Well, planning on letting us know anytime soon? Hopefully, It didn't keep you from your bridge game.
As I write this, over 150 people in Mexico have died from the Swine flu. Apparently, it has made a comeback. I haven't heard about it since the 70's. Even then, I thought it may have been a joke or a prank when hearing about it back then. I mean, how do you catch flu from any type of animal much less a pig? Seemed strange.
What has been more strange is that no type of any serious warning was announced to the American public until a couple of days ago. I had heard on my local news last Thursday or Friday that 60 people had already died in Mexico; now, three cases have developed in a small town just outside of San Antonio. The people infected were students from the high school in that area resulting in it being closed this entire week so that it could be sanitized. Then they closed down the park and other public places as well. Soon, other cities around the nation followed suit.
The government announced that deaths would result from this virus, and they were correct. Unfortunately, as I write this part of the article (4-29-09), a small child has died in Houston. Though that may not actually count since the child was visiting from Mexico. However, I did see in the local news that a woman from this city died; but it I haven't seen whether it has been determined if it was from the Swine flu. Anyway, still makes me wonder how the government can make an announcement seemingly in a cavalierish manner predicting death. Never hear those kinds of impending predictions concerning the regular flu. Must really be that serious.
An interesting side note that I learned recently. I decided to look up the word flu or influenza to see where the meaning came from. It originated from the middle ages from the Latin influentia which evolved into influence. It was believed that the flu was influenced from the heavenly bodies or the stars-- a visitation. Interesting.
"Uh, Did I hear you say you believe that martial law needs to be enacted because of the Swine flu?"
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
No Tea-sin
Attended the Tea Party here in San Antonio last Wednesday. Fox talk show host Glenn Beck was one of the featured speakers along with "wildman" (as he w
as called by a local broadcaster) Ted Nugent. Although Mr. Beck gave a good speech, Mr. Nugent really got the crowd pumped up with his rousing speech. His main point concerning bailouts. Simply put, anyone who offers to bail you out is just saying you don't have the ability to make it on your own... That, basically, you may be worthless. And that is, folks, how the government views much of us here in America. In addition, those who refuse to accept homogenization into a bleak, sallow society may be deemed dangerous.
Later, the Wildman himself continued to stir up the crowd with his rendition of The Star Spangled Banner on his electric guitar. He did this to pay tribute to our brave and marvelous men and women in the military. This fostered or promoted one of the many times the crowd would chant, "USA, USA, USA..." Outstanding. Outstanding also to think that chants such as those and other similar actions would raise the hackles of the Left and its minions. No doubt they thought that rallies such as these would be attended by those of subhuman character. I'm sure they were surprised--probably even disappointed--that there were no reports of anyone shooting guns in the air.
as called by a local broadcaster) Ted Nugent. Although Mr. Beck gave a good speech, Mr. Nugent really got the crowd pumped up with his rousing speech. His main point concerning bailouts. Simply put, anyone who offers to bail you out is just saying you don't have the ability to make it on your own... That, basically, you may be worthless. And that is, folks, how the government views much of us here in America. In addition, those who refuse to accept homogenization into a bleak, sallow society may be deemed dangerous.Later, the Wildman himself continued to stir up the crowd with his rendition of The Star Spangled Banner on his electric guitar. He did this to pay tribute to our brave and marvelous men and women in the military. This fostered or promoted one of the many times the crowd would chant, "USA, USA, USA..." Outstanding. Outstanding also to think that chants such as those and other similar actions would raise the hackles of the Left and its minions. No doubt they thought that rallies such as these would be attended by those of subhuman character. I'm sure they were surprised--probably even disappointed--that there were no reports of anyone shooting guns in the air.
Of course, there was the main conception that the Tea Parties were nothing more than anti-Obama rallies fostered by a discontented few. True, I did see a couple of signs that referred to his person. There was one which had his face overlayed with one of those "no" signs (that red circle figure with the slash) that read "Obama Free Gun Zone." There was another which had "change" spelled out in a weird way. The "C" was red and I think had a red star nestled in. The "G" was green, seeming to indicate the Islamic culture.
Well, however these rallies were interpreted, how great can this be with all sorts of people exercising the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution giving citizens the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of grievances whether in the written or vocal form.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
More than Twelve Angry Men
Well, seems like President Obama is running out of people to anger. Seems like he or someone in his administration has made it a priority to anger someone or some group in this wonderful nation. I've been one of them (well not real angry, just miffed); however, he definitely deserves credit for allowing the Navy SEALs to do their job, what they were trained to do. The way they were able to parachute into the water, board the Bainbridge, then kill the pirates while the lifeboat and the ship were both bobbing in the water; and probably accomplishing all that under the cover of darkness. Amazing. So I'm glad the President recognized that there is a certain evil in this world that has to be dealt with by force. At least, he recognizes that for now.
I remember the movie, A Few Good Men, starring Tom Cruise in which the Marine Colonel (name skips me) played by Jack Nicholson defends his views and actions about what it takes to defend this nation. Just paraphrasing, but simply says that defending the nation is like defending a fort...You need men with guns to guard the gates of those forts. Now, of course, the movie itself is seeking to portray the Colonel and his views as sardonic. Intending to cast a negative light on the military and its authority with pretty boy Tom Cruise playing the culturally updated Navy Officer and the ogreish Nicholson portraying the Colonel in an acerbic manner.
However the point is portrayed, it is clear that diplomacy can only be taken so far. There comes a point when force has to be used and used decisively. So, again, kudos to our president who was willing to engage; but what will he do if the stakes are raised, because, of course, this engagement alone is not going to stop these thugs (or Merchant Marine organizers as Rush calls them) from continuing their robbery. They've already claimed that they will not only continue to hijack but also threaten to kill. Apparently, something they supposedly have not done yet. How far is President Obama willing to take it? Is he willing to go into Somalia to root out these terrorists at the source? Can't tell me that there is not an intelligent hierarchy to deal with when it comes to these thugs, the masterminds who sit back and let others do their terroristic work.
Too bad, though, along with that engagement, comes the news about a Department of Homeland Security report that has angered many throughout this nation, that has cast a palling effect on how our military is perceived. How can we as a nation not be outraged when it is suspected that any returning veterans from the Middle East war could possibly be seduced by the "right wing" to go over to "the dark side?" And to compare these fine men and women to Timothy McVeigh? Where are the minds of these people who put out such bilge? So while our president is traveling the world apologizing for America's misgivings, our military and other people who trully care about this country are being undermined by a government that has gotten way too large, that has reached the stratosphere of the fatuous. It is no wonder these rallies called the "Tea Parties" have emerged as a call back to sanity.
I remember the movie, A Few Good Men, starring Tom Cruise in which the Marine Colonel (name skips me) played by Jack Nicholson defends his views and actions about what it takes to defend this nation. Just paraphrasing, but simply says that defending the nation is like defending a fort...You need men with guns to guard the gates of those forts. Now, of course, the movie itself is seeking to portray the Colonel and his views as sardonic. Intending to cast a negative light on the military and its authority with pretty boy Tom Cruise playing the culturally updated Navy Officer and the ogreish Nicholson portraying the Colonel in an acerbic manner.
However the point is portrayed, it is clear that diplomacy can only be taken so far. There comes a point when force has to be used and used decisively. So, again, kudos to our president who was willing to engage; but what will he do if the stakes are raised, because, of course, this engagement alone is not going to stop these thugs (or Merchant Marine organizers as Rush calls them) from continuing their robbery. They've already claimed that they will not only continue to hijack but also threaten to kill. Apparently, something they supposedly have not done yet. How far is President Obama willing to take it? Is he willing to go into Somalia to root out these terrorists at the source? Can't tell me that there is not an intelligent hierarchy to deal with when it comes to these thugs, the masterminds who sit back and let others do their terroristic work.
Too bad, though, along with that engagement, comes the news about a Department of Homeland Security report that has angered many throughout this nation, that has cast a palling effect on how our military is perceived. How can we as a nation not be outraged when it is suspected that any returning veterans from the Middle East war could possibly be seduced by the "right wing" to go over to "the dark side?" And to compare these fine men and women to Timothy McVeigh? Where are the minds of these people who put out such bilge? So while our president is traveling the world apologizing for America's misgivings, our military and other people who trully care about this country are being undermined by a government that has gotten way too large, that has reached the stratosphere of the fatuous. It is no wonder these rallies called the "Tea Parties" have emerged as a call back to sanity.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A Nation Built on Order and Respect
Unfortunately, as I post this new article, I've already heard about another shooting. This one being in Southern California at a Korean Christian retreat. I really haven't heard much more than a husband shot his wife and possibly more people as well. Certainly, all these shootings that have happened recently including the one in Alabama and North Carolina should be very disturbing to us as a nation.
As these events happen and cause us to reflect, we sometimes experience those moments of helplessness. What to do? Was there someway this tragedy could have been prevented? How do the people involved, as well as their friends and family, recover to get on with their lives? Often the solutions or reasons we are offered sometimes seem simplistic. Reasons such as that these events are the result of this nation forgetting God or that maybe we just need to remember that our forefathers forged this nation to be a decent one...a nation built on order and respect toward other lives and property. Some believe such reasons maybe valid.
Whatever reasons or solutions offered, we cannot forget the fine men and women in the police forces throughout this nation who help keep the order, especially those tragically gun downed in Oakland and Pittsburgh. No doubt, they are more than ever under constant pressure in performing their duties. A case in point is the massacre in Binghamton, NY. A local radio host by the name of Jack Riccardi here in San Antonio, Tx. was talking about how the police waited for an hour before going into the building, even though they could hear no more gunshots. Apparently, the police had arrived within minutes of the shooting, but did not charge in to possibly rescue anybody who may have been in danger or wounded. He claims he got that information (police waiting for an hour) from reading some articles, and I believe him to be a credible host as I do listen to him often.
Now he was not seeking to impugn the officers ( as these matters do need to be treated delicately) at the scene and certainly not the police as a whole; but he was seeking to find out that since we do arm the police, should they not be ready to charge into a building even at their own peril to rescue those who still may be in danger. Some callers to his program suggested that maybe their (Binghamton police) cautionary actions were due to not knowing for sure whether the gunman had possibly set some booby traps. Perhaps he was holding hostages, and the officer's superiors held them back to wait for the SWAT team. At this posting, not much is known for sure. There is no simple answer to that.
Still, I would have to concur as to the statement that that is why the police are supposed to be armed...to protect the public. Because from time to time those who believe that the police can't always be there to protect either because their hands are tied by their superiors or perhaps they themselves may be outmatched (and, unfortunately, there are times when that may be true), and want to protect themselves with their own arms have to hear from the busy bodies and finger waggers that "you need to let the professionals handle these situations."
"How dare you have a gun in your home for protection, especially since you have children. Don't you know you may be putting them in danger?" Then the tired argument often heard is, "You know things can always be replaced, but lives can't (that is what is usually said usually in a condescending way when the property owner possibly has the intention of fighting back)." Yes, I'm sure that's true; but the replacing of my things should be at my discretion and not the criminal's. These type of statements are often offered by those who seek to reduce gun rights and possibly ban them altogether.
Certainly, the police are in a very precarious situation many times; and what I get miffed at the most is when there is an officer involved shooting and the press always has to mention that the officer has been placed on administrative duty pending an investigation. Then they have to give the officer's name and how many years he/she has been on the force and other information of that nature. It's almost like judgement has already been passed on the officer (at least that is the tone). That he is already guilty of something for daring to do his job. I believe that is very disingenuous.
Yes, hail to those heroes who protect us from the evil in this world; and to those who seek to deny the public the right to defend himself, I have this to say: "Get out of my LZ."
As these events happen and cause us to reflect, we sometimes experience those moments of helplessness. What to do? Was there someway this tragedy could have been prevented? How do the people involved, as well as their friends and family, recover to get on with their lives? Often the solutions or reasons we are offered sometimes seem simplistic. Reasons such as that these events are the result of this nation forgetting God or that maybe we just need to remember that our forefathers forged this nation to be a decent one...a nation built on order and respect toward other lives and property. Some believe such reasons maybe valid.
Whatever reasons or solutions offered, we cannot forget the fine men and women in the police forces throughout this nation who help keep the order, especially those tragically gun downed in Oakland and Pittsburgh. No doubt, they are more than ever under constant pressure in performing their duties. A case in point is the massacre in Binghamton, NY. A local radio host by the name of Jack Riccardi here in San Antonio, Tx. was talking about how the police waited for an hour before going into the building, even though they could hear no more gunshots. Apparently, the police had arrived within minutes of the shooting, but did not charge in to possibly rescue anybody who may have been in danger or wounded. He claims he got that information (police waiting for an hour) from reading some articles, and I believe him to be a credible host as I do listen to him often.
Now he was not seeking to impugn the officers ( as these matters do need to be treated delicately) at the scene and certainly not the police as a whole; but he was seeking to find out that since we do arm the police, should they not be ready to charge into a building even at their own peril to rescue those who still may be in danger. Some callers to his program suggested that maybe their (Binghamton police) cautionary actions were due to not knowing for sure whether the gunman had possibly set some booby traps. Perhaps he was holding hostages, and the officer's superiors held them back to wait for the SWAT team. At this posting, not much is known for sure. There is no simple answer to that.
Still, I would have to concur as to the statement that that is why the police are supposed to be armed...to protect the public. Because from time to time those who believe that the police can't always be there to protect either because their hands are tied by their superiors or perhaps they themselves may be outmatched (and, unfortunately, there are times when that may be true), and want to protect themselves with their own arms have to hear from the busy bodies and finger waggers that "you need to let the professionals handle these situations."
"How dare you have a gun in your home for protection, especially since you have children. Don't you know you may be putting them in danger?" Then the tired argument often heard is, "You know things can always be replaced, but lives can't (that is what is usually said usually in a condescending way when the property owner possibly has the intention of fighting back)." Yes, I'm sure that's true; but the replacing of my things should be at my discretion and not the criminal's. These type of statements are often offered by those who seek to reduce gun rights and possibly ban them altogether.
Certainly, the police are in a very precarious situation many times; and what I get miffed at the most is when there is an officer involved shooting and the press always has to mention that the officer has been placed on administrative duty pending an investigation. Then they have to give the officer's name and how many years he/she has been on the force and other information of that nature. It's almost like judgement has already been passed on the officer (at least that is the tone). That he is already guilty of something for daring to do his job. I believe that is very disingenuous.
Yes, hail to those heroes who protect us from the evil in this world; and to those who seek to deny the public the right to defend himself, I have this to say: "Get out of my LZ."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)