Regardless of the fact that I may be speaking to a nearly empty parish I feel that this is something that needs to be shouted on all forums available.
There are rules in our society made to prevent one man from killing, robbing, or otherwise hurting another and thereby preventing some of his basic inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what would one gay man marrying another gay man hurt.....who would it hurt??
I'm conservative, I'm not used to being around just anyone who is gay and sometimes I do get uncomfortable, but we cannot and should not be able to outlaw an entire group of people's ability to be happy simply because it makes us uncomfortable and we don't want it happening in OUR towns or in OUR churches.
First of all, it's not going to happen in your churches if your religion doesn't allow it, and that is how it should be. We should make those decisions within our church not on a national level. Separation of church and state can and should work both ways. No religion should be able to force its ideals upon a nation enveloping everyone to one narrow-minded point of view (see Iran). The United States is too great to be so petty. WE are too great to penalize anyone, regardless if you believe that it is a choice or not.
Secondly, how can people consider marriage sacred anymore? It has been massacred by divorces, cheating husbands and wives, open marriages, Las Vegas, and Anna Nicole. What is sacred about an institution that it seems is only temporary? Only kept sacred when it is beneficial? Only used to gain? What is sacred about that??
Finally, it's too late, its a huge conspiracy and there are gays everywhere. But seriously gays are involved in every level of government and are in every society so why try to keep out those that are already in. Unless we want to go on witch hunts, we will just have to grow up and accept that unlike the Loch Ness Monster they exist, they are here, and they are proud......so accept it and move on....for its not hurting you or anyone else.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
The Road to Hell
By this point, everyone has heard and made some preliminary opinion on the law passed in Arizona that makes it legal for a law officer with any “reason of suspicion” and making a “lawful” stop can demand proof of citizenship.
I for one still haven’t made up my mind about the law.
On one side, I have a strong belief that we have protections from the government written throughout the Constitution. We should be free to live our lives peacefully without the intrusion of the government. Since I am a US citizen, I should not have to prove myself to the government on a daily basis.
On the other hand, I have read and heard the horror stories of living in suburban upper-class neighborhoods next door to “drop houses” where tens of illegal immigrants are living and where gunshots are commonplace. “Four years ago this neighborhood was poodles and old ladies. Now it's absolutely insane," a man too frightened to give his name told Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/237196). “It's terrifying to live next door to homes filled with human traffickers, drug smugglers, AK-47s, pit bulls, and desperate laborers stuffed 30 to a room, shoes removed to hinder escape.”
To what lengths would I go, would you go, to ensure our family’s safety under these frightening conditions?
Does this imply that I think this law is just? No. However, I do empathize with those experiencing such fear that they latch onto the one idea, good or not, presented that will have an immediate impact.
The intent of this law is to make neighborhoods that once had kids playing outside safe again, but the reality is that this law could be used to racially discriminate against the majority of good Latin-Americans. That would be a terrible thing for America to allow. The intention is good, but everyone knows, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
I for one still haven’t made up my mind about the law.
On one side, I have a strong belief that we have protections from the government written throughout the Constitution. We should be free to live our lives peacefully without the intrusion of the government. Since I am a US citizen, I should not have to prove myself to the government on a daily basis.
On the other hand, I have read and heard the horror stories of living in suburban upper-class neighborhoods next door to “drop houses” where tens of illegal immigrants are living and where gunshots are commonplace. “Four years ago this neighborhood was poodles and old ladies. Now it's absolutely insane," a man too frightened to give his name told Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/237196). “It's terrifying to live next door to homes filled with human traffickers, drug smugglers, AK-47s, pit bulls, and desperate laborers stuffed 30 to a room, shoes removed to hinder escape.”
To what lengths would I go, would you go, to ensure our family’s safety under these frightening conditions?
Does this imply that I think this law is just? No. However, I do empathize with those experiencing such fear that they latch onto the one idea, good or not, presented that will have an immediate impact.
The intent of this law is to make neighborhoods that once had kids playing outside safe again, but the reality is that this law could be used to racially discriminate against the majority of good Latin-Americans. That would be a terrible thing for America to allow. The intention is good, but everyone knows, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Monday, March 15, 2010
Smoking Bans
Freedom. It has so many meanings that sometimes it is hard to pin down what exactly it means. Often times, people arguing contradictory sides of an issue can both invoke this word and use it without making either argument untrue.
I know this essay started out with a high idea that’s really hard to get one’s head around, but I only brought it up because I have actually used it to argue both sides of the issue of a smoking ban. I originally felt that it should not be up to any government to control how I can operate my own property and place of business. I should have the freedom to own and operate on my business without interference from any other entity telling me how.
Then, I grew up. I realized that first of all the government tells businesses and individuals a hundred times a day what they can and cannot do. If I owned a bar, I cannot open and close whenever I want. I can’t even serve alcohol without the government issuing me a license. So, the government has more control over my hypothetical bar than anyone even realizes. Why should it be out of line for the government to control smoking in bars?
Secondly, and much more importantly I think, is the fact that second hand smoke is terrible for everyone around. Hell, second-hand smoke is listed as a Group A carcinogen. I can guarantee that if I tried to defend my right to keeping other Group A carcinogens in any business my argument quickly falls apart. Could you imagine someone actually trying to keep asbestos or radon in their place of business? That is what we are dealing with here…second-hand smoke is in the same category as asbestos and people are really trying to defend it!!! Banning smoking in bars is not an attack of a smoker’s right to smoke.
IT IS IN DEFENSE OF MY RIGHT TO LIVE!!!
Oliver Wendell Holmes said it right when he said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” You have every right in the world to smoke…but that right ends when you put my life in danger every time you light up.
It is and very definitely should be within the council’s ability and actually in their best interest to pass a ban on smoking.
I know this essay started out with a high idea that’s really hard to get one’s head around, but I only brought it up because I have actually used it to argue both sides of the issue of a smoking ban. I originally felt that it should not be up to any government to control how I can operate my own property and place of business. I should have the freedom to own and operate on my business without interference from any other entity telling me how.
Then, I grew up. I realized that first of all the government tells businesses and individuals a hundred times a day what they can and cannot do. If I owned a bar, I cannot open and close whenever I want. I can’t even serve alcohol without the government issuing me a license. So, the government has more control over my hypothetical bar than anyone even realizes. Why should it be out of line for the government to control smoking in bars?
Secondly, and much more importantly I think, is the fact that second hand smoke is terrible for everyone around. Hell, second-hand smoke is listed as a Group A carcinogen. I can guarantee that if I tried to defend my right to keeping other Group A carcinogens in any business my argument quickly falls apart. Could you imagine someone actually trying to keep asbestos or radon in their place of business? That is what we are dealing with here…second-hand smoke is in the same category as asbestos and people are really trying to defend it!!! Banning smoking in bars is not an attack of a smoker’s right to smoke.
IT IS IN DEFENSE OF MY RIGHT TO LIVE!!!
Oliver Wendell Holmes said it right when he said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” You have every right in the world to smoke…but that right ends when you put my life in danger every time you light up.
It is and very definitely should be within the council’s ability and actually in their best interest to pass a ban on smoking.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Westboro Baptist Church Calls Out North Dakota
I am mad. I am angry over an article that I read last night. Furious in fact. There is a church, and to use the term “church” is to use it very freely, that has issued a press release from their…oh lets call it….their lair in Kansas which is praising the heavens for the imminent flood that myself and much of North Dakota is currently facing. The “church” is the Westboro Baptist Church.
Now, of course this should be a classic case of letting the little children thrash and have their tantrum, but I have no intention of letting them do that without a little swat on the rear to let them know not to do it again.
The source of their little temper tantrum stems from the fact that North Dakota passed a law which prevents protesters from getting within 300 feet of a funeral. That’s right, they are going around to FUNERALS all over the country protesting with filthy signs and images that won’t even be uttered here. AND they have the audacity, the arrogance to presume that the reason for the current flood in North Dakota was because of them. If we only let them protest at our American Soldier’s funerals, then we would not be flooding. Apparently, they missed the lesson on Pride being one of the Seven, and the fact that rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. Precipitation and meteorology are foreign to the WBC.
Now to the Westboro Baptist "Church", I’m sure I speak for much of North Dakota when I say this….bring it on. If we will ever be punished for protecting grieving families from you spewing your filth then you have said one thing that is absolutely correct WBC…we do not worship your god. A “god” that seeks revenge solely to punish those protecting others is definitely no god of mine. We SHALL turn back this flood that, according to you, your “god” has sent BECAUSE of you, and we SHALL do it with sandbags, volunteers, and a triumph of the human spirit. Even if it flows over the banks, it SHALL not break our spirit. Homes will be rebuilt and life will go on for us, and the law will remain in the books to keep your wicked tongue behind your teeth.
Now, of course this should be a classic case of letting the little children thrash and have their tantrum, but I have no intention of letting them do that without a little swat on the rear to let them know not to do it again.
The source of their little temper tantrum stems from the fact that North Dakota passed a law which prevents protesters from getting within 300 feet of a funeral. That’s right, they are going around to FUNERALS all over the country protesting with filthy signs and images that won’t even be uttered here. AND they have the audacity, the arrogance to presume that the reason for the current flood in North Dakota was because of them. If we only let them protest at our American Soldier’s funerals, then we would not be flooding. Apparently, they missed the lesson on Pride being one of the Seven, and the fact that rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. Precipitation and meteorology are foreign to the WBC.
Now to the Westboro Baptist "Church", I’m sure I speak for much of North Dakota when I say this….bring it on. If we will ever be punished for protecting grieving families from you spewing your filth then you have said one thing that is absolutely correct WBC…we do not worship your god. A “god” that seeks revenge solely to punish those protecting others is definitely no god of mine. We SHALL turn back this flood that, according to you, your “god” has sent BECAUSE of you, and we SHALL do it with sandbags, volunteers, and a triumph of the human spirit. Even if it flows over the banks, it SHALL not break our spirit. Homes will be rebuilt and life will go on for us, and the law will remain in the books to keep your wicked tongue behind your teeth.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Baseball's A-fraud
Now, I don’t know if this is a big deal to everyone who might be out reading posts, but I love baseball and all this A-fraud business makes me a little angry.
First of all, I want to emphasize the fact that I’m not really an Alex Rodriguez fan. He is a good ball player and all, but he plays for the Yankees so it’s my obligation to dislike him. That being said I was hoping for him to be (and pardon this phrase) the “savior of baseball.” I believed that he was going to come along with his homeruns and wipe the stink of the bulky and obviously doped Barry Bonds from the annals of history. He would take the all-time homerun record from that genetically modified hulk and put it back on legitimate ground. Then he went along and broke our hearts.
Now, there have been many a debate over this subject near the water cooler and on TV. But the question that I keep coming back to is, if his cousin handed him something and he didn’t know exactly what it was and exactly what it would do, why would he take it? He needed it to make him better, so he could live up to the contract. Therefore, he would definitely know what he was taking because he needed it to help him earn the enormous contract that he received. How can somebody who claims that he felt pressured from such a large contract that he needed to take something, how could he then not be sure of what he was taking? And on top of that, how can someone who is earning that kind of coin because of his body not know exactly what the stuff is and what it will do? He’s making a quarter of a billion dollars, but hell lets give the bolé stuff a shot even though I don’t have a clue what it is or what effects it may have on my body.
There are just too many holes in his testimony, and too many lies to start trusting him now.
I’m sorry “Savior” but it turns out you were just a “false prophet” and we will have to continue waiting.
First of all, I want to emphasize the fact that I’m not really an Alex Rodriguez fan. He is a good ball player and all, but he plays for the Yankees so it’s my obligation to dislike him. That being said I was hoping for him to be (and pardon this phrase) the “savior of baseball.” I believed that he was going to come along with his homeruns and wipe the stink of the bulky and obviously doped Barry Bonds from the annals of history. He would take the all-time homerun record from that genetically modified hulk and put it back on legitimate ground. Then he went along and broke our hearts.
Now, there have been many a debate over this subject near the water cooler and on TV. But the question that I keep coming back to is, if his cousin handed him something and he didn’t know exactly what it was and exactly what it would do, why would he take it? He needed it to make him better, so he could live up to the contract. Therefore, he would definitely know what he was taking because he needed it to help him earn the enormous contract that he received. How can somebody who claims that he felt pressured from such a large contract that he needed to take something, how could he then not be sure of what he was taking? And on top of that, how can someone who is earning that kind of coin because of his body not know exactly what the stuff is and what it will do? He’s making a quarter of a billion dollars, but hell lets give the bolé stuff a shot even though I don’t have a clue what it is or what effects it may have on my body.
There are just too many holes in his testimony, and too many lies to start trusting him now.
I’m sorry “Savior” but it turns out you were just a “false prophet” and we will have to continue waiting.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Open Your Eyes
Regardless of the fact that I may be speaking to a nearly empty parish I feel that this is something that needs to be shouted on all forums available.
There are rules in our society made to prevent one man from killing, robbing, or otherwise hurting another and thereby preventing some of his basic inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what would one gay man marrying another gay man hurt.....who would it hurt??
I'm conservative, I'm not used to being around just anyone who is gay and sometimes I do get uncomfortable, but we cannot and should not be able to outlaw an entire group of people's ability to be happy simply because it makes us uncomfortable and we don't want it happening in OUR towns or in OUR churches.
First of all, it's not going to happen in your churches if your religion doesn't allow it, and that is how it should be. We should make those decisions within our church not on a national level. Separation of church and state can and should work both ways. No religion should be able to force its ideals upon a nation enveloping everyone to one narrow-minded point of view. The United States is too great to be so petty. WE are too great to penalize anyone, regardless if you believe that it is a choice or not.
Second of all, it's too late, its a huge conspiracy and there are gays everywhere (hehe). But seriously gays are involved in every level of government and are in every society so why try to keep out those that are already in. Unless we want to go on witch hunts, we will just have to grow up and accept that unlike the Loch Ness Monster they exist, they are here, and they are proud......so accept it and move on....for its not hurting you or anyone else.
There are rules in our society made to prevent one man from killing, robbing, or otherwise hurting another and thereby preventing some of his basic inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what would one gay man marrying another gay man hurt.....who would it hurt??
I'm conservative, I'm not used to being around just anyone who is gay and sometimes I do get uncomfortable, but we cannot and should not be able to outlaw an entire group of people's ability to be happy simply because it makes us uncomfortable and we don't want it happening in OUR towns or in OUR churches.
First of all, it's not going to happen in your churches if your religion doesn't allow it, and that is how it should be. We should make those decisions within our church not on a national level. Separation of church and state can and should work both ways. No religion should be able to force its ideals upon a nation enveloping everyone to one narrow-minded point of view. The United States is too great to be so petty. WE are too great to penalize anyone, regardless if you believe that it is a choice or not.
Second of all, it's too late, its a huge conspiracy and there are gays everywhere (hehe). But seriously gays are involved in every level of government and are in every society so why try to keep out those that are already in. Unless we want to go on witch hunts, we will just have to grow up and accept that unlike the Loch Ness Monster they exist, they are here, and they are proud......so accept it and move on....for its not hurting you or anyone else.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Land of Inconsistency
A land of inconsistency
A land of equality...where racism still runs rampant
A land of excess...where people starve and freeze under cardboard
A land that states “In God We Trust”…then outlaws Him
A land where murder is outlawed...unless performed by a doctor or in prison
A land of the purple mountains majesty...and of smog's impurity
A land of freedoms...controlled by the government
A land that preaches peace...but only through conflict
A land of immigrants...outlawing immigration
A land of capitalistic ideals...and socialistic agendas
A government CREATED by the people...but not INFLUENCED by us
A land of equality...where racism still runs rampant
A land of excess...where people starve and freeze under cardboard
A land that states “In God We Trust”…then outlaws Him
A land where murder is outlawed...unless performed by a doctor or in prison
A land of the purple mountains majesty...and of smog's impurity
A land of freedoms...controlled by the government
A land that preaches peace...but only through conflict
A land of immigrants...outlawing immigration
A land of capitalistic ideals...and socialistic agendas
A government CREATED by the people...but not INFLUENCED by us
Monday, April 09, 2007
The Creation of Destruction
The greatest lie the devil ever told was convincing the world he doesn't exist.
The greatest mistake western society has made was to assume that society is progressing in a straight line toward Utopia. If this was true, mankind would not be in the state of perpetual self destruction. Never has mankind looked into the past and learned from its mistakes.
Over the millennia mankind has gone from fighting with bare hands for food, to using a rock, to a spear, to a sword, to a gun, and finally man's greatest creation of destruction thermonuclear bombs.
Along the same lines mankind started fighting for food, for our personal survival, to fighting for hunting territory, for dominance, for kings, for countries, for churches, and finally over our ideals.
With almost no overt hostile actions the United States has made a whole world of enemies, how would that be possible except that we are now fighting not only over ideals but possibly everything that mankind has ever fought over. The Middle-East disagrees with our ideals, our religion, our government, our power, our insistence on Israel's existence...Everything. And both sides are using everything possible to kill the other side...Everything ever invented. Is that progress?
Are you scared yet? You should be.
Does mankind really progress? Do we evolve? Or are we simply a CD running on repeat bound to play the same song for all time? Is it really progress that we have developed more and more ways to kill ourselves and do so over more and more reasons?
There is hope, however.
There are a few examples of leaps forward mankind has made. A few extraordinary individuals who have changed the world without fighting, without killing.
Mahatma Gandhi was able to change his corner of the world through civil disobedience, but with a strict code of nonviolence. In the process, he was able to change people's belief that a revolution must be won with violence.
Martin Luther King was able to perhaps change most of the world through his actions and nonviolent movement for equal treatment of all races by all races. He had a dream that mankind must still strive to achieve.
Jesus Christ was a world changer. Despite any religious views an individual may have, Jesus has influenced the world for millennia. His teachings may have been misconstrued during the crusades to create a religion of destruction, but he taught with peace and without violence. Even when being taken to his death he forced a Disciple to drop the sword and accept Jesus' capture. It is this philosophy of peace that helped him change the world.
So, despite the fact that mankind may look to be in a perpetual loop of destruction, the actions of individuals can have a great a great impact upon our future.
The greatest chance we have for a future is for the actions of individuals now.
The greatest mistake western society has made was to assume that society is progressing in a straight line toward Utopia. If this was true, mankind would not be in the state of perpetual self destruction. Never has mankind looked into the past and learned from its mistakes.
Over the millennia mankind has gone from fighting with bare hands for food, to using a rock, to a spear, to a sword, to a gun, and finally man's greatest creation of destruction thermonuclear bombs.
Along the same lines mankind started fighting for food, for our personal survival, to fighting for hunting territory, for dominance, for kings, for countries, for churches, and finally over our ideals.
With almost no overt hostile actions the United States has made a whole world of enemies, how would that be possible except that we are now fighting not only over ideals but possibly everything that mankind has ever fought over. The Middle-East disagrees with our ideals, our religion, our government, our power, our insistence on Israel's existence...Everything. And both sides are using everything possible to kill the other side...Everything ever invented. Is that progress?
Are you scared yet? You should be.
Does mankind really progress? Do we evolve? Or are we simply a CD running on repeat bound to play the same song for all time? Is it really progress that we have developed more and more ways to kill ourselves and do so over more and more reasons?
There is hope, however.
There are a few examples of leaps forward mankind has made. A few extraordinary individuals who have changed the world without fighting, without killing.
Mahatma Gandhi was able to change his corner of the world through civil disobedience, but with a strict code of nonviolence. In the process, he was able to change people's belief that a revolution must be won with violence.
Martin Luther King was able to perhaps change most of the world through his actions and nonviolent movement for equal treatment of all races by all races. He had a dream that mankind must still strive to achieve.
Jesus Christ was a world changer. Despite any religious views an individual may have, Jesus has influenced the world for millennia. His teachings may have been misconstrued during the crusades to create a religion of destruction, but he taught with peace and without violence. Even when being taken to his death he forced a Disciple to drop the sword and accept Jesus' capture. It is this philosophy of peace that helped him change the world.
So, despite the fact that mankind may look to be in a perpetual loop of destruction, the actions of individuals can have a great a great impact upon our future.
The greatest chance we have for a future is for the actions of individuals now.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Sioux
Now I'm guessing anybody that knows me...and consequently reads this already has heard me come out in support of the Sioux name. As for the arguments against the Sioux name...they are few and usually involve "There was a Sioux Tribe (or person) that was offended. They need to change the name if even but one person is insulted or offended." They use this argument despite the fact that it is impossible to please everyone. Now don't get me wrong I am not supposing that we retain a completely offensive name, but I just believe that this name is not that offensive.
I have significant Scandanavian heritage, and I have never been offended by the use of the Vikings name in Minnesota, despite the fact they only concentrate on the murdering, raping, and pillaging of my ancestors. Where is the explorer Viking, who perhaps found America long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue?
Not only do I believe the Sioux monicker is not offensive, but the way in which the NCAA has enforced their rule upon the schools is preposterous. A school here...a school their...they get to keep their Native American names...everyone else's has to go. Yes I realize that the Seminole tribe ok'd the use of their name for Florida St. but I have heard rumors of a huge payout by Florida St. as well. The argument against the Sioux should be able to be enforced here as well. For I would be willing to bet that somewhere someone is offended by the Seminole name...and yet the NCAA says its fine.
The United States of America has been using tribal names and tribal words to name much of the west...if I were to expand upon the thought process of naysayers and the NCAA much of the natural landmarks in the west must be renamed. Which I ask would be a larger insult...leaving the names of teams, rivers, cities, hell states as they are and honoring Native American's past and culture...or have everything changed...and everyone forget.
I have significant Scandanavian heritage, and I have never been offended by the use of the Vikings name in Minnesota, despite the fact they only concentrate on the murdering, raping, and pillaging of my ancestors. Where is the explorer Viking, who perhaps found America long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue?
Not only do I believe the Sioux monicker is not offensive, but the way in which the NCAA has enforced their rule upon the schools is preposterous. A school here...a school their...they get to keep their Native American names...everyone else's has to go. Yes I realize that the Seminole tribe ok'd the use of their name for Florida St. but I have heard rumors of a huge payout by Florida St. as well. The argument against the Sioux should be able to be enforced here as well. For I would be willing to bet that somewhere someone is offended by the Seminole name...and yet the NCAA says its fine.
The United States of America has been using tribal names and tribal words to name much of the west...if I were to expand upon the thought process of naysayers and the NCAA much of the natural landmarks in the west must be renamed. Which I ask would be a larger insult...leaving the names of teams, rivers, cities, hell states as they are and honoring Native American's past and culture...or have everything changed...and everyone forget.
Friday, August 25, 2006
The WBC
These people are amazing. I never would have guessed the things that they wrote were actually true...how wrong can I be (note the serious sarcasm). I have been sitting here considering so many of thier "ideas" and "opinions". And as a (prepare for the shock) Catholic Christian I am somewhat amazed at the conclusions they have drawn. Then I got to thinking..."God hates gays, the catholics, etc, etc." I have heard this all before...but where. Then it hits me...they sound exactly like Islamic fanatics. Are they sure they are on the correct side of the ocean here? Perhaps they should be fighting with America in the middle east attempting to become the "Sword of God" rather than cowering here while those soldiers' whose funerals they are disgracing with their very presence have died to give them the right to say this utter crap. Oh and don't get me wrong...I do not compare you to the majority of muslims who I can actually respect, honor and trust, but rather I compare you to Osama who hides in a hole in the ground and sends young men to do his battling. Sounds somewhat familiar. Preaching, bigotist, sexist, racist, crap...these people and Osama would most definately be fast friends.
So to the WBC, go join their jihad to rid the world of people like me...those who would accept and yes embrace differences, and finally we, the truly patriotic Americans, can be rid of you.
So to the WBC, go join their jihad to rid the world of people like me...those who would accept and yes embrace differences, and finally we, the truly patriotic Americans, can be rid of you.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Damn Democrats
I'm particularly proud of this post...it was originally printed in the Dakota Student my freshmen year...or summer of 2004. I was sitting in a class taught by a communist from the sociology department. I started getting upset about her comments and preaching about how the American tax system was completely wrong. I almost walked out of class during the "lecture" or preaching session. I continued the day by picking up UND's newspaper and reading the opinion section...talk about gasoline on the fire. Some dork attempted to vail his obvious democratic tendency...a poor attempt. So now that I have set the stage of my mental state...be my guest to read my rant...oh and the republican history teacher is completely fictional...soas to not be hypocritical by telling the guy that he was bias and then being bias myself.
Is anybody else sick of getting political ideology forced upon them? I know I am. Whether you are a left-wing environmentalist wack-o or a right-wing war-mongering republican, I really don’t care. I feel that both faculty and other students force their beliefs upon many students that frankly do not want to hear any of it. The truth is that most students are more worried about finding a beer buyer or the next exam than they are about whether the economy would recover better with a new president.
Now, I don’t like to hear how to fix a struggling economy from a sociologist during class. I won’t listen as a history professor tells me how we should have gone to Baghdad in the first Gulf War. A sociologist has no reason to attempt to swing my political ideology to the left, nor does any other professor have a reason to convince me that the right is (pardon the pun) right.
And likewise, I don’t need to read an article of how to solve a states energy concerns from a leftist student that has no facts, just a bunch of rhetoric aimed to make one political side appear politically correct. If you want to write a politically minded article, write one and title it as such. Admit that you really are a “pie in the sky, tree hugging” Democrat, and you are trying to convince me and every other reader to join you. However, if you are writing a real environmental article, edit out your politically minded expressions, and I, along with many more students, may actually enjoy reading an article about cleaning up our environment.
In addition, to the faculty, I ask for economists to solve economic problems, sociologists to solve social problems, generals to handle the war, ecologists to solve any problems with the environment, and people to be able to make up their own damn minds which political party they wish to belong. So my elite professors, stop crossing the lines of your expertise and allow students to learn what you DO know, and let the other expert professors teach the students in their respective fields.
Is anybody else sick of getting political ideology forced upon them? I know I am. Whether you are a left-wing environmentalist wack-o or a right-wing war-mongering republican, I really don’t care. I feel that both faculty and other students force their beliefs upon many students that frankly do not want to hear any of it. The truth is that most students are more worried about finding a beer buyer or the next exam than they are about whether the economy would recover better with a new president.
Now, I don’t like to hear how to fix a struggling economy from a sociologist during class. I won’t listen as a history professor tells me how we should have gone to Baghdad in the first Gulf War. A sociologist has no reason to attempt to swing my political ideology to the left, nor does any other professor have a reason to convince me that the right is (pardon the pun) right.
And likewise, I don’t need to read an article of how to solve a states energy concerns from a leftist student that has no facts, just a bunch of rhetoric aimed to make one political side appear politically correct. If you want to write a politically minded article, write one and title it as such. Admit that you really are a “pie in the sky, tree hugging” Democrat, and you are trying to convince me and every other reader to join you. However, if you are writing a real environmental article, edit out your politically minded expressions, and I, along with many more students, may actually enjoy reading an article about cleaning up our environment.
In addition, to the faculty, I ask for economists to solve economic problems, sociologists to solve social problems, generals to handle the war, ecologists to solve any problems with the environment, and people to be able to make up their own damn minds which political party they wish to belong. So my elite professors, stop crossing the lines of your expertise and allow students to learn what you DO know, and let the other expert professors teach the students in their respective fields.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
A lazy couple of months
I want to first appologize to anyone who had been eagerly awaiting my next post for the last few months. I guess I just got lazy after I stopped getting any angry mail from people who didn't agree with what I have been saying. I want to point out to anyone out there who doesn't know me, that I never mean to insult anyone directly and that these are simply my opinions on any topic I feel like writing on. I like to add some jest into my comentary sure, but I never intentionally insult anyone. Like a few of you commentors have done to me. But I do enjoy the feedback so the more that I get I guess the more I enjoy writing.
I am not quite sure if Andrew (from Berlin) is still out there checking my blog ever, but i just want to wish him all the best and a Merry Christmas to all those soldiers that are bravely fighting a war that is....well....the subject of much debate. I want to thank you and to wish you all a Merry Christmas again, and if you don't celebrate, then at least pretend to so that you can maybe get break on that day...haha. But happy holidays to all.
I am not quite sure if Andrew (from Berlin) is still out there checking my blog ever, but i just want to wish him all the best and a Merry Christmas to all those soldiers that are bravely fighting a war that is....well....the subject of much debate. I want to thank you and to wish you all a Merry Christmas again, and if you don't celebrate, then at least pretend to so that you can maybe get break on that day...haha. But happy holidays to all.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Iran....What the
Fresh off the presses today, Iran's President, I won't spell out the name because lord knows you won't be able to pronounce it anyway. Let's just refer to him as President Ahmad. As I was saying, President Ahmad declared today that Israel was a "disgraceful blot" and that it must be "wiped off the map". These quotes from an AP article by NASSER KARIMI. These comments obviously set Iran squarely opposite of American interests in the region. The White House press secretary iterated that "[I]t reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions."
Relations with many nations nearby Israel have been thawing since the pullout of troops from Gaza. There have been cutbacks in trade restrictions and even aid from Qatar. These actions were unimaginable only a few years ago. Israel is currently one strong protestor of the Iranian nuclear program. A program that the United States and other nations say is only for making nuclear weapons.
After comments like the ones President Ahmad made, what is it that we must do? Iran is purpotedly aiding terrorist groups that attack Israeli citizens daily. They provide "support and training". They also possess the ability to attack Israel and US forces in the middle east due to the development of solid fuel technology. Is the threat that Iran poses enough to encourage nations into action against them? There is no doubt that the comments do not shine well on the nation.
"Such comments provoke the international community against us. It's not to Iran's interests at all. It's harmful to Iran to make such a statement," Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, said.
Article by AP author NASSER KARIMI can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5371437,00.html
Relations with many nations nearby Israel have been thawing since the pullout of troops from Gaza. There have been cutbacks in trade restrictions and even aid from Qatar. These actions were unimaginable only a few years ago. Israel is currently one strong protestor of the Iranian nuclear program. A program that the United States and other nations say is only for making nuclear weapons.
After comments like the ones President Ahmad made, what is it that we must do? Iran is purpotedly aiding terrorist groups that attack Israeli citizens daily. They provide "support and training". They also possess the ability to attack Israel and US forces in the middle east due to the development of solid fuel technology. Is the threat that Iran poses enough to encourage nations into action against them? There is no doubt that the comments do not shine well on the nation.
"Such comments provoke the international community against us. It's not to Iran's interests at all. It's harmful to Iran to make such a statement," Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, said.
Article by AP author NASSER KARIMI can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5371437,00.html
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Affirmative Action leading to Unequal Opportunity
What are the reasons for Affirmative Action? Is it to adress wrongs in the past? Or is it to give minorities a leg up on everyone else?
I will be the first to admit that I don't know what it's like being a minority. I have never had to deal with any stereotypes or any other form of discrimination. So, I may be completely off base with my analysis of the situation.
That being said, Affirmative Action is not the right step to fix any of these problems. The only solution to these social injustices is time. Should we have to pay for the mistakes of a small minority of Americans from the time of Lincoln? Should we continue to pay for the mistakes of "seperate but equal" and blue laws? It is now the ruling of the court that requiring quotas for minority positions in colleges and jobs is unConstitutional, but where is the line drawn. Is it only saving positions only for minorities unconstitutional, or all affirmative action wrong? If discrimination against a minority in the first place was definately wrong, what makes discriminating against the majority the correct thing? If life before Affirmative Action was like a hundred yard dash...with minorities starting 50 yards behind the starting line, what makes it ok to have them run only 70 yards now?
Yes, I believe that there are social injustices in this world. There are still people that discriminate by race and sex. But Affirmative Action can lead to more problems than it solves. It leads companies to hire a black woman to fill a cheap paying job in order to show that they are not discriminating. People that are smart and earned a position may feel they were only given the job because they met the minority criteria. It reinforces some stereotypes when unqualified workers are hired only for their race. It can even be bad for morale, for both the recent hiree and the old boys club in which they are thrust.
Yes, discrimination still exists today, but it is not the job of government to attempt to solve these problems. Time will lead to the realization that man or woman, white or black, the most qualified and best (pardon the pun) man for the job should indeed receive the position. Not for any other reason than the fact they will help the organization they are hired by, and that they earned it.
I will be the first to admit that I don't know what it's like being a minority. I have never had to deal with any stereotypes or any other form of discrimination. So, I may be completely off base with my analysis of the situation.
That being said, Affirmative Action is not the right step to fix any of these problems. The only solution to these social injustices is time. Should we have to pay for the mistakes of a small minority of Americans from the time of Lincoln? Should we continue to pay for the mistakes of "seperate but equal" and blue laws? It is now the ruling of the court that requiring quotas for minority positions in colleges and jobs is unConstitutional, but where is the line drawn. Is it only saving positions only for minorities unconstitutional, or all affirmative action wrong? If discrimination against a minority in the first place was definately wrong, what makes discriminating against the majority the correct thing? If life before Affirmative Action was like a hundred yard dash...with minorities starting 50 yards behind the starting line, what makes it ok to have them run only 70 yards now?
Yes, I believe that there are social injustices in this world. There are still people that discriminate by race and sex. But Affirmative Action can lead to more problems than it solves. It leads companies to hire a black woman to fill a cheap paying job in order to show that they are not discriminating. People that are smart and earned a position may feel they were only given the job because they met the minority criteria. It reinforces some stereotypes when unqualified workers are hired only for their race. It can even be bad for morale, for both the recent hiree and the old boys club in which they are thrust.
Yes, discrimination still exists today, but it is not the job of government to attempt to solve these problems. Time will lead to the realization that man or woman, white or black, the most qualified and best (pardon the pun) man for the job should indeed receive the position. Not for any other reason than the fact they will help the organization they are hired by, and that they earned it.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Republicans and Conservativism
As I have said earlier, I grew up a Catholic boy in a small town in North Dakota. As I grew up, I embraced many of the ideals that I felt were the best aspects about growing up in a rural conservative place. This, however, does not mean that I am a close minded fool that was brainwashed by my parents. This does not mean that I am uncultured and uncaring for the less well off.
I believe what I believe, not because I just accepted the ideals of my parents and the small town around me. I was not forced to believe in God, even God does not force me to believe. I am a conservative because it is the only school of thought that adheres to what I believe in my heart of hearts to be true. I believe that abortion is the killing of an inocent human for selfish reasons, that we must sometimes go to war overseas to protect our country at home, that welfare is being abused by people who are too lazy to get their own jobs, that tax breaks lead to greater economic prosperity, and that the Republican party agrees on most points with me.
Now, to be a Republican does not mean that you agree with me. The most obvious issue that I raised was the abortion issue. You can indeed agree with me on this issue, and not be conservative at all. Being a conservative and being a Republican both mean much more that disagreeing with Roe v Wade. The appointments to the Supreme court by George W. Bush are about more than Roe vs. Wade. President Bush believes, along with many conservatives, that the Supreme Court needs to reorient itself to constitutionalism. Getting back to the letter of the law that the Constitution outlines. This is why President Bush has put Harriet Miers up for nomination, to stop the court from legislating from the bench. That is how conservatives believe the Constitution should be interpretted. It is about much more than abortion.
I believe what I believe, not because I just accepted the ideals of my parents and the small town around me. I was not forced to believe in God, even God does not force me to believe. I am a conservative because it is the only school of thought that adheres to what I believe in my heart of hearts to be true. I believe that abortion is the killing of an inocent human for selfish reasons, that we must sometimes go to war overseas to protect our country at home, that welfare is being abused by people who are too lazy to get their own jobs, that tax breaks lead to greater economic prosperity, and that the Republican party agrees on most points with me.
Now, to be a Republican does not mean that you agree with me. The most obvious issue that I raised was the abortion issue. You can indeed agree with me on this issue, and not be conservative at all. Being a conservative and being a Republican both mean much more that disagreeing with Roe v Wade. The appointments to the Supreme court by George W. Bush are about more than Roe vs. Wade. President Bush believes, along with many conservatives, that the Supreme Court needs to reorient itself to constitutionalism. Getting back to the letter of the law that the Constitution outlines. This is why President Bush has put Harriet Miers up for nomination, to stop the court from legislating from the bench. That is how conservatives believe the Constitution should be interpretted. It is about much more than abortion.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Tax breaks...for the POOR?!!
I would like to explain the breakdown of the American tax system in the easiest way I know how.
Now these numbers come from the 2003 tax year and was released just this month, October 2005. The tax system used here in the States is a graduated tax system, in which we charge a higher percentage of income to the highest earners.
I am sure that you all understand and know that, but you may not understand the particulars. For instance, did you know that the top 1% of wage earners paid 34.27% of the income taxes, while only earning 16.77% of the nations income. The top 5% of wage earners paid a whopping 54.36% of the income tax, while earning only 31.18% of the income. The top 10% paid 65.84%. The top half of wage earners paid an amazing 96.54% of the income tax. If my North Dakota math holds, that means that the bottom half paid less than 3.5% of the income tax while they have 13.99% of the income share.
During most recent tax cut given to the American people by President George W. Bush, we heard many complain that it was a tax cut for the richest in America. Take some time to go over the numbers that I have just presented, and it becomes obvious why the top income brackets recieved more money than the lower income brackets. If you plan on creating a tax cut and you want it to go to the lowest half of the income earners, then you might as well start cutting checks from the U.S. treasury to pay them for their taxes. You could not make a significant cut in taxes and give all of the breaks to the poor. They pay less than 3.5% of the taxes this country takes in. So, most likely they should receive only 3.5% of the tax break as well, or as I said earlier we will be paying these people rather than collecting from them.
Remember, when you hear "tax cuts for the rich" remember that the rich are paying the bills of this country. If anybody needs money back to reinvest in the economy, it is them. One last point, the top one percent I have been talking about, they are not all multi-billionares, anyone who makes more than about $300,000 is categorized as the top one percent, not even millionares. The top 50% begins at $29,019, all of a sudden a tax break for that top fifty percent doesn't seem like a tax break for the rich now does it.
Now these numbers come from the 2003 tax year and was released just this month, October 2005. The tax system used here in the States is a graduated tax system, in which we charge a higher percentage of income to the highest earners.
I am sure that you all understand and know that, but you may not understand the particulars. For instance, did you know that the top 1% of wage earners paid 34.27% of the income taxes, while only earning 16.77% of the nations income. The top 5% of wage earners paid a whopping 54.36% of the income tax, while earning only 31.18% of the income. The top 10% paid 65.84%. The top half of wage earners paid an amazing 96.54% of the income tax. If my North Dakota math holds, that means that the bottom half paid less than 3.5% of the income tax while they have 13.99% of the income share.
During most recent tax cut given to the American people by President George W. Bush, we heard many complain that it was a tax cut for the richest in America. Take some time to go over the numbers that I have just presented, and it becomes obvious why the top income brackets recieved more money than the lower income brackets. If you plan on creating a tax cut and you want it to go to the lowest half of the income earners, then you might as well start cutting checks from the U.S. treasury to pay them for their taxes. You could not make a significant cut in taxes and give all of the breaks to the poor. They pay less than 3.5% of the taxes this country takes in. So, most likely they should receive only 3.5% of the tax break as well, or as I said earlier we will be paying these people rather than collecting from them.
Remember, when you hear "tax cuts for the rich" remember that the rich are paying the bills of this country. If anybody needs money back to reinvest in the economy, it is them. One last point, the top one percent I have been talking about, they are not all multi-billionares, anyone who makes more than about $300,000 is categorized as the top one percent, not even millionares. The top 50% begins at $29,019, all of a sudden a tax break for that top fifty percent doesn't seem like a tax break for the rich now does it.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
http://ipods.freepay.com/?r=23283263
Just trying to get a free ipod with a magazine subscription that i signed up for. If anybody else wants to get a 250 dollar ipod for a whole lot cheaper go to this site, sign up for one of the offers, the cheapest one or the one you actually want, then get 5 more people to do it for you and you get an ipod. Do it soon, cuz i want my ipod. I signed up for a magazine for 36 bucks and as long as i get five of you to do it as well, then i get my ipod and magazines for only 36 bucks
Just trying to get a free ipod with a magazine subscription that i signed up for. If anybody else wants to get a 250 dollar ipod for a whole lot cheaper go to this site, sign up for one of the offers, the cheapest one or the one you actually want, then get 5 more people to do it for you and you get an ipod. Do it soon, cuz i want my ipod. I signed up for a magazine for 36 bucks and as long as i get five of you to do it as well, then i get my ipod and magazines for only 36 bucks
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Life...
Before I do the obvious dive into the political realm I do want to point out a few things about myself. I value human life. I am a Catholic and believe that every human life has value, and the loss of one human life is a terrible thing.
That being said...was anybody else amazed at the recent findings of incredible exageration by the liberal media about the death totals in New Orleans. It is pretty dispicable that we depend upon these people to give us good truthful information. I read this in the LA Times...Yes, that LA Times. They must have realized that the more liberal bias their paper got, the less readers they had, because I never believed I'd be reading it there. But I digress. The death tolls in New Orleans are not the only overly exagerated claims to come out of the media. They also apparently reported on deaths, rapings, oh and sharks....haha. There were never any sharks swimming in New Orleans, "But what about Sea World and the gulf stream and....and..." blah blah blah. No sharks.
With all the media coverage of rapings, killings, gangs of men roaming streets, the complete incompotence of leadership to save people, how many were found dead in the aftermath? 841 according the the LA Times. 841...what??!! I mean how can that be?! I heard about snipers and gangs and death and destruction. I heard about bodies in the Superdome basement, in freezers in the Convention Center. I heard Mayor C. Ray Nagin tell Oprah...yes Oprah...that people sat in the Superdome watching dead bodies for days. Oh...and for good measure who was blamed for this destruction? Yeah, I don't think I even need to state his name.
Yes, there were a total of 841 deaths, each one a terrible loss, but many more were prevented thanks to the rescue workers. Of those 841, you are thinking, 'There has to be many that were shot or killed to substatiate those claims of killings and gangs...RIGHT??!!' Um....no. "[F]our were identified as gunshot victims." LA Times. 'Well, I am sure that many of the dead were from the Superdome and Convention Center...they have to be!!!' Guess again. The National Guard says six died at the Superdome and four from the Convention Center.
I cannot imagine the heartache and terror that those people felt inside the Superdome, nor do I wish that upon anyone. But Col. Thomas Beron, according to the LA Times article, stated that for every complaint there were "49 other people [who] said, 'Thank you. God bless you.'"
Shouldn't we hold our expectations of our news coverage in this country a little higher. If this is how our coverage is when something terrible happens in this country, what are we left to believe about the coverage of American actions across the globe. How reliable is the information we recieve every day? These are questions that we should not have to ask of our "honorable" media. We should, and I do, expect better than the mistakes we have seen over the last year from all media outlets.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rumors27sep27,0,5492806,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
That being said...was anybody else amazed at the recent findings of incredible exageration by the liberal media about the death totals in New Orleans. It is pretty dispicable that we depend upon these people to give us good truthful information. I read this in the LA Times...Yes, that LA Times. They must have realized that the more liberal bias their paper got, the less readers they had, because I never believed I'd be reading it there. But I digress. The death tolls in New Orleans are not the only overly exagerated claims to come out of the media. They also apparently reported on deaths, rapings, oh and sharks....haha. There were never any sharks swimming in New Orleans, "But what about Sea World and the gulf stream and....and..." blah blah blah. No sharks.
With all the media coverage of rapings, killings, gangs of men roaming streets, the complete incompotence of leadership to save people, how many were found dead in the aftermath? 841 according the the LA Times. 841...what??!! I mean how can that be?! I heard about snipers and gangs and death and destruction. I heard about bodies in the Superdome basement, in freezers in the Convention Center. I heard Mayor C. Ray Nagin tell Oprah...yes Oprah...that people sat in the Superdome watching dead bodies for days. Oh...and for good measure who was blamed for this destruction? Yeah, I don't think I even need to state his name.
Yes, there were a total of 841 deaths, each one a terrible loss, but many more were prevented thanks to the rescue workers. Of those 841, you are thinking, 'There has to be many that were shot or killed to substatiate those claims of killings and gangs...RIGHT??!!' Um....no. "[F]our were identified as gunshot victims." LA Times. 'Well, I am sure that many of the dead were from the Superdome and Convention Center...they have to be!!!' Guess again. The National Guard says six died at the Superdome and four from the Convention Center.
I cannot imagine the heartache and terror that those people felt inside the Superdome, nor do I wish that upon anyone. But Col. Thomas Beron, according to the LA Times article, stated that for every complaint there were "49 other people [who] said, 'Thank you. God bless you.'"
Shouldn't we hold our expectations of our news coverage in this country a little higher. If this is how our coverage is when something terrible happens in this country, what are we left to believe about the coverage of American actions across the globe. How reliable is the information we recieve every day? These are questions that we should not have to ask of our "honorable" media. We should, and I do, expect better than the mistakes we have seen over the last year from all media outlets.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rumors27sep27,0,5492806,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Democrats using political blame for political gain
I was just reading an article by the Washington Post that appears, at first, to be ripping on President Bush. It begins by giving stats on his falling approval ratings and the governments poor performance in the crisis of hurricane Katrina. But as I continued reading towards the end of the article I found something rather interesting.
It appears that the majority of the country has sided with me in deciding that the local governments were more to blame for the outcome in the tragedy. Yes, to all those anonymous naysayers out there, I have a strong 57 percent of Americans on my side. Then I found out that I was also not the only one that believes that many Democrats were blaming President Bush strictly for political gains. Amazingly, six in ten Americans believe this, a third of Democrats "were genuinely suspicious of their leaders' motives", eight in ten republicans, and six in ten independents. Unsurprisingly, the Democratic leaders are deluded in their thinking that they can dupe the American people so easily.
For anyone who wants to read the whole article, it is online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091201158.html.
It appears that the majority of the country has sided with me in deciding that the local governments were more to blame for the outcome in the tragedy. Yes, to all those anonymous naysayers out there, I have a strong 57 percent of Americans on my side. Then I found out that I was also not the only one that believes that many Democrats were blaming President Bush strictly for political gains. Amazingly, six in ten Americans believe this, a third of Democrats "were genuinely suspicious of their leaders' motives", eight in ten republicans, and six in ten independents. Unsurprisingly, the Democratic leaders are deluded in their thinking that they can dupe the American people so easily.
For anyone who wants to read the whole article, it is online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091201158.html.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
nodakfarmboy
This one goes out to the thus far unnamed nodakfarmboy that wasn't polite enough to even give his name. Anyway, I give you yet another post to explain myself...however your information was very informative. Please excuse me if I chose not to trust the post from CBS...I'm sure you understand why. I was unnaware of the call for federal aid as of August 28th and apparently so was the New York Times and Washington Post. As I said before, I got my information from the American Thinker who were citing a New York Times article which told of the unsigned papers...perhaps you should inform the New York Times. Also, in a Washington Post article that you can find at (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301680.html) makes another claim of the power struggle in which President Bush and the federal government had to "wrest authority" from the Governor Blanco. Oh and you are saying that the Governor requested it on Sunday, I was asking why didn't she request it before then. Granted the New York Times was unsurprisingly wrong, but according to the Post article the Bush administration had sent her a legal memorandum on Friday, why didn't she accept it then. Also, why didn't she accept offers of mutual-aid from other states until Wednesday, again according to the same Post article.
I would also like to point out that I am in no way saying that this tragedy was handled well. It could and should have been managed better by all levels of government, but I also believe that many people are blaming Bush for reasons that are, if not false, somewhat twisted. There have been many mistakes made along the way, and not the least of which were the mistakes made by the local governments. I wish, irregardless of party affiliation, that this disaster was handled better by all levels of government. People's lives could have been saved.
I would also like to point out that I am in no way saying that this tragedy was handled well. It could and should have been managed better by all levels of government, but I also believe that many people are blaming Bush for reasons that are, if not false, somewhat twisted. There have been many mistakes made along the way, and not the least of which were the mistakes made by the local governments. I wish, irregardless of party affiliation, that this disaster was handled better by all levels of government. People's lives could have been saved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
