Content by Just Me
Posted at 4:20pm on Jul. 4, 2007 Where are the GOP candidates in small town NH?
By Just Me
Since the month of May I have been at four different parades in various small towns in the Lakes Region of NH, due to band activities my children are involved in.
One thing I keep noticing is that the various democratic candidates have a very strong presence at these parades and events. Biden himself was at one of them, the others involved various grass roots supporters. The only democrat candidate that I haven't seen support for has been Hillary. Obama has really got a lot of supporters-his seem to outnumber the other candidates about 3 to 1.
Posted in Archived — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:38pm on Apr. 17, 2007 Paul Hodes D-NH is definitely out of touch, and he has barely begun
By Just Me
I have generally complained about the fact that I have written my new congressman Paul Hodes several times in opposition to various bills and the fact that he hasn't bothered to responde to me.
I confess I wasn't a huge fan of my former congressman Charlie Bass, but he was always good about responding to any letters I sent him, and when he voted opposite of my desire he always argued why he was voting the way he was. If his letters were form letters, he hid it well (or his staffers did).
Posted in Archived — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:23pm on Oct. 9, 2006 Are social conservatives/evangelicals really the Sheeple they are thought to be?
By Just Me
I have noticed in several posts on this blog and others since the Foley affair broke this perception by those mostly on the left that social conservatives or evangelicals will stay home over the matter, because apparantly they just realized there are gay people in the party.
There was a series of posts on the matter in this thread:
Posted at 10:34pm on Jul. 30, 2006 A bloodless war?
By Just Me
All the condemnation towards Israel with regards to Lebanese civilian deaths has me wondering.
Have we really talked ourselves into believing that there is such a thing as a bloodless war-or at least one that can be fought without killing civilians.
Has there ever been a war where civilian deaths were as great or greater than military deaths? I haven't done the research, but I bet there hasn't.
Now it isn't that I think targeting civilians is an ethcial thing to do-I really do believe that the goal of minimizing civilian deaths is a good and ethical one, but minimizing isn't elminating, and you are still going to hit civilians-that whole collateral damage thing.
Even more now, with an enemy like Hezbollah-who choose to deliberating hide behind civilians to either keep the bombs away or use the bodies as propganda, the idea of a bloodless war is rediculous.
The reality is that war is not pretty, war is not fun, and war is deadly to those in the military and the civilians in the area.
I think in the end-trying to be bloodless only ends up costing more-and may end up costing the victory with an enemy like Islamofascists who don't care who dies-because either death is useful to them-one kills the enemy the other provides a club over which the world will beat the enemies hand.
I think we need to wake up and realize that the idea of a bloodless war is the thing of dreams.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:34pm on Aug. 25, 2005 Can Bloggers get pulitzers?
By Just Me
If they can't they should, and this man should top the list.
I realize there is supposed to be lots of comments and stuff, but in this case you should just read it.
You can't help but have respect for the Lt Col in this story, and the sad thing is that he was injured in a fire fight by a man who had already been picked up by the coalitoin forces, and had been released from detention just a few weeks ago.
Michael Yon's words and pictures describe the men and the war in a way I haven't seen by anyone else in the media.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:58pm on Aug. 17, 2005 Can the government end poverty? And . . .
By Just Me
does or should it have an obligation to try?
You often hear from liberals that the government must do something to stop poverty. John Edwards campaigned on it with his "two Americas" speech.
So if you think they are right, exactly how/what can government do to end it?
I am just not convinced there is a way to end poverty-the truth is that there are always going to be idiots and there are always going to be people looking for the lazy/easy way-and I am not sure the government is obligated to save these people from themselves, especially since the governments money doesn't grow on trees, but in fact is taken from the pockets of the taxpayer who isn't too lazy to work.
There probably are some key things the government can do to keep poverty rates low-one that I think liberals and conservatives agree on is education-although exactly how education fits in may be up for debate.
But I think in general the government isn't going to be able to "program" a solution to the problem-about the only thing the government can do is facilitate opportunity for people to do better and create tax policies that will encourage a strong economy.
I don't think government can "fix" poverty, and I am not even convinced it is obligated to try, at least not if the solutions are reserved to some form of providing handouts and checks.
Seems to me encouraging education and marriage are probably two of the best ways to prevent poverty.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:39am on Aug. 2, 2005 How do we culturally view a baby's worth?
By Just Me
I was reading this editorial in my paper the other day:
Now the majority of it references the fact that same sex couples would like for Mass to change the birth certificates that list "mother" and "father" to reflect something like "parent A" and "parent B." But that isn't the part that interested me, nor is it what this diary is about.
The editorial had a few paragraphs towards the end that discussed how we as a society have come to redefine the worth of a baby based on what we want.
Meanwhile, one can't help but feel sorry for the infant -- Baby C, or Thing Three?
"Thing" is used here neither dismissively nor derisively, but as a term of stunning accuracy. Throughout our culture, children have become objectified, "thingified," created or acquired for the fulfillment of our selves -- decor options, accessories, cute little bundles for our entertainment and amusement.
I think she makes good points, at least as far as overall society is concerned. Just look at the teenagers who get pregnant on purpose, because they want a baby much like a child wants a puppy or a kitten.
Unless, of course, we're not in the mood, in which case we hit the "abort" button, the ultimate expression of "thingification."
As long as children are viewed as mere extensions of our selves, put here to satisfy some narcissistic need for self-actualization, it is easy to suppose that our needs and their needs are complementary. If same-sex marriage is what "I" need, then two same-sex parents are what "my" child needs.
I think this is a reflection of our society. Abortion on demand is available, and the majority of people who abort are doing so because babies aren't convienient.
I don't think every person on an individual level thinks of children this way-I know I don't-but I do think this attitude is pervasive within society-children are not blessings, unless you want them to be.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 9:59am on Jul. 28, 2005 Are Catholics unsuitable for the SCOTUS? Is Roberts?
By Just Me
As I read the coverage of the Roberts appointment, it appears that there is a sublt (and not so subtle) hint that Catholics, at least the kind who believes the teachings of the church are unsuitable, because they may let their religious beliefs influence their decisions.
At the moment it mostly seems to be media outlets and special interest groups that are using his Catholicism against him. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1342186.html. But there have been reports that Dick Durbin has asked Roberts about his faith, and how that would influence how he would interpret the law http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/politicsspecial1/26roberts.html.
So are democrats or the special interest groups that support them looking to create a back door religious test, where Catholics (at least the kind who believe in and adhere to the churches teachings) are suspect nominees? As much as they want to deny it, I can't help but think this is exactly what they are getting at, and it troubles me. I know for a fact that I don't want a SCOTUS where the only acceptable members are the nominally or non religious.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:48pm on Jun. 22, 2005 Bush is Hitler, but we support the troops
By Just Me
That is basically the message I keep getting from people on the left.
That Bush and his policies have turned the US into Nazi Germany or something like Nazi Germany.
Or sometimes we get the Stalin comparison-or the Pol Pot, but for now we will stick with the Hitler one, since he seems to be everyone's favorite insult.
I think we can all agree that Hitler wasn't personally present or a participant in every atrocity that occured under the Nazi's. But we can all agree that Hitler was the mastermind and ultimate plan designer for those atrocities and encouraged and approved them.
The Bush haters love to compare Bush to Hitler, in all sorts of ways, and the most recent is Durbin and his Nazi comparison. Almost every liberal who has shown up here to defend Durbin have all said pretty much the same thing in some combination:
- Durbin wasn't calling our troops Nazi's,
- He was only saying their behavior was like Nazi's
- He was really condemning the administration for being like the Nazi's, not the troops.
The problem is that if Bush is Hitler you have to have the SS troops, and in this case that would be our men in uniform.
Nuremberg pretty much removed the "I was just following orders excuse" as a defense, and rightly so. If our guys engage in torture, I do not want them to have a "I was just following orders excuse" to fall back on, they deserve to go to jail, just as much as the guy who told them to do it.
So basically, liberals need to realize that when they start condemning Bush for being Hitler, because they think the most horrible torture ever is occuring at Gitmo, they are in fact calling our troops stationed there Nazi's.
You can't have Hitler without the SS, so maybe it is time either the liberals fessed up and admitted they really don't support our troops, when they paint them with the really wide tar brush, or they cut out the Hitler comparisons all together.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:40am on Jun. 21, 2005 Is it all torture?
By Just Me
Okay, one thing that keeps coming up in all these Durbin/Gitmo/Torture/Nazi debates is the issue of torture.
It seems like the word torture keeps getting thrown around, and almost everything is now torture.
Can't some things just fall into a "this isn't very nice and we shouldn't be doing it" catagory?
Okay honestly-all the Koran stuff I though was more offensive than anything, and sorry, but being offensive to me doesn't equal torture. We certainly should have a policy about it, and people caught violating said policy should be reprimanded, but please let's not call them torturers or Nazis.
The prolonged use of restraints just doesn't hit super high on my torture meter. I worked in criminal justice for a while, before marriage and babies, and there are times when the use of restraints is a safety measure (which is why I would like more details on the detainees who were restrained, I mean if they detainee was attacking the interrogators every time they entered the rooms, then I think the restraints were a neccessary evil-restraints can also be used to protect a detainee from themselves). Should we set a limit on how, when, where restraints can be used? Yes, but please don't label the use of restraints in and of themselves as torture, and even the prolonged use of restraints doesn't equal torture.
I guess my argument is that there are some things that we shouldn't do to detainees, that equal wrong, but that doesn't equal torture, so why the insistence on the use of this word applied to things like Koran flushing?
Is there not some middle ground between "acceptable practices" and "torture" or does everything done that isn't within accepted humane treatment practices equal torture?
I mean if we are going to call the more minor stuff torture, what does that make the big stuff?