Mirror, mirror, who's the greatest . . .

In my opinion, Glenn Beck is one of the three great orators of our time. The other two are Sarah Palin and Barrack Obama. The trio runs a close race in the speechifying game, and it is difficult to know who is best, but if pressed, I'd have to admit I think Glenn edges the other two out.

When Glenn makes an historical presentation, and I'm hanging on the edge of the chair, well, that's amazing! I don't like history. But Glenn teaching about our founding fathers, the constitution, and the birth of our country is fascinating.

Many people seem to agree with me. Did you see the crowd at the Reflecting Pool? Why did all those people come? To hear a great orator? Yes, I think so. But more, to hear a great orator say good things about our great country and its people.

We as a nation, have been starved for praise of our country. We're tired of hearing nothing but negatives from without and from within. We need to remind ourselves of all the good we've done as a nation and as a people, and we need to hear it from ourselves.

Other countries dump vitriol on us even though we've died for them while defending and saving them from the likes of Hitler; they criticize us for being wealthy while we give them billions in aid; they accuse us of violations of civil rights while they live here illegally (for which they would receive cruel punishment in other countries).

Some of our own politicians level similar accusations and apologize for us around the world; some of our own citizens dredge up past sins and throw them like acid into the faces of people with no discernible connection; some say we do not hand enough to the irresponsible though they live better than many of the taxpayers supporting them. We are tired of the "elite ruling class" telling us we are a bad country and a bad people; we're tired of all the stirring in the pot to cause divisions for political gain.

Yes, the crowds came to hear a great orator, but more, they came to hear what he had to say. They reached out to Beck as if reaching for a cool drink after a desert trek. Main Stream America was thirsting for spiritualism without an agenda, for unification without accusations, for love for all and appreciation of all. They were thirsting to hear that Americans, though not perfect, are capable of greatness and have achieved greatness of country, of purpose, of love and acceptance. And that they can improve upon this greatness.

They want unification, not divisiveness; love, not hate; one human race, not racism.

Yes, Glenn Beck, the great orator, is leading us back to love and high principles, back to God and Country, back to our greater selves.

Politicians should hearken to the message. Positivity, not negativity will gain America's attention.

Paper or Plastic?

Remember back when environmentalists cried, "Save the trees! Save the trees! Use plastic." Remember how they clamored for the stores to offer a choice - plastic or paper?

Back then, I had a stock answer for paper or plastic. "I'll take paper, please. I think plastic is worse for the environment." And sometimes I had to justify that opinion to teenage bagboys!

But eventually the choice disappeared and stores just went to plastic, because it was easier to bend to the demands of the environmentalists.

Now, in California, the environmentalists want to take away the plastic. They call them urban tumbleweeds! They say they do not break down readily in waste sites. Imagine that! It took this long for the environmentalists to figure out they were wrong!

I don't feel animosity toward environmentalists in general; I, too, am concerned about the environment. But I don't like environuts who think they have the only answers and insist everyone follow their commands. I don't like pushy environuts who adopt weakly-backed theories or "adjust" scientific data to justify their junk theories and force them down our throats.

I hope, but don't expect, that this paper-plastic about-face will show them they aren't always right. I hope, but don't expect, they'll take time to think about their agenda.

A few years ago (about ten or fifteen), they were warning of an impending ice age, now the issue is global warming. A few years ago, fluorocarbons were responsible for damaging the ozone layer, now it's carbon dioxide. Now the geniuses who backed all of the foregoing fads, are trying to force "going green" at the expense of jobs, higher taxes, higher prices, and perhaps even the destruction of this country given the fiscal shape it is in.

All I ask is a little thinking, a little sense. The paper-or-plastic error isn't nationally disastrous, but some of the environut agenda could be.

Nebulous Promises

We don't hear much about hope and change these days. We only hear about Bush - pathetic excuses, like, "everything is Bush's fault." Or this interesting one: "Bush did it so its okay that I do it." Huh? I thought you guys hated EVERYTHING Bush did.

But what happened to the hope and change people voted for? First those are awfully nebulous promises to vote for. Did anyone ever explain what hope and change meant? No? I didn't think so.

Using meaningless but heart-grabbing phrases is a ploy. Non-thinking people sieze them, embue them with meanings they want to hear, and vote for them. It's easier than ferreting out the facts.

You think that isn't a fair assessment? Then please define the hope and change promises. And then show me it means the same to everyone who voted for it; show me that's what the candidate meant.

There is a lot of disappointment in the air lately, and we hear little about Hope and Change. Why? Probably because everyone's bubble dream, everyone's interpretation of hope and change, has burst. But who can say any promises were broken? We don't even know what we were promised!

The candidate was like the infamous bills recently signed into law. Vote for it and then find out what it means.

OofDah! Next time, let's find out what the promises are before we vote.

Redemption/Salvation

After realizing that numerous times in several different speeches and in many venues our president has suggested our individual salvation depends on "collective redemption" or "collective salvation," I began pondering the meaning, the validity, and source of the idea. This is not a Christian tenet. No, Christianity believes our salvation is individual, depending only on the individual and their acceptance of Christ. Collectivism is not a part of it.

So where did this idea of collective redemption originate? Well, it was used by Sun Myung Moon. (Remember the Moonies cult, circa 1997?) Also, it's something like the "social justice" from Marx. Or like Third Way Socialism as promoted by Hitler. In fact Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all felt their subjects clinging to their faith was a roadblock to their agendas. Collective salvation is Marxism falsely using the Bible as its authority. Also, using faith to involve Believers in politics and bend them to an agenda is an idea espoused by Saul Alinsky

This idea may have made inroads in Europe, but when Obama attempts to pull the American faithful into this collective redemption idea, tries to involve them in class struggles, he finds that they cling more stubbornly to their faith than Europeans do.

Does Obama take faith seriously? From his own words: "We need to take faith seriously not simply to block the religious right but to engage all persons of faith in the larger project of American Renewal." -- Barak Obama in the Audacity of Hope, page 216.

Sounds like that tidbit is more about politics than about faith.

We are offered redemption through politics; we are justified through a just society. Redemption through politics, salvation through Obama?

Come unto me?

OofDah.

Steven Slater

Steven Slater, the frustrated Jet Blue Airlines steward, threw a tantrum. He'd had it with crabby, nasty, rude customers. They cussed and swore at him and walloped him on the head with a carry-on, intentionally or accidently who knows, but apparently as a result of anger.

I've had to deal with such frustration on the job. It is not easy to take. People can be so rude and nasty! I've actually asked for time off (right now!) to deal with it. But if you are in the air, where do you go to chill? You can't even step outside. I definitely sympathize with him.

The angry tirade over the sound system? A reprimand. A suspension. I'd agree with that.

Deploying the escape chute? That was over-the-top. He had worked around airlines long enough to know that deploying the chute could have injured people had they been in it's path. That, I think, deserves a stronger reaction than a suspension. And though no one was injured, I'd even agree with firing.

But, glory, state officials are after him. The Feds want at him. He'd attract less official rabid furosity if he were a true bomb-attempting Islamic terrorist. They'd immediately lean over backward to give him every citizen right, deserved or not. Kid glove treatment. Velvet blanket wrap.

Hmmm. Are the authorities so frustrated with having their hands tied that they go over the top when there is no racial, religious, or other barrier?

Apparently Mr Slater has become an over-night American Idol. People are sympathizing with him, even donating to his cause, I understand. Why? Well, though he's not grotesque, he isn't a particularly handsome man.

No, I believe it is the old-fashioned American tendency to cheer for the underdog. We can sympathize with his plight. Many of us are probably using an old-fashioned phrase in our minds when we think of Mr Slater. You know the one: there, but for the grace of God, go I.

OofDah!

Ground-Zero Mosque, a bridge

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf says he is a "bridge builder." He says the purpose of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero is outreach to the people of the United States.

Confidence in his sincerity erodes, however, when we learn he refuses to declare Hamas a terrorist group, and after nine-one-one, he suggested that the United States was complicit in the attack!

Ground Zero is freedom ground, sacred ground sanctified with American blood and tears. It is an emotionally charged area. And they want to erect a monument to a belief system that is in direct conflict with our national love of individual freedom - a monument to oppression and disregard of girls and women, a monument to disregard for human life, a monument to belief in theocracy, a monument to the belief system that gave birth to the attack of nine-one-one.

This is a slap in the face of America. If Rauf isn't intentionally administering this slap, he is clueless, not very bright. A much smarter move would be to offer to build it fifteen blocks away in the interest of showing understanding and furthering friendly relations.

Whatever the case, if he builds a Ground Zero mosque, Imam "Bridge-builder" Rauf is building the ultimate bridge to nowhere. Relations will deteriorate.

Extra-legal?

Do we have a group of extra-legals in this country? By extra-legal I mean people who consider themselves above the law, people who do not think they need to follow the laws, who think they can do nothing for which the law should reprimand them.

For instance, can some people caught doing something that would be wrong for a normal citizen immediately cry, "Racism," to indicate they are not subject to the normal rules of behavior and certainly not to US law, to indicate if they are caught they are in fact victims?

And will that magic word, racism, succeed in drawing a shimmering cape around the poor maligned person? Will it magically qualify otherwise unqualified people for free education, jobs for which they are not qualified, and taxpayer-paid goods and services? Will it magically protect them and make them innocent even if they are undocumented, have lied, raped or stolen, or have engaged in congressional misbehavior? Yeah, sometimes it seems to.

Wow! It is much more magical than the magic word I was taught. Remember "please?" Remember how that magic word was drilled into you by your parents? And how it sometimes got you a candy bar?

Well, it seems that the "racist" word is being drilled into the extra-legals by preachers, legislators, and all sorts of authority figures. Why? It doesn't seem to be making the extra-legals happy. In fact, they are very unhappy. Along with that word, they are being taught that they are "special." They are unhappy because they expect too much for no effort on their part.

They are so unhappy that they disrespect the American flag, try to change America into the sad country they came from, or blow up in rage and shoot people because someone didn't react properly to his totally innocent acquisition of free beer.

So who is benefiting? The preachers? The legislators? Hmm . . . let's try the old rule - follow the money. Who are the millionaires in this picture?

Usually not the extra-legals, I think.

Big Bad Max

Is anyone surprised that Maxine Waters has thrown out that ragged, old race card?

Apparently, entitlements now include multimillion dollar shady deals and conflicts of interest.

OofDah!

Millions on monkeys?

Today another stimulus program was revealed. This one was truly stimulating - at least to the poor monkeys who were drugged up. Yep, drugged up some poor monkeys to study their behavior. Did it with thousands of stimulus dollars.

What the heck would be the benefit of studying high monkeys?

OH, wait, I get it! It will help us understand those out-of-control idiots in DC!

OofDah! This is probably the most worth-while project in the entire stimulus package. But will my grandchildren think we are spending their money wisely or throwing it away on monkey business?

Answering a Ranting Letter to the Editor

If you wish your writing and opinions to be taken seriously, perhaps you should lay off the slurs and try to find some facts to back up your rants. Since many tea party activists are older females, a class who has endured bias for eons, calling them bags wins you no friends among any group of women. As unacceptable as racial slurs, gender slurs reveal ignorance and woeful lack of respect for women.

You suggest tea-partiers are radical, “burning witches at the stake and imprisoning Mandela”, or ignorant, “parroting patriotism.” Witches? Isn't that what your "bag" label is implying? Conjures a picture of women in black throwing themselves onto a fire. Funny but not very effective.

The tea party stands for smaller government and greater individual freedom, the constitution, and less spending to reduce federal indebtedness to foreign countries. That is hardly radical and certainly not unpatriotic.

It seems you are saying that because they don’t always support politicians calling themselves Democrats, Tea Partiers have no respect for Democracy. What? Everyone knows that Democracy and Democrats are not one and the same.

Anyway, the tea party doesn’t necessarily support Republicans either; they’re looking for candidates of any party who will stand for smaller government, the constitution, and less spending. Admittedly most who are in support of those values are Republican, but not always.

You suggest that this country’s financial problems, endless wars, and even oil spills are the fault of tea party supporters, but what are the facts?

The financial mess is the result of poor governmental decisions made by both parties in Congress, under both majorities.

The endless wars also have come and gone while both parties held Congressional majorities. Do you even know which party was in charge in Congress when these endless wars were decided upon and funded? Or do you think the President declares and funds wars all by himself?

The oil spill in the gulf was the result of deep water drilling. Who refused to allow land drilling and shallow water drilling? Not the tea partiers.

Many tea party supporters are in favor of increasing US drilling and decreasing dependence on foreign oil. What does anti-drilling solve? Are you only worried about the environment here in the US? Is it okay to place the environmental risks elsewhere on the planet? How hypocritical would that be?

Perhaps we should take the risks out of the ocean and put them on dry land where spills may be less likely to get out of hand, but is the US too special to take its share of the risk? The gulf oil spill was a disastrous accident, but it could have been somewhat mitigated by prompt acceptance of the aid offered by other countries. Contaminated sea water could have been avoided by on-land drilling.

You further suggest that tea-partiers harbor irrational fears of other races. Controlling illegal immigration is about terrorists and armed drug dealers – they, too, may be God’s children as you say, but with guns and drugs they kill ranchers and children and should not be welcomed with open borders. Unchecked borders make about as much sense as discontinuing airport screening.

Drugs and violence notwithstanding, our southern border states are staggering under the millions of illegals who come here to utilize taxpayer-paid services. Controlling the influx, as do other countries and even the Vatican (who probably are aware these are also God’s children), is only a sensible thing to do.

The tea-partiers are main-stream Americans and their concerns do deserve attention, not out-of-hand condemnation. After all, are not the "bags" also God's children?

Turn on the lights in your attic. Give me not rants, give me facts.

In the interest of full disclosure: I vote the issues so have voted for candidates of both major parties. I have never attended a tea party rally.