About as Tragic as it can Be

Here in San Antonio, a most horrific and gruesome crime took place. A young mother either sometime Sunday the 26th or Monday the 27th used a couple of swords and a knife to mutilate, decapitate and cannibalize her newborn son. I believe the newborn, named Scotty, was only four weeks old. If I heard the report on the news correctly, she also skinned him as well. So grisly was this crime that the police chief said he needed to call in counselors for the officers who had answered the call.



Now certainly this sort of crime is not the first to have taken place in America or anywhere else, at least as far as a father or mother killing his own. Still, we will be hearing about the mother's grave condition before the crime occurred. We will be subjected to the constant theories and facts about the obligatory Postpartum Syndrome and how it may have affected her a la Andrea Yates (I think her husband divorced her, so I don't know if that's still her name but will still refer to her in that name) from a few years back combined with undue stress and that we as a society should have recognized the signs and quickly done something about it.


In that case (Mrs. Yates'), we were bombarded with her condition and how she got there. That friends and family thought she should not have been having anymore children. That her husband (at least the press made him seem such) was not taking into account her awry condition and should have realized that she should not be giving birth anymore. The media made it seemed like Mrs. Yates was a sex slave. (Mr. Yates may or may not have been culpable to a certain extent. Still. . . He did not kill his children. His wife did.)



Whether all that was true as far as that devilish syndrome is concerned, I can't say. Don't know if I ever will. But should it matter? Whether Mrs. Yates and the woman here in San Antonio were the "victims" of their condition and finally succumbed or whether it was a perpetration of a major con just so murder could be committed and possibly major judgement eluded, the main focus must be on the victims--the children killed.



I still can't imagine how and it's a deep infringement upon my very being to still think about how those Yates children died. The terror they must have felt as their mother was chasing them around the house knowing that she was intending to drown them. The mere horror they must have been feeling as their lives were expiring in a tortuous, gruesome way. Their tiny lungs gasping for that life-giving breath. Unimaginable. Unfathomable.



My main concern is and has always been that these mothers who kill their children someway, somehow finagle their way out of death. I still can't believe how Mrs. Yates somehow--and it may not be such a big surprise--received just life and not death. I suppose in a country and society where the mere stigma of aborting babies in the womb is practically passe' because of the embracing of the death culture. We basically have been numbed by these continuous, egregious acts and seemingly kowtowed into believing that we cannot properly or rightly judge these murderers because either we don't always know the facts of their past, their current condition, etc. and thus we have no right to impose death upon them.

So where does this end as far as allowing murder to continue without due justice for those who can't defend themselves?. . . Who in many cases cannot speak up for themselves.

Side Notes

Some side notes concerning some blogs published from the past few weeks.


First: Concerning Ms. Benita Veliz, the young woman I had written about a few weeks ago. The question I had about her situation--what I had been thinking about was. . . How was Ms. Veliz able to get to the position of earning her degrees, hold a job and so forth without anyone noticing that she was not a U.S. citizen? Were not laws being broken by not only her but also by the people who where helping her along the way? I'm sure there were some who knew about her lack of U.S. citizenship.


In fact, when I was reading an article about her case in the San Antonio Express-News, there was a picture of her along with two other people (a man and his wife) who were part of the church she was working at (if my memory serves me correctly). They were hugging her in a congratulatory manner because a judge had just ruled in her favor to allow her stay in this country for about three more months.

Now, my intention was really not to address this part, but I feel I have to break in--though in a conciliatory manner--and just mention that I find it offensive when churches and people from churches start telling us the public that we need to be more "nice" to illegal immigrants and just look the other way when they do come in illegally. We need to show compassion towards "these people" because after all, that is what Jesus would have done. Aha. . . yes. . . always injecting Jesus into the argument.


OK. . . want to use Jesus as your source (certain people seem to find Jesus whenever the situation suits them)--fair enough.


Note this then: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." That is from John 10:1 which basically explains that there is a certain order that applies whenever any type of enterprise is being set in motion.

Jesus was using the example of a shepherd and his sheep in which he mentions a "door" or perhaps even a gateway which the shepherd (or whoever is authorized) must enter in order to access and lead his sheep out. There is a certain process that must go in effect--nothing haphazard. Certain ways in, certain ways out. That operating practice must be applied in just about every sort of situation, especially when it comes to running (and protecting) a sovereign country.

"Well, that seems pretty harsh. God can't be that harsh." That would seem to be a fair evaluatory statement. Well then I would just direct you to go to Matthew 25 and check out the stories about the wise and foolish virgins (vs. 1-13), and the man who gave his servants some talents or wealth to at least invest in order to receive a return. Those situations represent what Jesus and His Father God believe or how They basically operate now and how They shall do so in the future, in a non-vacillating manner.

Second: To elaborate about the situation in the Middle East. I know it sounds scary when we are talking about using nuclear weapons to try and win a war.

Look, every since the media and other leftists admitted we did win WWII, all we've heard from them since is that Korea was a stalemate, Vietnam was a loss, and the current war is another Vietnam. So, I'm not saying we simply use nuclear weapons just so we can satisfy these people and continue to feel good about ourselves. We just need to think long and hard about how we should deal with Iran because they are the main instigators. It's that simple.

But who knows when it comes to Iraq, perhaps the Iraqi military (trained by our great military) can go on to carry their own weight, actually kick some serious butt, and really be a force to be reckoned with--for good that is. Especially if they're able to send al-Sadr dead on arrival where he belongs. If not, well, that is a situation in which America really should no longer be sacrificing anymore lives for. I know conservatives such as Sean Hannity have said in the past that if American troops are withdrawn without the job being finished so to say, then it could the "killing fields" all over again such as what happened in Cambodia.

And I proudly say that I agree with Mr. Hannity in the majority of his opinions or views. What he believes about what may occur if American troops are withdrawn from that theater may be true. Still, I would have to say again, "No more sacrificing of American troops." Plain and simple--in that area at least. I believe we've done our due diligence in that part of the world.

"The Kingdom" and its Remembrance

Now that the memorial to the "buggerer of boys" (Rob Roy) has passed (the one in L.A. I mean), I would like to bring to attention a real memorial to some real men of courage. Men who really cared for the well-being of mankind. I'm speaking of the United States Air Force personnel who died tragically in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in June, 1996. This event which happened in a far-off--and many times--a hostile land should not be conveniently forgotten.

The reason I'm reminded of this event is from the movie called The Kingdom starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, a movie I'd never heard about and was surprised to see that it had been out only about a couple of years ago. The movie portrays four FBI agents who go to Saudi Arabia to investigate a terrorist bombing at an American living complex administered by an oil company. They encounter and must hurdle many obstacles (obstacles such as the resentment of them even being there) in order to find the ones responsible for the bombings. They eventually find the perpetrator who planned the bombings and kill him.

I checked it out from the library (which I've been doing a lot lately), and even though it seemed like another one of those movies which want to make us feel guilty about our "addiction" to oil (sorry you can throw all the movies you want at me that try to make me feel guilty about that, but you have not, and you will not succeed.) a la Syriana (thus, the fomentation of more terrorists), I didn't mind giving it a try.



Well, as I always do, I watched with an open mind knowing there was always a chance that there would an overbearing communique' of the writer's, director's, or producer's biased viewpoint. It turned out all right (especially the final sequence, which reminded me of the Columbian shootout scene in Clear and Present Danger where Harrison Ford is the only survivor); and as I always favor movies based on actual events, this movie continually held or grabbed my attention. Safe to say I was impressed by its fair portrayal of all parties involved, and I did enjoy it

But the thing I was most impressed with was while the credits were running. Toward the end of the credits, the producers acknowledged the Khobar Towers bombing and listed all the men who had died.



So the following are the men who were killed:

Capt. Christopher J. Adams Capt. Leland T. Haun

MSgt. Michael G. Heiser MSgt. Kendall K. Kitson, Jr.

SSgt. Kevin J. Johnson SSgt. Ronald L. King

Sgt. Millard D. Campbell TSgt. Daniel B. Cafourek

TSgt. Patrick P. Fennig TSgt. Thanh Van Nguyen

Sr.A Earl F. Cartrette, Jr. Sr.A Jeremy A. Taylor

A1C Christopher Lester A1C Brent E. Marthaler

A1C Brian W. McVeigh A1C Peter J. Morgera

A1C Joseph E. Rimkus A1C Joshua E. Woody

A1C Justin R. Wood

To me, that was real classy on the part of the producers of The Kingdom. That was truly avant-garde.

No Easy Solutions

Congratulations to Mr. Roger Federer for his fifteenth grand slam victory to pass Pete Sampras. His victory at Wimbledon certainly did not come easy as Andy Roddick gave him that run for his money--16-14 in the final set. And certainly do want to acknowledge the tragic death of a great athlete in our time, Steve McNair. It certainly came as shock, as something such as this usually will whenever you've watched an athlete such as him for many years. You feel that certain connection.


I wanted to continue from my last blog concerning the withdrawing of U.S. troops from Iraq. For the last few days, Vice-President Joe Biden was in Iraq doing. . . whatever. So I'll just come out and say it--why are we not thinking about nuclear weapons to end this war? I'm sure the terrorists have been thinking about it. And even if it should not end the war--right away (I'm sure it won't), I'm sure it'll make these monsters think long and hard about wanting to continue. Seems to me we should have enough intelligence by now as to where these cruel deviants dwell (at least en masse) so that they can be hindered greatly so as not to have to sacrifice the lives of any more of our fine fighting men.


I mean why is that so hard to deliberate or consider, particularly when it comes to the valuable lives of our American soldiers? Doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't make any sense that if we know Iran is behind all of this, that we are not going to confront them with deadly force. Confront them with real deadly force as to prevent more American soldier's lives from needlessly being sacrificed. It's almost criminal in my view not to even consider it. Sure, I know the greatly feared collateral damage will be involved. No doubt, the press will continually remind us of that fact. They will no doubt remind us of those images of grossly burnt people from Nagasaki and Hiroshima that will forever be etched or ingrained in our minds, and I believe it should be as such. Nuclear attack is not a subject that should be taken lightly. In fact, it may be we ourselves who will be attacked again (most likely with atomic weapons) before they decide that they have had enough. Nothing is known for sure, but I believe eventually we'll have to find out. There are no easy solutions to this world conflict.


But one thing I am sure of is that we are not--repeat--not fighting a stateless enemy. I'm tired of hearing that since these killers don't wear uniforms (Then explain to me why we continually see images of a certain group of "people" somewhere in the Gaza Strip wearing black or green uniforms, covering their heads with black hoods, carrying AK-47s marching around in unison. That looks like an organized army to me, whether they be storekeepers or whatever. Why do you suppose they're wearing those hoods? So that their mommies won't recognize them and get mad at them for playing soldier?) and don't have ships or airplanes that there really is no country that can be held accountable. Bull.


Yes, "horsehockey" (Col. Potter--M.A.S.H.), the lives of our soldiers are too valuable to believe otherwise. Now for whatever reason President Obama right now is withdrawing troops from Iraq whether it be because Iraq is stable enough or perhaps it may be from some earlier agreement (or demand from) with Mr. al-Maliki, I exhort him to consider the well being of our soldiers. If Mr. al-Maliki doesn't the troops there anymore, then get them the heck out brutha. Get them out. Whatever the President's agenda may be, let no more troop's lives be unnecessarily sacrificed if they are not going to be allowed to fight with all vigor. Not to be held back because of some bad press of civilians being killed such as is what is happening in Afghanistan. Ridiculous.

Now at this point it may not matter to the President what reason the troops should leave. . . whether the time is right, whether he actually cares for their well being. I'm certain the main reason is that it is most expedient that he looks good in the eyes of the American Left and the rest of the world. If things go well, then no doubt he will be taking the lion's share of the credit. If things turn out disastrous, then he'll just blame it on the "failed policies of the past administration."--an exercise he has mastered by now.

Liberation Day?

Well, the Iraqi government has declared June 30 their Liberation Day as American troops are now being withdrawn from Iraq, a long anticipated day for many throughout our nation and the world. Now the moment or period of bewilderment or worry begins. Will the Iraqi forces by themselves be able to keep law and order in their country without U.S. troops having to come and bail them out? The contention no doubt will continue as pundits both left and right will constantly debate whether the withdrawing of troops was or is a sound action or will it just eventually lead to disaster. Is it just a house of cards that is destined for a fall? If disaster does arise, does that mean America did not win the war, at least in that particular country of Iraq?


We shall see how liberated they have really become; and it may not take that long to find out, particularly--as my biggest worry or fear has been--since that terrorist cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Iranian-backed Mahdi army is still running free. Still running free like the vicious dog that he is, ready to wreak murderous havoc where he can. Should have been deposed as well as Saddam Hussein; and since that did not happen; and since he (and not only he but other parts of the insurgency as well) saw or perceived that taking on the U.S. military was futile, he simply burrowed himself in some hole somewhere, and is probably just biding his time until the "coast" becomes clear.

Remains to be seen what will transpire; and while our brave troops continue to bravely fight in Afghanistan, particularly the Marines in Operation Strike of the Sword, the questions still arise in my mind as to why the U.S. did not do more to confront Iran when it was known that they were not only backing terrorist armies such as Mahdi, but also providing the deadly roadside bombs known as IED's. Why we continued to allow them to kill or maim our troops like that withhout answering with our own deadly force still remains an enigma to me. We as a country debated long and hard about how Iran should be dealt with, particularly whether their nuclear sites should have been taken out. It seemed we had the biggest chance while President Bush was still in office. Seemed like an opportunity squandered in retrospect.

Still, seems like when it comes to dealing with countries such as Iran, we seem to back down. It seems like the U.S.--unfortunately--has had quite a long history of it. So what do we do if we really want to claim that we really won this war in the Middle East? Although the fighting is still going on in Afghanistan, I know we have taken care of business in Iraq. I believe we've done all we possibly have been able to do. No regrets. If our government had just told us, the public, from the beginning that we were going over there (both in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever) to eliminate the enemy. If they would have just told us that in the first place, that would have been alright by me. I didn't care about hospitals and schools being built. Didn't want to hear ad nauseum that women were freed from wearing burkas and girls were able to go to school for the first time. Don't care. Don't care. Just. . . kill. . . the enemy.

But as far as winning this war, when is the last time just about everyone, including the socialistic press, admitted that America actually did win a war. Wasn't that WWII? And what weapon was ultimately used to win that war. . . Wasn't it the atomic bomb? I would like to delve in that subject more deeply, but I am short on time. I would just like to end this blog with a salute to our nation's fighting men and women, as without their efforts we would not be able to continually celebrate our nation's birthday. . . July the 4th. A happy 4th to you.

It's My Style

I've been in a kind of a reverse nirvana here. Have so many things that I would like to write or blog about. Just get lazy. I know. . . others usually refer to it as "writer's block." Call it what you will; guess I got it for now. I usually don't like writing off the cuff or just "throwing" something out there just to get something out there. I'm usually thinking quality, not quantity. When I do write, I like to present my thoughts in a well thought-out manner. Usually like to have a certain topic as my goal. Don't like to ramble. Avoiding redundancy to the best of my ability.

I like and virtually insist on using good grammar. Correct spelling is a must. I just learned that in all my training during my school years. I do my best to use the correct phrasing and punctuation. I'm sure I don't always get everything correct (particularly in my syntax and diction), mainly because I never really took the time to memorize all those complicated grammar rules (only one I can really recall for now is "i" before "e" except after "c" and maybe some other minor ones); but I'm still learning. . . constantly learning. Proofread. Proofread is always the word before I publish. Checking facts when I can. It's tedious for a fact, but I just respect my reader too much not to.

Slang can often be a sore subject. I can see its use when trying to get across a humorous point, and its particular use in a spoof or a lampoon. As one can see I don't mind injecting the occasional colloquialism. Probably use it more than I think; but I can't understand it being overused. I believe that's just a lazy mind at work. I certainly cannot understand vulgarity, particularly when one feels it is needed to make a topic humorous or to shock the reader. That's far worse than being dull of mind. An occasional curse word interjected from time to time doesn't bother me, but vulgarity. . . bawdiness. . . Won't find them at my door.

In elaboration of that point, why do comedians or so-called comedians find it necessary to employ so much vulgarity just to get an audience to laugh at their jokes, particularly the "f" word. I remember awhile back watching George Lopez doing one of his routines on television. Every other word he uttered had to be bleeped out. Every other word. Safe to say, I didn't listen very long. Of course, Mr. Lopez is not the only one using such coarse lingo. Why do these people feel they have to shock their audience with that junk? For some reason they feel they have to drag us down to the type of world or life that they grew up in. That because they grew up in a barrio or ghetto that they feel that we the audience need to hear the gutter language that they used hear and speak. "Oh, but that's what makes it so real or relevant. It's the culture." Still does't make sense to me.

Such language takes away from other sorts of entertainment. For instance, my favorite type of movie is the one based on real life events. Recount starring Kevin Spacey, for an example, which is the story of the 2000 presidential election between Gore and Bush, used so much of the "f" word and other vulgar words that it was mind-numbing. I'm sure that's the way the actual people spoke or communicated; but, man, the constant use of such language particularly in a rapid-fire motion simply takes away from the drama. In my view, it simply diminishes the story line. My finger gets calloused from having to push the mute button so many times when having to watch movies employing such language.

Well, going back to slang and recollecting back to my younger years, particularly my senior year in high school. I recall when some fellow students in my English class would come up to me before turning in their writing assignments to the teacher, so I could check their work for errors. For some reason, they trusted my writing or proofreading skills fairly enough so that they could turn in their own work with enough confidence that their corrected efforts would afford them a passing grade. (Wish I could say I got a lot of dates that way from meeting a lot of girls, but that didn't happen).

In one assignment, the class was supposed to write about some sort of travel or adventure that they would be interested in doing. This one girl came up to me with her paper, and I proceeded to check it. Now, she had written about going to some far off land where could meet new people from a different culture. Among her various errors in spelling and syntax, I still remember a specific phrase she used. In meeting people of another culture in another land, she stated that she would really like to "check them out;" meaning, I suppose, that she would've been very interested in finding out more about them and what they do.

In actuality, I knew what she meant because that was the type of slang that was being used back then in referring to searching out just about any type of matter. "Hey. . . check it out," was the prevalent jargon in that day. That's just the way this particular girl and others like her were used to talking. Wasn't anything really wrong with that except it probably wasn't proper to use in a English assignment for a grade. I don't think I told her that because I was just mainly looking for misspellings and basic syntax errors. I didn't have time to get intricate and rewrite the whole paper for her. So whatever grade she received, I don't remember. I just wanted to take the time to let you know the style of writing I usually like to employ.

Comments on the News: Part 2

This is in continuation of my last blog in which I was discussing the case of Miss Benita Veliz, the young Mexican woman who had been in this country illegally since eight years of age. Now being twenty three and having earned a degree from a local university, she had finally gotten caught (for being here illegally) and had been in danger of being deported. At this writing, she has received a three-month continuance from an immigration judge. So she is allowed to stay for now.

Now I had been wondering if her story was national and not just local. I googled her name and indeed her story had been covered by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/) or at least there was an article or editorial in the Opinion section back in March of this year under the title "Don't Deport Benita Veliz" by Lawrence Downes. I may refer to some info from the article, although reluctantly because of the liberal nature of that periodical because. . .

Because first of all, I am strongly for any immigrant from any country entering this country legally if their purpose for coming or wanting to come is to contribute in a positive way to the culture of America. That's magnificent in my view. Otherwise, no; and if it takes a wall to protect our borders and to keep illegal immigrants out, then that's what needs to be done. I don't want to hear that it's like the Berlin wall, which by the way was for keeping people from escaping from a despotic country or government. That despotic country, East Germany--aka Soviet Union's puppet--was trying to enslave their citizenry.

I also don't want to hear that these aliens will still find and have found a way to crossover, so its just a waste of money. Also don't want to imbibe the rot that "they are hardworking people just looking for a better way of life." Don't care. Tiiiiired of hearing that. (another thing I was so tired of hearing was when President Bush would continually tell us that "we are a nation of immigrants," which is not true; at least not true in the sense that this nation was started by immigrants; founding fathers were born on this soil).

Last but not least. . . don't want to hear that the terrorists (because the wall was also meant to prevent or at least greatly hinder terrorists from entering) that have or tried to enter, had entered by way of Canada and other parts north. So then build a fence up there as well! Just protect the damn border and us American citizens-- will ya! What is so hard to understand about that! (Oops, do I sound mad? Shoutin' to loud for ya?).

Still, I can understand that deportment cases such as Miss Veliz are not always cut and dry. (I've seen that through the years). Because as she claims, she doesn't know any of her family in Mexico and certainly doesn't know her way around there. So, I suppose it would look bad if she was just dropped somewhere across the border and was told good luck. In the eyes of the world, it would seem that that was just another case of America treating an alien immigrant cruelly.

Still, the young woman was able to get a degree (I think maybe even two) from Saint Mary's University here in San Antonio. So, she should have a certain amount of smarts or savvy about her. Why can't she relocate in Mexico? Give her a chance and some time to contact whatever family members she may have in Mexico and allow them to set up some sort of living situation for her. I myself went to Mexico to live for awhile. Never had been there before to live. Wasn't even fluent in the language. Yet, a living situation had been set up for me beforehand. So, I was able to assimilate into the culture with the proper help. It wasn't all that difficult, and I even had my family there. Just takes a little time.


Well, Miss Veliz and her lawyer have about three months to figure it out. I know the debate concerning her situation will continue quite awhile. So. . . let it be. Let it be.