Thursday, October 27, 2011


Like a lot of people, I have been following the occupy movement in the last month. While I agree and support anyone's right to peacefully assemble and to exercise free speech, I am against breaking laws that protect all of us from public health issues and decency.  There is such a thing as civil disobedience but what I see as the problem is those who have "camped" in parks that are not equipped for camping. There are no fire pits, restrooms (in some of them), some even have no picnic benches.
The local authorities, in their eagerness to appease the protestors, have put themselves and their communities in an awkward and dangerous positions.  Having not set any boundaries, they now reap the consequences. The ecology of some of these parks is either ruined or seriously damaged and will take thousands of dollars to repair, for one thing.  The health risks of urination and defecation are huge: exposing all who camp there, other animals, present possibilities of horrid infection in even the simplest wound.  At the very least, why were no portable toilets provided?  Seems to me that would have been a cheap early solution.
Had the city officials set boundaries at the very onset of the protests, I highly doubt that the events in Oakland and other places would have  happened.  Camping in the parks should have been dealt with immediately. The protestors could be there from 6 a.m. (when most opened) and then left at 10 p.m. (when most closed). What is wrong with that? Since they would be there long hours, portable toilets should have been provided.  At least 4 for large crowds. I read where one park provided two for over a thousand protestors. That is not a workable solution and invites people taking care of "nature calls" where they could (local shops, residents nearby or the park itself). I would like to believe that the protestors who resorted to urinating and defecating in the park on the grass would have preferred not to do so.
The protestors who provided food/meals had to have known that the homeless would take advantage of the free food. If they (the protestors) didn't want to share, it would be up to them to police the area and ask those "mooching" to leave, I would think.  I just think that both the city officials and the protestors could have taken reasonable measures to ensure that violent clashes didn't happen.  Instead, some city officials just made supportive statements and then when things got ugly, other citizens complained and general disturbances among the protestors occurred, the city officials reacted with too strong a police presence.  I would hope that both sides have learned some lessons here and the protests can take a different direction and mood and the city officials can make the boundaries crystal clear and stand by those boundaries.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Battered Spouse Syndrome

Once again, I seem unable to believe my ears and eyes at the logic and thinking of progressives. I don't know if it was this morning or yesterday morning, but Matt Lauer interviewed Michele Bachmann with regards to the President's actions in sending our military resources to Libya, supposedly to join in with NATO troops. He made this decision unilaterally and, to make matters worse, he was out of the country! So Matt Lauer starts in with Senator Bachmann and, well, you just have to see it:

I could NOT believe my ears!! For some reason I cannot fathom, liberals/progressives think that if we are just nice enough, kind enough, give in enough that our enemies will like us. This is a battered wife syndrome. Having worked in family law for over 20 years, I saw a lot of this syndrome and here is what I saw: a wife gets beaten and the husband tells her it is her fault he hit her. Oh, he apologizes for hitting her, of course....maybe even brings her flowers and/or candy but it is STILL her fault. Besides physical abuse, the batterer verbally and emotionally abuses his/her victim (yes, men are abused too - you just don't hear about it as much due to the feminist movement).
The victim convinces herself/himself that if his/her behavior is perfect, the house immaculate, the children quiet and obedient, etc., the batterer won't abuse him/her. So Matt Lauer suggests that IF al-Qaeda is involved with the rebels in Libya, then maybe our helping will help them see how nice we are? Seriously? No, they won't! Unless we convert to their religion, live under Sharia law, we are infidels and only worthy of death. Why won't folks get that? We can give them money, allow them to treat us badly, and our allies badly, but it will not make a difference. We either convert or die. That simple.
It is a very good question that we need to be asking: who ARE the people rebelling in the streets of Libya? Who is their leader? What are their goals? Who is helping them? Iran? Saudi Arabia? The U.S. cannot jump into every nation's problems. If we are there for "humanitarian reasons", then why did we not help Syria over the weekend? There are atrocities happening all over the world by governments but, truthfully, it is none of our business. It is unconstitutional and on top of it all, we can NOT afford another war!! Our troops who are in places all over the world need to come home and protect our borders not risk their lives for someone else's battle. Innocent citizens are murdered and maimed in this conflict too; just like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama's campaign promises were that, if he were elected president, he would pull our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan in his first year of office. He has not done this. Moreover, he has increased the military presence in Afghanistan!
I am praying that when Congress meets again that the House demand that our troops and military assistance be pulled out and, if Mr. Obama refuses, that Dennis Kuchinich make a motion for impeachment. Mr. Obama is not King Obama and he needs to be reminded of that.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Another war?

It has been a while (again) since I have posted here but it was not for lack of topics! There is so much going on in the world and here in our own nation that one knows not where to start. This evening I viewed a You Tube video that I think all of you should listen to and pass on to your friends. Senator Rand Paul (KY) brings up some valid arguments and gives us important items to consider.

The United States cannot afford, first of all, another war. More importantly, sending our military resources to Libya is unconstitutional and our president knows this! I can't really add more to this video without just repeating what he said here. I urge you to pass this video on.
Thanks for reading.

Monday, January 17, 2011


It has been far too long since I have posted in my blog here and I intend to be better at it with the new year. I titled this post "Rhetoric" because that seems to be all we are hearing on the main-stream media and liberal/progressive blogs and sites. You have to know that things are out of control when a fellow citizen is threatened with death because of his/her political opinions.
What happened to civil discourse? What happened to "agreeing that we disagree"? Instead of factual, valid arguments, people resort to name-calling, personal attacks and threats of violence, up to and including death!
We are not all going to agree on anything. That is a broad statement but you know it is true. I can say that the sky is blue and there will be someone, somewhere who'll say it is not quite blue but teal or pink or whatever. That is fine! We are ALL entitled to our opinions. However we are not all entitled to disagree and then brutalize the person we disagree with. We will not accomplish a thing but further division and, most importantly, that division will rip this country apart.
It has already started with the race card being pulled any time a person of color has someone who disagrees with him/her. "You just don't like what I said because I am black, brown, yellow (or whatever!)". How about responding to the disagreement rather than starting down that road? My skin color should have no bearing in an argument or disagreement about political opinions.
Stop and think before you attack someone who disagrees with you. Why are you not coming back with a reasoned argument? Is it because you don't have one or need to think about it? Well, that is fine - you can just say that, can't you? "I am not sure I agree with you but let me think about it" is absolutely an intelligent and appropriate reply but calling the person vile names, using foul language, accusing the person of some ill intention by the statement made is not the way to get your point across at all!
I totally understand that it is very easy to get defensive when you are seemingly attacked but as I told my kids when they were growing up, "it takes two to make an argument" and how are we to improve our relationships and our nation by throwing around the negative stuff?
Think about it.