Archive for the 'common sense' Category

Has George Bush Kept Us Safe?

Today, I heard someone say, “George Bush has kept us safe.” He argued that that was Bush’s legacy. I couldn’t imagine that he was serious.

On January 20, 2001, George Bush was sworn in as our 43rd president. On September 11, 2001, terrorists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, flew two airplanes into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon while a fourth airplane crashed in Pennsylvania on the way to its target. Approximately 3,000 of our countrymen were killed in what has been called the worst terror attack on our nation. Is that what we call safe? In actuality, Mr. Bush did just the opposite: he made us an easy target for terrorists when he ignored the presidential daily briefing that said “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.”

Since then, Mr. Bush has invaded a country that was of no threat to us and had, by his own admission, nothing to do with September 11, sending more than 4,000 more Americans to their deaths. Is that what we call keeping us safe?

Al Qaeda is reconstituting, we have made more enemies in the world because of our  invasion of a sovereign nation, and our borders and ports have STILL not been made made safe. In fact, under Bush’s watch, our port security was sold to Dubai! Is that what we call safe? (Eventually, Dubai did sell off its assets in the U. S.)

We have not yet again suffered a terror attack in the U.S. and that’s what some use for the Bush has kept us safe argument. Sure, if you don’t count the three thousand killed by a terror attack under his watch and the over four thousand killed in an invasion that he spearheaded for no reason, then I guess he’s kept us safe. But even then, has he really kept us safe?

It was about 8 years between the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the second, in 2001. Under Mr. Bush’s watch, we have not pursued Osama bin Laden, have not secured our ports or nuclear facilities, and have given bin Laden ample time to plan his next move. Is that what we call safe?

Advertisements

War on Christmas? Bah! Humbug!

It’s that time of year again, when a segment of the population (for example, Bill O’Reilly) starts whining that the rest of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, have declared a war on Christmas. This started a few years ago when some retailers decided not to wish every customer (who might or might not celebrate Christmas) a merry Christmas regardless of whether every customer cared to be wished a merry Christmas. War on Christmas? I like Christmas as much as the next person, but to these people, who obviously don’t get out much and don’t know what REALLY goes on in this country, I say, war on Christmas? Bah! Humbug!

If you must label something a war, then I would say that there’s a segment of the Christian population who is declaring war on the non-Chirstmas population—-Christians who aren’t consumed by Christmas, Jews, Muslims, etc. Although these Christians like to defend their right to preferential treatment in this country by parroting the empty sentence, This is a Christian country, I say, Guess again.

This is a country with a lot of Christians. This is NOT a Christian country. There is a difference. Although in the last 8 years, extreme right-wing conservative Christians have tried, with some assistance, to convince us that this is a Christian country and have tried to make this a Christian country, the fact remains: we are a nation of all religions, all colors, all beliefs, and many of the people who settled this country did so in order, we are taught in school, to flee religious persecution or oppression. While some of the founding fathers were Christians, they provided that religion should not be forced upon us by our government by establishing the separation of church and state.

But back to the War on Anyone Who Doesn’t Celebrate Christmas….. Starting in early November, our homes are invaded by television commercials that have images such as Christmas-wrapped Hershey’s chocolates dancing across the screen, and our senses are further attacked in almost every retail store by twinkling Christmas trees and Christmas decorations of Santas, candy canes, crosses, and nativity scenes. We can’t pick up a bag of M & M’s that isn’t wrapped in Christmas packaging, and starting in December, we are held hostage by incessant Christmas music while we’re waiting in line to pick up our pizza or pay for our trouser socks. And then we even have to hear the Weather Channel talk about christmas weather! It’s just Christmas bomb after Christmas bomb after Christmas bomb, exploding in our ears and in front of our eyes.

We are forced to watch while our country is taken over by ONE DAY that, for some reason, has been turned into an entire SEASON. Why SHOULD I have to be accosted by “merry christmas” every time I go into a store? And what about the people who are alone for the holidays and don’t want to be reminded of how lonely they are by hearing someone chirp “merry christmas” with every “paper or plastic”?

I could go on, but I won’t. The whole war on christmas thing is a joke. You want to see war? Go to Iraq or Afghanistan or Africa, or go to the inner-city streets and watch people suffering there. But don’t tell me that there’s a damn war on Christmas.

The Washington Redskins and Political Correctness

I was watching football this weekend, specifically, the New York Giants destroy the Washington Redskins, and it got me thinking about something I haven’t heard about in a while. Several years ago, there were some whispers about the “political incorrectness” (why can’t people just say insensitivity or insult?) of calling Washington’s football team the Redskins, and some in and out of the league wondered whether it was too offensive. It wasn’t long before we all recovered, though, from our temporary brush with sensitivity and awareness, and it hasn’t been mentioned anywhere on mainstream television since.

 

Some people said that too many of us were too consumed by this “political correctness,” complaining, for example, that people were being too sensitive and saying, for example, that it seems as if you can’t say anything these days without someone yelling about bigotry or prejudice. Political correctness, huh? How about just plain old awareness and respect of others?

 

I wonder whether any one of us would be offended if we had a team called the Cleveland Brownskins, the Arizona Pale Faces, the San Francisco Yellowskins, or the Pittsburgh Rednecks. Doing the right thing isn’t about “political correctness”; it’s about doing the right thing and being aware that there are other people around you who feel just as strongly about their heritage as you do about yours.

 

It’s part of living in a world where you are not the only inhabitant.

 

Sarah Palin: Fiscal Conservative?

While John Edwards was happily attacked in the mainstream conservative media for getting a 400-dollar haircut when he was running for President, Sarah Palin’s 150,000-dollar shopping spree while on the campaign trail was brushed over by the same media.

It was, indeed, reported that Palin spent tens of thousands of dollars on a make-up artist, a hairstylist, and clothing while campaigning with John McCain, but from what I saw, there was never the “you ought to be ashamed for spending such a gluttonous amount of money on yourself while you PRETEND to care about people who can’t even afford a flobee and a pair of shoes from Goodwill” scolding that was mockingly heaped on Edwards. Now, Newsweek reports that Palin’s shopping spree was even worse than originally leaked. She had other members of the campaign put some of her purchases on their credit cards. Do you think that perhaps she was trying to hide some of the expenses so that she wouldn’t be found out for what she really is? Just asking. Here’s the story in the Alaska Dispatch, which has a link to the full story in Newsweek.

I guess Palin is one of the growing members of the fiscal conservatives who are conservative with how they spend only their OWN money, not anyone else’s. I wonder if this 150,000-plus-dollar spending spree says as much as Palin and who she really is as Edward’s 400-dollar haircut said about him. Hmmmmm.

Senator Ted Stevens, Covicted Felons, and Voting

Senator Ted Stevens, senior republican from Alaska, has been found guilty on all corruption charges and could go to prison for five years. Meanwhile, from what I’ve read, he’s still running for re-election. Oh, and he doesn’t have to give up his current Senate seat. (I know that the election is next week, but it’s the principle here that I’m after; even if this had happened a year ago, he would not have had to leave the Senate.)

Soooooooooooo, let me get this straight: If you’re a convicted felon in this country, you can’t vote…………..But you can still serve as a United States senator. Hmmmmmmmm.

If Mr. Average American commits a felonious crime against society, he forfeits his right to vote in an election. A United States senator, on the other hand, who commits the same felonious crime against society can remain a United States senator. Does that mean that he can vote, too? Will Stevens be able to vote? Will he be able to vote for president? Will he at least be able to vote for himself? And if he does, and if he wins, then will he serve as senator while he’s serving as Prisoner #490580149240385089348098403218340?

The Congress does have the power to expel Senator Stevens, but it has to vote on it, and a two-thirds majority is needed. I wonder if we could all get together and vote on whether non-congressional convicted felons should be given the right to vote; to be fair, passage could require a two-thirds majority.

Representative Murtha is Right

We at TheLogicalReport.com believe in honesty, and it is with great sadness that we must say, that we feel that Representative Murtha of Pennsylvania is correct when he says that voters in western Pennsylvania are racist.

We’re not reporting this with glee or as a way to further separate Democrats from Republicans or as a way to explain votes that Obama doesn’t get; we’re saying it based on personal experience. We have ties to western Pennsylvania,  specifically west-central Pennsylvania (the area that Murtha represents), and we’ve spent time there. There is plenty of racism there. It’s not typically blatant, mean-spirited, put on the white sheets racism, but it’s an insidious lack of trust and dislike of those who are not in the majority.

Racism has been a serious problem in this country since its inception, and thankfully, it’s not as much of a problem in a large part of the country now. Lack of diversity in areas such as west-central Pennsylvania, though, which have largely remained homogonous (composed mainly of white Christians) means that the progress toward a more accepting society is slower there. I never condone racism, and I’m not making excuses for it; however, it’s logical to expect that this would be the case.

Many people in west-central Pennsylvania have had absolutely no life experiences (work, school, play, dating, bingo) with African Americans or Hispanic Americans or Jewish Americans or anyone who isn’t a white Christian—or, for that matter, openly homosexual men and women. I know that this might be hard to believe, but it’s true.

This lack of diversity means that racism handed down from generation to generation takes longer to dilute than when people are able to learn through their own experiences that the stereotypes aren’t true. Knowing people is understanding them—and loving them—and that doesn’t happen much in Murtha’s district. This segment of the population (and it’s not everyone) is much more likely to vote for a white Christian than an part-African American Christian, especially when there are lies being spread that he might be a Muslim.

By the way, thinking that someone might be dangerous because he’s a Muslim is also racism.

When is a Touchdown a Touchdown?

You know when a receiver catches the football by the sideline but both of his feet aren’t completely in bounds so the referee calls it an incomplete pass? Even if half an inch of the front of his left cleat is on the inside border of the white line, it’s called an incomplete pass. That’s because both feet need to be in bounds in order for the play to be considered legal.

Then why is it that the receiver, or the running back or anyone else for that matter, can have possession of the ball but never even have his feet anywhere near the goal line but if he stretches out his arm so that even just the tip of the ball is touching the inside (that is, toward the field, not toward the goal) border of the goal line, it’s a touchdown? Or how about when he’s flying out of bounds and waves the ball over one of the cones as he does so? Shouldn’t his feet have to be within the goal line, too? Why is the “two feet in to be legal” rule only applied to incomplete and completed passes and not to touchdowns?

We give football players steroids in order for them to get bigger, stronger, and faster, but we don’t want them to exert themselves by actually having to run into the end zone?

It just doesn’t seem logical.