She's Dead

Everybody happy now?

Minutemen Are Coming

Columnist Michell Malkin has, in my opinion, identified the next big news story that will catch hold after the Terri Schiavo case moves off of the news headlines. Go read her excellent column The ACLU vs. America.

The situation is this: A group of volunteers calling themselves the Minutemen are going to patrol our Southern border watching for illegal immigrants breaking into the country. They won't confront anyone. They won't use violence. They will just observe the illegal entries, notify the border patrol, and document the entries. Harmless enough.

And of course, the ACLU will oppose them. Read Michelle's excellent column as to why. And of course these volunteers will be pilloried in the press as racist, right-wing, gun-totin', militia types. It's not too hard to predict the MSM script.

The bottom line is this: our border is out of control. Illegal "immigration" is out of control. This represents a very real and present security threat to the United States. And the Federal Government is taking insufficient steps to control it.

Some will dispute that the border is out of control, or even that the border should be controlled. Those people are at odds with the official law of the land which provides a definition and means of "legal" immigration. That is represented by all of the folks in foreign lands, who are welcome in America, who follow the law and the process and enter legally. It follows then that if there is a defined legal way to immigrate then there is correspondingly an illegal way to enter. And by which method would you guess that terrorists who want to enter America to do us harm would choose to enter now after 9/11?

The core definition of a sovereign nation is definable borders and rules about who is allowed within those borders as citizens or guests. The concept of America as a sovereign nation is greatly weakened by an out-of-control border in the South.

I, for one, will appreciate the volunteer efforts of the Minutemen (and women!). I just hope that they are ready for the heat that is going to come down on their heads from the American left and their allies in the media.

Deathwatch, Day 13

I've written about all I can write about the impending death of Terri Schiavo in Florida. Today is day 13 of her ordeal which has captivated the nation. Today, as we wait and watch her struggle, I'll just offer some brief thoughts.

- I was sceptical of the arrival of Jesse Jackson at the scene of the hospice so late in the proceedings, as it could just be another example of his opportunism. But as I watched him on the news shows yesterday I decided to just give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. He was not grandstanding or showboating. He was quietly stating that this was wrong and that he was there at the request of the family. I believe him. I'll cut him a lot of slack on this one and just appreciate his efforts.

- Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, could easily be Jack Kervorkian's successor in the selling of death as a right. The man was eerie as he came out to address the cameras about how "peaceful" Terri's starvation death is. My question is, why is this man allowed in her room at will and her parent's comings and goings are strictly regulated? That's an injustice.

- Go read Pat Buchanan's column today on this topic, called "The Culture of Death Advances". It's excellent and he said it all, better than I could have.

The Nerve of That Woman

I heard a caller to Rush Limbaugh's program today express a point of view that I'm seeing on the web and elsewhere. His basic point was that, while he was "horrified at what's going on down in Florida" with Terri Schiavo, he's tired of the story and wants to stop talking about it and move on.

sarcasm

Well then. The nerve of Terri Schiavo to not starve to death faster so that this man does not have to be burden with talking about it too long.

Doesn't she know that this American's now have a Constitutional right, unwritten but de facto in today's attention-span-deficient America, to not be bored? Doesn't she? Why won't she just die already so we can all get back to March Madness?

/sarcasm

Hail to the Orange, Hail to the Blue

I'm caught up in March Madness and am wallowing in NCAA basketball this weekend.

So, some kudos and condolences are in order:

Kudos to the Fighting Illini of the University of Illinois. My team. I attended college there in Champaign - Urbana from 1978 through 1981. ( I ended up graduating elsewhere, but that's another story.) The Illini earned their way to the Final Four last night in one of the most exciting college basketball games I have ever seen, coming from 15 points down to win it in OT. (To my readers who know that I am a jinx when I watch Illinois basketball - I had someone tape it and only watched it after they won!)

Condolences to a large part of my extended family who are diehard fans of the Blue and White of the University of Kentucky Wildcats. They lost their bid to the final four today in a hard fought game.

On to St. Louis for the championship. Go Illinois!

Sanity will resume in April.

Humor in Anarchy

I need a little humor break after the intensity of the last several posts that I've written.

I was surfing my political sites today, including Free Republic, a conservative chat site where people post articles and then other members - myself included - post their comments to the article.

The article that made me laugh today was about Anarchy.

Someone posted a news article about an Anarchist's Book Fair in San Francisco. Anarchists from all over gathered for the fair to buy books on smashing government, protesting, hating America and the Middle Class, etc. The usual.

It was the 10th Anniversary of the Anarchist's Book Fair. They had 75 vendors set up booths this year.

So, what was the commenters take on the article? Two things:

1. 10th Anniversary? 75 vendors? That seems to be quite organized for Anarchists. (think about it. :) )

2. Anarchists use the F-word a lot.

For what it's worth - it made me laugh. Thanks FR.

Personal vs. Theoretical

I'm approaching the issue of the Terri Schiavo case from a theoretical position rather than a personal one. From the point of view of my beliefs, formed by my life and my faith and my education.

I realized this week by reading the letters-to-the-editor that a lot of people are approaching this issue from a personal point of view. From having had to face a end-of-life medical decision from within their own family. And thus they are invested in the issue with a perspective that I'm yet to have. They have a personal vested stake in what the answer to this tough life question and their position on this subject has a lot to do with justifying their own decisions in the matter.

It follows that a lot of people, as our population ages, will be approaching the question from a personal rather than a theoretical POV. Eventually, maybe even a majority of people will.

We've already been down this path in the abortion debate.

In 1973, very few people nationwide had personal experience with abortion as the nation wrestled with Roe v. Wade.

Do the math and you will see that, in 2005, that's no longer the case. 40 plus million abortions since 1973. That's 40 million women. Add a partner in most of those cases who assisted in the decision either supportively or coercively. Add friends who provided advice, counsel, and financial and/or logistical support. Add some amount of parents who knew about the crisis pregnancy and did the same. It's easy to get to a number of over 100 million people out of 240 million people who were involved to some degree in the completion of an abortion. 100 million people for who the topic of abortion is not theoretical but personal and who have a vested interest in justifying their decision when the take a position on a theoretical topic. That's the math for abortion.

And that's becoming the math for end-of-life decisions as well.

That's not right or wrong. It just is. These discussions are now personal and not theoretical.

Nazi Doctors and the Slippery Slope

In 1973, as Roe v. Wade was being decided by the Supreme Court, opponents argued that the danger was that the legalization of abortion was the first step of a slippery slope that would lead to much more drastic issues like forced euthanasia. Proponents of Roe, denied the slippery slope argument.

Who was right? Is there a slippery slope in regards to the cheapening of life?

It's 2005. We can look back now and evaluate that argument. Time for the score card.

In 1973 what was legalized was limited abortion rights. Permissable in the first term. Limited in the second trimester. Outlawed in the third.

In 2005 abortion is hardly even the issue any more. Those limitations have eroded to the point of irrelevancy. Late term abortion is no longer even rare. Down the slope we've gone. 1.5 million abortions a year. Yawn, says the country. Get current. We have abortion rights and millions of people want more. We want the "right to die". We want assisted suicide. We want to create embryos to destroy them for research to find cures. Let's have Stem Cell Research right now! - and if you oppose it you're just a religious fanatic. Get out of our way!

And yet, millions still deny the slippery slope.

One of the turning points in my life that contributed to my conversion to a pro-life stance was reading a quiet little book written by a doctor. It wasn't a book about abortion. It was essentially a social studies book written by a man named Robert Jay Lifton, who was a doctor. Being a doctor, Lifton was fascinated by a simple question. The question was: how could doctors - who probably took an oath to do no wrong - become the designers and implementers of the Holocaust? Yes, the Nazis dreamed up the death camps and the "final solution", but doctors made it happen. From selecting the victims, to the mechanisms of death like the gas chamber, to disposing of the corpses it took doctors to implement. Why did they participate?

A good question. And a fascinating one.

The answer, of course, was the slippery slope. The doctors didn't start out fitting showers with deadly gas in the camps. They started with the more benign issue of sterilizing the mentally retarded. From their they graduated down the slope to euthansia of those who were "life unworthy of life". The doctors made the killing of millions in death camps feasible.

It was an excellent book and it had a profound impact on my thinking on these issues. You can read more about it (here).

I'm not making any comparisons here of anyone involved in any of the current issues in the United States to Nazis. I'm not. That would be totally irresponsible.

But I am saying that there are valid historical lessons here for us to learn as we struggle in this country with the right-to-life issues of abortion, Stem Cell Research, and the end-of-life issues like we are dealing with this week as we have the public spectacle of the end of Terri Schiavo's life.

And I am saying that we are well down the slippery slope of the cheapening of life.

Dignity and Death

There is a lot of discussion in the Schiavo case on the topic of dignity. Almost exclusively the discussion centers around the incapacitated person. Should she be allowed to "die with dignity"? Is it cruel to have her linger in this "undignified" condition? The right-to-die movement is all about death with dignity.

Valid questions, worthy of discussion.

And as my contribution to the discussion, I'm going to approach it from a different direction and suggest that the question of dignity applies to more than just the person dying and involves the care-givers as well.

Now that I'm in my forties, I've had the opportunity to watch family members care for dying loved ones. That includes in-laws who cared for a dying parent. That includes an uncle who cared for years for a disabled and dying spouse. And that includes my father (and an older brother) who cared for my mother as ended a four year battle with a ravaging battle. She passed away, delerious and uncomprehending, in her living room with hospice care.

I learned from watching those deaths that death affects more than the dying. And that those who shoulder the sacrifices and burdens of caring for the dying face a test of dignity themselves. In the three cases I mentioned above the caregivers demonstrated an enormous and superhuman degree of dignity and were each ultimately blessed by their task. They were a lesson for me as I potentially face the test of dignity myself in the future as a caregiver. They showed me the way.

Legal vs. Right

Okay. I get it. All of the courts have ruled on the Terri Shiavo rescue appeals. State courts, Federal Courts, the Supreme Court. They've all ruled the same way. Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, has the legal guardianship right to make the determination to remove his wife's sustenance until she's dead. I get it.

The legal argument is decided.

But you won't convince me that starving this woman to death is the right thing to do in this one specific case. You just won't.

Death Party Discovers Limited Government

I admit it. I'm captivated by the case of Terri Schiavo in Florida. The case pits her husband, who is trying to kill her, against her family, who wants to care for her.

I woke back up at midnight last night to watch Congress go into special weekend session to pass a bill, signed in the early morning hours by President Bush, to allow her case to be heard by a Federal Court in the latest bid to keep her alive.

All of the Democrats who spoke up cemented their status as the Death Party. The champions of the "Right to Die". Or more accurately, the right for someone else to die if they're inconvenient to me. From abortion to euthansia the Death Party is consistent. The right to privacy, they insist, includes the right to kill those who would be better off dead in their judgement. Harsh, but true.

Now they won't come out and say it that bluntly. Oh no. They are the master of euphemism, having honed their word-craft in the thirty years of the abortion debate - where "product of conception" equals an unborn baby and "surgical termination" equals death by abortion.

No, to a man / woman the Democrats caged their arguments to let Terri die as follows:

1. Government should not insert itself into family life.
2. The Federal government shouldn't address this, states should.
3. The Congress should be paying attention to more important things like health care or the price of gas.

Even Michael Shiavo, Terri's husband, parroted these talking points after he angrily told everyone to butt out because his "wife had been adjudicated". Who talks that way about their wife? Scott Peterson, that's who. I've come to the conclusion that Michael Schiavo is Scott Peterson in slow motion. He's trying to kill his wife so that he can go live his other life with his baby-mama. Pathetic.

As to the Democrats suddenly discovering limited government in this case, it's laughable.

These are the same Democrats who stay awake at night figuring out how to extend government into every aspect of your life. Cradle to grave. Democrats champion every conceiveable government entitlement to intrude into your family.

These are the same Democrats, for example, who champion the right of government paid school nurses to drive your minor child across state lines to have an abortion without the parent's knowledge. Suddenly they've decided that government shouldn't intrude into families.

It's laughable - only it's not. It's tragic.

As to the argument about whether or not the Federal Government should be involved:

The fundamental right that the Federal Government should protect above all others for its citizens is the right to life.

As to whether or not Congress is to busy to get involved and should be paying attention to other things, a crass and heartless argument if I've ever heard one:

If the government cannot protect you from being starved to death, the price of gasoline will be a moot point to you.

Where are the Feminists When You Need Them?

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the Terri Schiavo case in Florida, but I have. It's a case that has gone on since 1990 and may be drawing to an end this week, if her husband has his way and Terri is slowly starved to death.

It's a complicated case, and I don't pretend to know all of the answers. That doesn't stop most pundits, on either side of the issue, from having and expressing the exact right answer. I am not firmly convinced what the right answer is in this deeply tragic family trauma. I am emphathetic to the personal tragedy of the situation, and am not sure if I would want to stay alive in Terri's condition. And I certainly sympathize with all of the family, her husband included, in trying to make the right decision here. When I'm not convinced of the right answer I try to err on the side of life. As I would in this case, where "life" only means the insertion of a feeding tube and no other heroic measures like respirators. Err on the side of life.

I can draw some observations on the case, however, as it has played out on the national stage. Here's two:

First, I am appalled by the behavior of her husband who is fighting for her "right to die", based on a single statement that she alledgedly said about not wanting to live in that kind of state. A statement he remembered seven years after her injury. Michael Schiavo is a thoroughly compromised claimant in this case and should step aside. Terri's family has fought for her and cared for her through this whole ordeal and is seeking to be granted custody to care for her. Michael has refused and is pushing for her to die. Is he motivated solely by the love for and wishes of his wife? Hardly. He has a motive to have her out of his life, that motive being his life with another woman with which he has fathered two children. And he has a financial motive related to the million or so dollars that they were awarded to care for her - which he has not spent on her care or rehabilitation. Michael Schiavo is thoroughly and completely compromised and should not be allowed to be the sole decision maker in whether or not his "wife" should die.

My second observation is this: I am appalled, but not surprised, that the feminist leaders in this country have either remained silent on this case or have jumped in on the "right to die" side. It's not surprising because feminism is completely sold out to the ethic of "right to die" in the form of abortion. Abortion rights are the sole inviable article of faith in the feminist temple, and anything - anything - that comes close to having any negative implications for abortion rights must be thrown under the bus. It's why the sold out their sexual harrassment principles the minute that their chief abortion rights champion, President Bill Clinton, became a notorious sexual harrasser. The completely sold out their stance and marched out, under orders, to proclaim that having sex with an intern in the office on company time wasn't, in fact, sexual harrassment if you're the President and you're willing to keep abortion legal. Now their selling out Terri Schiavo.

Feminists: let me set up the case for you. It's a softball, really. You could knock it out of the park.

You have a woman. So far, so good. She's incapacitated and needs help. She has a husband. (Feminists can feel free to boo here.) He's a bad guy. He's cheating on Terri, even as she lays in a hospital bed needing his help. He has made a new life with this other woman. He wants Terri out of the way. Plus, he stands to have his hands on a million dollars that he should have spent on her care (more booing please. It's appropriate this time), if only she would have the courtesy to die. She has a family that's willing to care for her, if only the bad husband would step aside. But court after court has ruled that the husband trumps everything. What he says goes. Even if he wants to pull her feeding tube and have her die. He tells her parents to shut up. He tells the courts to shut up. He tells the legislature of Florida to shut up. What he says, goes. And what he says is that Terri should die.

And the feminists will go along with it. Why. Because Michael Schiavo has played their trump card, "the right to die". And feminists, whose core belief and cardinal principal - abortion rights - is all about the "right to die", will throw Terri Schiavo under the bus rather than grant that any right to life exists.

Congress is meeting in a rare weekend joint session today to pass a specific law, affecting Terri Schiavo only, to save her. I don't know if it's appropriate for Congress to jump into this or not. And I blame Michael Schiavo for letting it get this far. I don't know if it's the proper role for Congress or not. But I'm rooting for them.

Because no one has the only and obvious answer. And if we're going to err, let's do so on the side of life.

Bumper Sticker Outrage

I was driving behind a car this week that had a bumper sticker which read:

"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

Being an ocassional reader of left-wing liberal (excuse me, "progressive") websites, plus deciphering the other bumper stickers of the "Not in my Name" variety, I was able to discern the root of the driver's outrage.

He was outraged that the Bush administration has been decisive enough to take the War on Terrorism seriously and to take the battle overseas to our enemies with the resulting liberation of Afganhistan and Iraq from the hands of murderous terrorists and thugs and in doing so planting the seeds of liberty that are quickly bearing fruit throughout the Middle East in areas like Palestine and Lebanon.

Oh wait, just kidding. That's all true, but probably not what he meant. I doubt my friend the driver has caught up with the reality of all of that yet. In his denial of reality and in his bitterness over the 2004 election, here's what he probably meant.

He's outraged that the Bush administration launched an uprovoked attack on a country that never did anything to us, after murdering 500,000 innocent Iraqi kids with cruel sanctions, in order to make richer his Saudi Arabian loving oil buddies, Haliburton, instead of listening to our wonderful friends - the French - who, are so much more enlightened than the chimp that we have as President and want nothing but peace and harmony for the world.

That's probably more like what he meant.

Me personally, I'm outraged by more mundane things.

Politically, I'm outraged by obstructionist Democrats who offer no solutions of their own and continue to block effective change in antiquated programs like Social Security and who continue to behave badly by blocking qualified judges from the bench by proceduraly tricker like filibuster when they know, I repeat know, that those judges would be confirmed by the constitutionally required majority if a full vote on the floor of the Senate was allowed. That outrages me.

Personally, I'm outraged by evil. Which came home to us again this week in the kidnapping and murder of that precious innocent little girl in Florida - Jessica Lunsford. I'm outraged that a dangerous sex offender like her killer - Mr. Couey - was out on the streets to be a predator again. And as a parent, I'm outraged and horrified by the thought that a lethal sexual predator may be living across the street watching my children.

Believe, me I'm paying attention. And I can be plenty outraged. Just by different things than my new passing acquaintance, Mr. Bumper Sticker man.

Democrat Speech Codes

As a political blogger, and a partisan one at that, part of my daily reading ritual includes reading the major discussion forums. They represent the pulse of the people. The everyday thoughts, rants, and ramblings of everyday people who are interested in politics, the issues, and current events. They are passionate and raw and not at all for the political faint of heart.

It is a political education in and of itself just to read the two main partisan discusssion forums. One on the right - conservative in nature. One on the left - liberal or "progressive" in nature. Most people gravitate naturally to one or the other. I read both. Granted, one of them is purely for comic relief. But I read both.

On the right I read Free Republic. This site is conservative in nature and features several forums for posting articles, with lively discussion following each article by posters including yours truly. Free Republic gained notoriety lately with a post that started the takedown of Dan Rather over memogate, when an alert poster caught the fact that the memos were fabricated - almost in real time.

On the far, far, wacky left I read Democratic Underground. If you haven't checked it out, you should. If you want to take the pulse of the anti-war, Bush hating, hysterical left - this is the place. Try the discussion forum for the election of 2004, which is still in full hysterical meltdown over the election. (I would post a link for you to check out, but they generally get vulgar quickly, so I'll protect the sensibilities of some of my readers. Go there at your own risk.) This is the forum where they were pushing the conspiracy theory that the owners of Diebold company, as friends of Bush (or shrub or **** or Chimpy or other names that they call him), stole the election by hacking the electronic voting machines. Really.

I have a screen name at Free Republic, which makes me a "Freeper". And a proud one.

I've thought about registering at DU to comment on their posts on ocassion, but I'm pretty sure that I would be quickly banned as a conservative "disruptor". Yeah, that's right. Democrats - champions of free speech - have a draconian speech code known as the "rules for posting" that ban conservative speech as coming from "disruptors". Translation - they're too frail to have their opinions challenged, so don't bother them. If you're a conservative, or generally think that Bush is doing a good job, don't bother posting. Don't believe me? Here's a quote from their "Rules for Posting":

Who is Welcome on Democratic Underground, and Who is Not

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

Notice that you don't have to behave badly to get banned. You don't have to swear, or call people names, or pick fights, or type in all caps, or any other disruptive behavior to be a "dispruptor". You just have to disagree with them.

You can read all of the rules for posting, in the form of a draconian speech code, here at this link.

I checked Free Republics rules. They just say, essentially, please don't behave badly.

Yeah, Democrats are all for free speech. Unless you disagree with them. Then you are a disruptor who must be banned. Wimps.

America's Pastime takes the Stand

There seems to be wall-to-wall cable news coverage today of the Major League Baseball testimony to a House committee on the use of steroids.

Why is Congress involved in this? Other than to decide whether or not steroids should be illegal. But aren't they already illegal?

Why is Congress investigating how often players are tested?

Granted, I don't know all of the legal issues involved, including the issue of Congress's granting of anti-trust protection to baseball. It's beyond me.

But I do have a general sense that this is Congress overreaching.It's more big government being where it doesn't belong in our lives.

The proper approach, it seems to me, is to handle this issue in a private industry in a private fashion. Shame the league into doing the right thing by refusing to go to games that features players who you can't trust not to be cheating. Simple as that. Stay home. Let them show up at stadiums full of empty seats, until they figure out how to behave ethically and to be worthy of America's trust and support.

Bring back shame. It's effective and, in the case of Major League Baseball, appropriate.

More Airplane Pet Peeves...

Two more things that bug me on airplanes as a business traveler:

1. Stop reclining your seats! It's a zero sum game here, people. Any space you gain for yourself you've taken from me. I'm a businessman. On a long trip that means I'm going to use my laptop. I can't do that if you're in my lap.

2. Stop taking your shoes off on the plane to air out your piggies. It's not your living room. This especially applies if you're wearing flip-flops and no socks.

What is with Women and Multi-tasking?

This will clearly be classified as a "cranky" post and it will surely get me in trouble. But I have to ask: What is it with women and multi-tasking?

What ocassioned this question was today's visit to my barbershop. On most Saturday's all five chairs are full with five barbers (4 women, 1 man) cutting like crazy. There is a steady stream of chatter, mostly about the ballgame on TV. Today, by contrast, I was the sole patron with 3 lady barbers to choose from.

I walked in, selected from among the 3 ladies and sat down in the chair. Apparently, an impromptu business meeting was in progress at the time and several conversations were going on at once. So many topics, alternating from sentence to sentence, that I wasn't even sure they were paying attention to each other.

More importantly, my barber wasn't paying attention to me. She was in automatic pilot as she dressed me in my neck tissue and sheet/apron. She emerged briefly from the inane shop dialogue to acknowledge me long enough to ask what kind of cut I wanted. Then it was back into meeting mode as she cut. "What kind of combs did you want to order?" Snip. "I don't remember what they are called." Comb. (3rd barber) "Where do you want these receipts?" Snip. "Have you looked through the catalog". Comb. "Has anybody ordered dinner?" Snip, snip, snip.

Granted, I was grouchy. I had just come off a tantrum battle with a raging 6 year old about a stupid broken 50 cent toy. And my next task was to stop on the way home to get some super toxic corrosive power chemical to unstop the unstoppable clog in our bathroom sink. All I wanted was some quiet and a nice haircut and maybe a glimpse of a game for a few minutes. But now, suddenly, all I wanted was some sense of reassurance that the person cutting my hair for my important business meeting this week had some level of attention to the task at hand - cutting my hair.

I almost - almost - got up from the chair with some dramatic statement like "Can we wait and start this haircut when you are actually ready to cut my hair? Is that too much to ask?" I didn't. I have to get my hair cut here two weeks from now.

But I'll ask the question here: Is that too much to ask?

I know. I know the answer. "I can do both at the same time"

But why would you want to? Stop the meeting and cut my hair!

I know. I know. They cut hair all day every day and can probably do it in their sleep. That would make a great sign out front - "We can cut hair in our sleep!".

Oh, well. It worked out. I told a joke to get her out of meeting mode and struck up our own conversation so that at least she was present at our chair.

And I got a nice haircut.

Now, it's time to work out my crankiness on that sink clog......

Abused by Incivility

I fly every week on business. I board at least four flights every week if you consider a roundtrip with a connection each way. Sometimes more. I deal with all of the issues of business travel: early check-ins, getting through security without beeping and ocasionally getting the full patdown anyway, trying to get an aisle seat on each flight (I'm a big guy!), whether my seatmate(s) will want to chat or not, making tight connections by hurrying through concourses, trying to find a place to get online in an airport, etc. If you travel a lot you know the drill.

I've gotten good at travel. I can work the system. I can work amiably week after week with my travel agent to get where I need to go with minimum hassles. I can deal pleasantly with gate agents who have just denied me boarding at 10:00 pm because the plane has "weight and balance" issues due to too much luggage. I can re-route flights and catch hotels on the fly. I can figure out how to be productive and/or entertained on a six hour layover.

I can even almost always deal with the "sheep" in the process as well. "Sheep" being a semi-humorous, non-denigrating, term for you non-business travelers who are seriously in our way as we navigate the airport experience week after week. I understand. I've been you in a past life. I recognize and can even sympathize with all of the mistakes that you make that slow down the process. Oversize bags that won't fit in the overhead, three trips through the X-ray until you get everything out of your pockets, etc. I understand. But you're still in my way and that's a fact.

Occasionally, the sheep get on my nerves. Like the incident last month at security in Dallas. It was a 6 am Sunday morning flight back home for me and I wasn't in the mood for delays. So who do I get in front of me at Security? Mr. slick gum-chomping arrogant frat-boy salesman who wants to tweak the TSA agents. He refused, at a loud volume, to take off his shoes and put them on the conveyor to go through the machine. (I know he's a sheep at this point. You don't see businessmen arguing about shoes. We're the guys and gals in line efficiently stripping down and filling the bins with our clothes and laptops.) He insisted, no - taunted, that there was no way his shoes were going to beep. The TSA agents were remarkably polite. "Sir, it will save you a lot of time if you just place your shoes on conveyor". But Mr. frat-boy wouldn't have it. "You can't make me take them off". Of course, he kept them on and strutted through the arch. He turned back to the TSA agent with a huge smirk on his face and his finger poked at him: "See, I told you I wouldn't beep." I, being on the other side of the arch, could see all of the flashing red lights going off. I had the last laugh as the TSA agents swarmed Mr. Smarmy and politely escorted him off to the side for the full body wanding. Justice sure, but the bottom line is that his antics delayed me. Sheep.

What's harder to deal with is the incivility of some of the sheep. I'm talking mostly about young sheep, mostly male sheep, who are just outright ill-mannered, rude, and vulgar in airports in an alarming manner. Really, have we lost all sense of manners? Do I have to be, as I was this week, subjected to two college guys (probably frat boys) seated in the row behind me going on spring break - already drunk - talking at top volume in the crudest, most vulgar and profane, and worst of all boring manner? What's wrong with you people? Do you not understand how important manners are for a hundred people all packed in an aluminum tube hurtling through space for two hours?

I wanted to turn around and say to them what I say to my two boys, ages 6 and 11, on almost every car trip: "How close is your brother to you? Do you have to talk at top volume?" Everybody in the plane could hear these two idiots and yet they are totally unaware of their behavior. They just kept periodically yelling "We're going to Vegas!", like anybody cared. Did the flight attendants ask them to quiet down? No, they just sold them two more beers apiece during the beverage service. That helped. They just got louder and more profane. Do I need to hear the F-word 3 times in every sentence for two hours?

I felt abused. I should have upgraded to business class.

Get Out Your Wallets...

...Hillary Clinton's friends overseas need abortions. And you're expected to pay for them. Right now. Cash on the barrelhead. Pony up, and don't be stingy.

Sen. Clinton is in the news this week because of the tenth anniversary of the United Nation's Fourth Conference on Women. The U.S. delegation to the conference ten years ago was, I believe, led by Hillary on behalf of her husband - President Clinton. It gave Hillary a global stage to parrot their supporter's abortion-on-demand as a woman's natural rights message with United Nations seal of approval on it. Hillary had a far-left agenda then and, on the tenth anniversary, has a far-left agenda still.

According to the article on Newsmax.com:

Senator Hillary Clinton says the Bush administration's policy of withholding aid from overseas groups that perform abortions is hurting women and forcing clinics to close.

Clinton spoke yesterday at a New York University forum to mark the 10th anniversary of the United Nations' fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing.

She said 20 million women worldwide risk unsafe abortions every year, 68,000 die, and many more are injured.

President Bush reinstituted the so-called global gag rule when he took office. Under the rule, overseas non-governmental organizations that perform abortions or advocate the legalization of abortion are ineligible for U.S. government money.

Let me see if I have this right: If average American citizens, like myself, do not want to coercively pony up tax money out of our paychecks to hand over to foreign groups to perform free abortions, then we are hurting women? Is that so.

This, the logic of Democratic leaders like their presumptive leader Sen. Hillary Clinton, is why Democrats running a long losing streak in major elections.

Just for the record, the United Nations does not have the right to insist that American taxpayers fund abortions overseas. Period. Plain and simple. Nor could Sen. Clinton put that up for a vote in a referendum in America and win it.

Thank God that President Bush is holding the line on this outrage.

the Petty Party

Have Democrats lost their minds since the election of 2004?

Honestly, it's a serious question. The behavior of the Democrat leadership is getting increasingly bizarre and petty.

Granted that because of stunning strings of victories in the Presidency and Congress in the last several years the Democrat Party has been reduced to being the Petty Party, reduced to nothing more than sniping at the party in power. They've long run out of any new ideas, being still enmeshed as the New Deal broker of entitlements, and are constantly whining with some new petty variant of "you can't do that" when Republicans take on big things and succeed. Seriously, have Barbara Boxer or Harry Reid said anything other than that of late?

President Bush, on the other hand, staked his administration on big ideas and big actions and was vindicated with re-election. Under his leadership, his administration and his Republican allies have run up a string of successes both foreign and domestic. Despite Democrat carping about the impossibility of his actions in the War on Terror, Bush keeps racking up wins with elections in Afghanistan and Iraq that the Petty Party claimed were impossible.

I know that it's unnerving for Democrats to be wrong so many times in a row. And it must be infuriating for them to see the Bush Administration stand up for our national defense in an uncompromising way, and to ignore their sniping at his heels.

But really, have they lost their ever loving minds lately, in response?

I refer to 3 recent events, for discussion:

1. The election of the most strident, most left-wing, most anti-war, most bomb-throwing candidate - Mr. Howard Dean - as the Chairman of the Democrat Party

2. Chairman Dean's recent speech in which he implied that conservatives were evil. Not merely wrong, mind you, but evil.

"This is a struggle of good and evil," he told the gathered activists, who paid $100 apiece to hear the new Democratic chairman. "And we're the good."

Folks, we have a two party system in this country. One may be wrong at any point in time, as I believe the left in general and the Democrats in specific are most of the time, but neither party is evil. When you start labeling domestic political opponents as "evil", you've lost the argument.

3. Sen. Robert Byrd (D, W. VA) gave a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate this week concerning a proposed change in arcane filibustering rules in which he compared the actions of the Republicans to change the rules to the actions of Adolph Hitler in the Third Reich.

This is eggregious on so many levels and Sen Byrd, former Klansman, should be the object of scorn by his fellow Democrats for using the platform of the U.S. Senate to level such an outlandish charge. He will not be, of course, because such actions are no longer beneath the dignity of the Petty Party.