Mea culpa, mea culpa. I'm conservative, mea maxima culpa

For those of you who are not an old enough catholic (or not catholic at all) to know what it means "mea culpa" is latin for "through my fault". When the mass went to English (or the local language of the country it was being celebrated in) the phrase translated as "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault". But in reality I jest somewhat. I make no apologies for being a conservative.

I never intended this pulpit to be political (there are enough people out there in the blogosphere doing the political thing), but at times those views are going to show through just by the nature of other things I may be talking about. This time it is a little more direct.

There were several things that prompted me to consider this post and what finally got me going was the announcement today of Alberto Gonzales resigning from his post of Attorney General.
I'm sure this event in itself had many liberals - as Martha and the Vandellas belted out so long ago - "Dancing in the Streets". Probably not as energetically as when Donald Rumsfeld or Karl Rove resigned but dancing nonetheless. Unfortunately the celebration brings to mind the pictures of the Palestinians dancing in the streets after hearing of the events of September 11, 2001. Celebration rooted in hatred kills the spirit of those who engage in it. I can have some understanding of those who do it in countries where the majority of the population are un or under educated - where the major (if not only) source of information is the government. I have no such understanding for those who have access to almost every source of information in the world at their fingertips - via the remote or the computer keyboard. People who have this access and still indulge themselves in this hatred need to look inward to see to what degree their soul has shriveled and see if there is enough left to regrow. The only ones worse than those who celebrate out of hatred are those who foment the hatred for their own personal gain. But we'll save them for another day.

I belong to a group on the web. Most of the people in the group are liberal leaning. This is a good thing since belonging to it does not violate "The Groucho Rule" - not wanting to belong to a group that would have me as a member. Probably many there who would not have me as a member if it were left up to them - so I am in the clear. I must say that I find almost all the people in the group intelligent and willing to enter into discussions about almost anything - which is "a very good thing" (sorry Martha). But not too long ago one person said that George Bush had murdered people in New Orleans and someone else said that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, even poor Colin Powell had hijacked the constitution and were basically turning the United States into Cambodia under Pol Pot. Interestingly enough they left Condoleeza Rice out of the mix, but I doubt it was because they didn't think she was a guilty more because they didn't think they could take a shot at a double minority.

I am not going to get into the defense of everything that all these people did. Like anyone else they made mistakes. In fact as far as President Bush goes there things about his policy that I do not agree with, but most of them have to do with things like immigration, education, and not vetoing any spending bills, and trying to make nice (especially in his first term) with some pretty shady democrats (Ted Kennedy comes to mind). These are the things that a lot of liberals would give him very grudging approval for.

However when it comes to New Orleans I have to vehemently disagree. In fact President Bush even went so far as to request that Governor Kathleen Blanco allow the federalization of the Louisiana national guard. She refused. At that point other than trying to get people in place to clean up after the storm the federal governments hands were tied. They could not order the evacuation. They could not get the national guard deployed.

Now I am going to make an observation here. No one, and I mean no one, who lives in a place that is prone to disaster such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, or floods should be without some kind of disaster kit. This doesn't amount to much - just enough water for the household for five to seven days, clothes that are sealed up so that you will have dry clothes if needed., flashlight and radio with extra batteries, and enough food that does not need to be heated. This is not expensive. Anyone - no matter their economic circumstances (because, let's face it everyone has a TV) - has access to the information and most of this stuff they already have in their house. And the one thing about a hurricane is that you know it is coming, and may hit, for days which is plenty of time to get things together. In any kind of disaster the rule is that you should be prepared to take care of yourself for a minimum of three days without any help from anyone.

Mayor Ray Nagin never ordered a mandatory evacuation until it was too late. Over a thousand school buses sat underwater (we all saw the pictures) that could have been used to evacuate the poor and disabled but they went unused. And Nagin's excuse - "We didn't have anyone to drive them". Really? Oddly enough one of the great stories to come out of the days was that of a fifteen year old boy who commandeered an abandoned bus and picked up loads of people and drove the thing damn near to Houston before the cops pulled him over. So to say no one could be found to drive the buses is so bogus. Who knows, maybe it was Ray's way of exporting a large portion of his crime to other cities to pave the way for his 'Chocolate City". So unless someone actually has pictures of George Bush leading a contingent of Navy seals - armed with loads of C4 - toward the levees the accusation is ludicrous.

As far as Mr. Gonzales goes it all came down to the firing of some US Attorneys. Now never mind that the constitution states that the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. They are political appointees and are often appointed because of their political affiliation. Most of the time a majority of these attorneys are let go when a new president takes office. President Clinton got rid of all but three almost immediately after being sworn in to office. Nary a peep from anyone. However few were replaced when President Bush took office. Who knows, but I think he was trying to keep some continuity in order to try to make nice with the dems in congress. At any rate when eight or nine were fired a few months ago there was an uproar from the left side of the aisle and a whisper from the few on the right. When confronted with the argument that the president had the absolute right to let them go these drum beaters' retort was that it wasn't that they were fired but how and why they were fired. Well I have a word or two for them. GET A CLUE. It doesn't matter. If you want to change the process then amend the constitution. Nothing else to be said.

But both of these instances point to the underlying problem. The absolute hatred by most liberals of anything having to with the president or his administration. I'm not sure why the hatred started but personally I think it had to do with the 2000 election. Somehow these liberals seem to think the election was stolen. This however has been proven to be false by many entities (some of them liberal) when they recounted the votes and even examined the "hanging chads". Of course the hatred was exacerbated by the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote. Maybe all these people thought that if Al Gore had been elected global warming would be a thing of the past and even if we had been attacked by Muslim extremists he could have gotten Bin Laden and others to sit around the campfire with him to sing Kumbaya and everything would now be hunky dory. But again - too bad. If you don't like the electoral college - amend the constitution.

I once heard Ben Stein say that the reason he became a Republican was because in the neighborhood where he grew up almost everyone was a democrat and they walked around with long faces and bad attitudes most of the time. The only guy in the neighborhood who seemed to be happy most of the time was a Republican. Mr. Stein said he came to the conclusion he would rather be happy than miserable so he became a Republican. The same thing can be said of most of the liberal leadership and many of the Hollywood elite these days. They seem to be angry most of the time, just about the only time they seem to be happy is at the misfortune of others, and the only time they laugh is at the expense of someone else.

Not all liberals have had the hatred sour them, but most have and it is them I worry about. I fear for their shriveling souls to the point where they can never recover. Most of them before the Bush hatred started festering were pretty nice people. I hope at one point they can be again.

So my advice is........
Lighten up. Administrations change and the chances are that the next one will be just as flawed as the current one. So as my Mother would say "Don't get your knickers in a twist." Try to laugh a lot every day - rarely at others and often at yourself. It will help you stay in balance, grasshopper.

Viva Madison Avenue

Oaky so this friend of mine emails to ask me what I think of the latest Viagra commercial. You know the one where the guys are all sitting around the roadhouse playing the tune Viva Las Vegas on their instruments (no not those instruments you filthy minded people) and singing Viva Viagra during the chorus.

First of all I think it is a little weird having a bunch of guys sitting around singing this with nary a woman in site. Personally I think the Village People should reunite and cover this song. It's bound to be an immediate hit at every gay dance club in the nation - especially the "extended" (oops -sorry) seven minute remix version. It would even have crossover potential into the straight clubs where the PC Metrosexuals dance the night away. Of course at the straight clubs the women would probably insist that anything longer than three and a half minutes is "stretching" (oops - sorry again) it.

Now I have no problem with ads for ED products, or condoms, or adult diapers, or hemroid cream or anything else they want to advertise. However I wish they wouldn't advertise the darn things during the dinner hour and as far as the ED drugs go - and there are a few of them now - I think that they shouldn't advertise them when youngsters might be watching. I mean it's difficult enough to make your own decisions about what you want your children to know and when - without them being bombarded by this stuff on TV during dinner hour and "kid viewing time". Let's face it - little ones are naturally curious and will pick up on almost anything, repeat it and often ask questions. And the tune is pretty catchy and you know how kids love that.

The last thing you need is the police and/or DCF knocking on your door and threatening to take your kids away for living in an unhealthy environment because your little Johnny was overheard singing Viva Viagra while trying to drag someone else's little girl, Suzie, off the monkey bars during recess.

Also, during the disclaimers at the end of the commercials every single one of the ED drugs they say "seek immediate medical attention if you experience Priapism - an erection lasting more than four hours." Now you know that of all the words in that sentence your young-un might not know there is only one they will zero in on - "Daddy, what's an erection?" Why in the name of Sam Hill in a society that no longer cares about correct terminology do they have to use it in these commercials. Let's face it our society is so slanged up or dumbed down (or a combination of both) that even in the hospital they used the word pee instead of urinate. I suppose this might be a natural evolution due to the fact that about eighty percent of the time they said urinate they probably got "Urinate? What you talkin' 'bout Willis?"

So instead of erection why can't they use slang in these adds. Heck at least if your child says, "Daddy, what's a woody?" you would have an out. You could tell them it was an old type of station wagon that had a lot of wood parts on the outside. Then you could immediately launch into the first verse of Surf City by Jan and Dean - and anyone knows a parent's singing will drive any kid screaming from the room. Problem solved. Oh, maybe not.........

You might actually have to, at some point in time, explain to them what a station wagon was.

I guess you really can't win

Home Run King????

I'm sure bloggers all over the place are weighing in on this subject so I won't spend a lot of time with it but I do have a few thoughts I would like to express.

It's pretty obvious to me that Barry Bonds was using steroids at the point in time when he really bulked up. However at that time I do not think that steroid use had been outlawed by Major League Baseball. Has he used them since then? Probably, but he has not been convicted of it and he may never be.

Personally I think the guy is an arrogant, self-absorbed, antisocial idiot (of course the same may be said of many professional athletes) who doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with a class act like Hank Aaron. I have read some who say that the whole "his record should have an asterisk by it" has racial overtones - that Pete Rose's record doesn't have an asterisk by it even though he was convicted of gambling on baseball games while managing the Reds. However that makes no sense - especially since Aaron was also black. And the thing about Hammerin' Hank was that he playing and setting records in a time when he had real challenges in his daily life because of his race.

I don't think there needs to be an asterisk. I think the controversy will always follow him and will taint his record. What will be interesting is if he is convicted of illegal steroid use during the time after it was banned by MLB will that keep him out of the Hall of Fame a la Pete Rose? Probably not - and it probably shouldn't.

Still I think that Barry had a chance to do something great. On the Fox and Friends program Brian Kilmeade suggested that maybe Monsieur Bonds should have retired when he tied Hank Aaron's record. I think that would have changed the demeanor of the public instantly and would have been great for the game. I think it would also have provided a great lesson for the youngsters who look up to their sports heroes. Now there will be those who say, "Should Tiger Woods retire when he ties Jack Nicklaus' record of major tournament victories?" But it's not the same thing. In fact I wouldn't even think that Bonds should have done it if I didn't feel certain he knows he violated the rules. But I guess he never would even have considered it since he didn't care about the rules in the first place. It was always all about him. Apparently a lot of pro athletes are of the same mindset.

When asked about being a role model Charles Barkley once said, "I'm just a basketball player." I think that is a terrible attitude and that type of thinking contributes mightily to a lot of the problems kids have today caused by being self-absorbed and thinking what they want is the only thing that matters and whatever they need to do to get it is justified. Personally I believe every adult should think of themselves as a role model and act accordingly. It is even more important for athletes, musicians, and other celebrities because they are much more in the public eye.

Senor Bond will probably hit a few more this season and that will more than likely be it. I don't think he will make it past this season. San Francisco won't be interested in keeping him around. In fact I think they will drop him faster than Billy Bob dropped his drawers when Halle gave him the green light in Monster's Ball. And I doubt that anyone else will be interested in paying his price as a pinch hitter. Fortunately I don't think it will be another thirty plus years before someone breaks Double B's record. It will probably be A-Rod so I hope he acquires a little humility before then. For the good of the game I can only hope.

Blow the Man Down

Like most people who live down here in Florida I keep an eye on the weather a lot this time of year. After 2004 and 2005 (when I was living on the Gulf Coast in the Florida panhandle) diligence of preparation became much more of a focal point. Fortunately, like Alabama and Mississippi and unlike Louisiana, Florida had a Governor who was on top of everything that was happening - including preparations by local government officials. This certainly ameliorated the confusion in the aftermath of the storms. We did not sustain near the damage from the storms that hit us that Mississippi and Louisiana had from Katrina, but because we had been constantly told we had to be prepared to look out for ourselves for a minimum of three days (and more likely seven) before we could expect help from the state or federal government we weathered (no pun intended) things pretty well. But really that whole discussion is for another day.

What I wanted to talk about instead was the complete absence of hurricanes making US landfall last year and the projections for this year. Of course the "Global Warmers" predictions were extremely dire. Obviously everyone with any intelligence knew that the man-made global warming was raising the temperature of the waters and we were going to get hammered for years to come. Sure they had "experts" who supported their viewpoint and so did their predictions for the hurricane season (no big surprise there). However the guy from Ft. Collins Colorado (in his late seventies now but is still a professor emeritus at CSU) who has the best track record at predicting hurricane frequency and strength over the last 20 years was never cited. Why not? Well because his predictions were much less dire and did not factor in "global warming". Instead he used his years of experience at reading past data and current conditions and weather patterns to formulate his forecasts.

So of course the appropriate stuff has been done since I moved to the Atlantic coast. Accordion shutters have been installed on all the windows. panels have been set up for the openings that the accordions couldn't fit, the garage door was reinforced (actually the most susceptible place), and I devised a system to utilize some lag bolts and receptacles to reinforce the front door. Everything is up to Miami Dade specs (which are the most stringent in the nation). Get a break on the insurance premium as a bonus. So all the due diligence has been done because that is the prudent thing to do.

Now I am curious to see how many storms will show up this year. The NOAA has already reduced its prediction for the number of named storms, major storms, and the number that will make landfall. So far it has been very quiet with only two storms that got strong enough (tropical storm strength with constant winds of at least 39 mph) to be named. True the season usually doesn't get into it's most active period until mid-august and we are just about there so we will have to see what happens. But if we should have another "quiet" year I am curious to see how the "glowarms" will deal with it. The were pretty silent last year - playing down the lack of storms, but with two years in a row (if it happens) of few storms I will not be surprised to see the theories start flying as to how global warming is actually responsible for the "lack" of storms. In fact I think the "glowarms" will be spinning faster than the winds around the eye of a Category Five hurricane.

Anyway - if you look at the what happens with natural disasters (especially tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and naturally occurring forest fires) it is just the earth renewing itself - getting rid of the old to make way for the new. The only reason we do not appreciate this for the most part is that we live in places where we can be adversely affected by them. Such is the process of living.

So I will be keeping my eye on the Caribbean and the West Coast of Africa to see what develops. Because that is the prudent thing to do. And I will be listening to see what the "glowarms" say. That's better than almost any entertainment around.

By the way - I am not saying the earth is not warmer right now than it has been in the last few decades. Not even saying that man has not contributed but I am saying that we have gone overboard on what little info we have so far and might be in the position to do so real damage by acting crazily on it. But that is a subject for a different day.

And a couple of interesting things.................

Hurricane first entered English around 1555, coming from Arawakan (natives of the West Indies) hurakan via Spanish huracan.

The best site I have found to track these storms is at www.boatus.com

Later.

Dane