enemy. Today, England is our closest ally. Why? Because it suits both of our national interests to do so. In WWI, Russia was our enemy, but in WWII, Russia was our ally. Not because they liked us so much, but because their government based their allegiances on whoever best suited their own national agenda. When the German alliance could no longer benefit Italy, they joined the allies.

When Iran threatened U.S. assets in Tehran in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, Iraq was our ally against the Iranians. Nobody ever said we liked Saddam then or agreed with his policies. We associated with Iraq then because it was the strongest military presence in the Middle East at the time. Iraq was able to fight Iran to a stalemate, which is the best we could hope for without direct involvement. Then Saddam took advantage of the situation (behaving exactly as many intelligence officers expected) and used his power to invade Kuwait. Iraq, our “ally” against Iran just a few short years earlier, became our enemy because what he did was contrary to our national interests. President George H. W. Bush unwisely caved to the demands of the State Department and American peace activists (leftovers from the Vietnam era) to stop short of Bagdad, spare Saddam his life, and instead agree to let the world community impose sanctions against Iraq, the result of which allowed Saddam to stuff his coffers with oil-for-food money and stuff coffins with the bodies of innocent Iraqis murdered by his regime. To the Middle Eastern culture, this was seen as weakness, and we paid the price for that over the next 10 years by suffering numerous terrorist attacks on American assets and personnel around the world.

Some bloggers have discounted the Bush adminstration’s assertion of a connection between bin Laden and Saddam. It would be impossible, they say, that a Muslim conservative like Bin Laden would ever work with an “infidel” like Saddam Hussein. After all, it is well documented that bin Laden hated Hussein. They may be tyrants, but they are not stupid. They may have their differences, but they did have a common hatred for the “Great Satan”, the United States. And so, Saddam, as he had done before, was willing to align himself with al-Queda against a common enemy.

So, yes, Saddam was a good guy when he helped us fight the Iranians, a bad guy when he attacked our ally Kuwait, a good guy when Haliburton did business with him, and a bad guy when he ignored the United Nations Resolutions. But what country is the only one that could stand up to enforce those resolutions? The United States.

This whole thing can be summed up in the phrase: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This is not a “bin Laden diversion”. If anything, it’s a “the UN wants to ignore the oil-for food scandal” diversion.

This is the first part of a multi-part series of lessons on what a person needs to believe to be ...   more »

NewsMax magazine conducted a poll to find the most influential talk show hosts. Here are the results, in order of ...   more »