Thanks a lot, Virginia.
November 30, 2006
Webb Offends Bush & the English Language
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- That was certainly swift. Washington has a way of quickly acculturating people, especially those who are most susceptible to derangement by the derivative dignity of office. But Jim Webb, Democratic senator-elect from Virginia, has become a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language before actually becoming a senator.
Wednesday's Washington Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush,'' refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?'' Webb replied, "I'd like to get them (sic) out of Iraq.'' When the president again asked, "How's your boy?'' Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy.'' Webb told the Post:
"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall. No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. (But) leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.''
Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being -- one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another. When -- if ever -- Webb grows weary of admiring his new grandeur as a "leader'' who carefully calibrates the "symbolic things'' he does to convey messages, he might consider this: In a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves.
Even before Webb's studied truculence in response to the president's hospitality, Webb was going out of his way to make waves. A week after the election, he published a column in The Wall Street Journal that began this way:
"The most important -- and unfortunately the least debated -- issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country.''
Well.
In his novels and his political commentary, Webb has been a writer of genuine distinction, using language with care and precision. But just days after winning an election, he was turning out slapdash prose that would be rejected by a reasonably demanding high school teacher.
Never mind Webb's careless and absurd assertion that the nation's incessantly discussed wealth gap is "the least debated'' issue in American politics.
And never mind his use of the word "literally,'' although even with private schools and a large share of the nation's wealth, the "top tier'' -- whatever cohort he intends to denote by that phrase; he is suddenly too inflamed by social injustice to tarry over the task of defining his terms -- does not "literally'' live in another country.
And never mind the cavalier historical judgments -- although is he sure that America is less egalitarian today than it was, say, 50 years ago, when only about 7 percent of American adults had college degrees? (Twenty-eight percent do today.) Or 80 years ago, when more than 80 percent of American adults did not have high school diplomas (85 percent have them today), and only about 46 percent owned their own homes, compared with 69 percent today?
But notice, in the second sentence of Webb's column, the word "infinitely.'' Earth to Webb: Words have meanings that not even senators can alter. And he has been elected to be a senator, not Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass.'' (When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.) America's national economic statistics are excellent; Webb could actually tell us howmuch richer the "top tier'' has become, relative to other cohorts, over a particular span. But that would require him to actually say who he is talking about, and that takes time and effort, and senators -- Webb is a natural -- often are too busy for accuracy.
Based on Webb's behavior before being sworn in, one shudders to think what he will be like after that. He already has become what Washington did not need another of, a subtraction from the city's civility and clear speaking.
georgewill@washpost.com
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Praying or Terrorism? Mull It
How the imams terrorized an airliner
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 28, 2006
Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.
Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix. "I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."
A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."
But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.
"It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said.
The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."
"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.
According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.
Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.
The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.
A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.
"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.
"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."
The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.
"If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."
One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention.
The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements.
The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior.
"There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past."
"Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways.
A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.
A few thoughts to share after mulling this over a bit. I'm still a little too fired up to pull it all together, but here goes:
1. Good for US Airways. Give thosse folks a medal.
2. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. She's in the majority now. I shudder.
3. Outlaw passenger profiling? It wasn't a bunch of Catholics with rosaries in their hands that murdered 3,000 people on September 11. If it had been, then profile me baby. Bring it on!
4. Who is this Mr. Bray fellow and why does he chose to live in a country that oppresses him so? If he doesn't like it here he can leave. It's a free country...for everyone. '
5. If you behave suspiciously, people will regard you with suspicion. Pretty basic stuff here.
Watch this Michelle Malkin Vent for more on the "pray in" at Reagan National.
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 28, 2006
Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.
Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix. "I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."
A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."
But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.
"It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said.
The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."
"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.
According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.
Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.
The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.
A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.
"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.
"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."
The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.
"If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."
One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention.
The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements.
The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior.
"There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past."
"Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways.
A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.
A few thoughts to share after mulling this over a bit. I'm still a little too fired up to pull it all together, but here goes:
1. Good for US Airways. Give thosse folks a medal.
2. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. She's in the majority now. I shudder.
3. Outlaw passenger profiling? It wasn't a bunch of Catholics with rosaries in their hands that murdered 3,000 people on September 11. If it had been, then profile me baby. Bring it on!
4. Who is this Mr. Bray fellow and why does he chose to live in a country that oppresses him so? If he doesn't like it here he can leave. It's a free country...for everyone. '
5. If you behave suspiciously, people will regard you with suspicion. Pretty basic stuff here.
Watch this Michelle Malkin Vent for more on the "pray in" at Reagan National.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Remember the Alamo!
My Iowa mole reports, and I've confirmed with sources at the Des Moines Register, that the University of Iowa Hawkeye football team has accepted an invitation to play in the December 30 Alamo Bowl. What does this mean? Drew Tate gets to play his final college football game in his home state. What else does this mean? This most painful of seasons is being dragged out even longer...and I'm being dragged along with it.
It also means a chance for redemption. And who doesn't love redemption?
Keep checking back for updates. In the meantime, well, just try not to think about it.
It's official: Iowa to play in Alamo Bowl
ANDREW LOGUEREGISTER STAFF WRITER
November 21, 2006
Iowa has accepted an invitation to play in the Alamo Bowl, Dec. 30 in San Antonio, Texas, officials announced this afternoon. The Hawkeyes (6-6) were given the nod over Minnesota, another 6-6 team that beat Iowa 34-24 on Saturday in Minneapolis.
Iowa lost five of its last six games. It’s the sixth consecutive bowl for the Hawkeyes, who last played in the Alamo Bowl on Dec. 29, 2001 — a 19-16 victory against Texas Tech.
Iowa has made three other Alamo Bowl appearances. The Hawkeyes lost to California 37-3 in the inaugural bowl game in 1993 and beat Texas Tech 27-0 in 1996.
It also means a chance for redemption. And who doesn't love redemption?
Keep checking back for updates. In the meantime, well, just try not to think about it.
It's official: Iowa to play in Alamo Bowl
ANDREW LOGUEREGISTER STAFF WRITER
November 21, 2006
Iowa has accepted an invitation to play in the Alamo Bowl, Dec. 30 in San Antonio, Texas, officials announced this afternoon. The Hawkeyes (6-6) were given the nod over Minnesota, another 6-6 team that beat Iowa 34-24 on Saturday in Minneapolis.
Iowa lost five of its last six games. It’s the sixth consecutive bowl for the Hawkeyes, who last played in the Alamo Bowl on Dec. 29, 2001 — a 19-16 victory against Texas Tech.
Iowa has made three other Alamo Bowl appearances. The Hawkeyes lost to California 37-3 in the inaugural bowl game in 1993 and beat Texas Tech 27-0 in 1996.
Monday, November 20, 2006
A Lot of Nothing
Why do the world leaders who attend the annual APEC Summit have to pose for a picture in the host country's native attire? Look at President Bush. He looks so awkward and weird. Putin looks worse. It's actually kind of funny...but still weird. Apparently next year it's "down under" in Australia. Any thoughts on the outfit choice?
The bishop is transferring one of our priests to a parish in Falls Church. I was at mass when it was announced. Everyone's pretty down (Heather - it's not Kleinmann) and trying to be charitable about it. But for now I'm going to be selfish and bitter. Maybe tomorrow I'll think about the needs of others. Everyone thinks the world of him and will miss him greatly. But isn't it great to know there are young priests out there who make a difference in the lives of their parishoners - both young and old alike? Awesome. (I'm not a religious nut)
I think it's okay to NOT want to go to work sometimes. I really like my job, but I really don't want to be there this week. I need a little time away. Christmas. I'm going home to Iowa for about 6 days over Christmas. Looking forward to seeing friends and spending time with family. I hope I return refreshed and not 5 pounds heavier.
Why is Jessica Simpson famous? She's an awful singer. Truly.
I still don't like that "Studio 60" show. I'm still trying to watch it because it follows "Heroes" on NBC Mondays. SAVE THE CHEERLEADER SAVE THE WORLD. I have some serious science fiction geek potential going on. Love it.
I saved at least 10 minutes on the commute home by taking the worm hole off Maine Avenue and 395 South. I LOVE IT!
I changed vets not for medical purposes but because my friends said the new one is good looking. And let me tell you something, Faithful Three, they're right! Woo hoo! Hello doctor!
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Ab Absurdo
Let Us Read
Building U.S.-Mexican fence shortsighted, Vatican cardinal says
By Cindy Wooden10/30/2006
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border is a shortsighted move that may hurt the U.S. economy and shows a serious lack of respect for the dignity of Mexican workers, said a Vatican official.
"This wall, together with the fact that this border is patrolled by thousands of armed men ready to shoot on sight those who try to cross it, certainly is not respectful of the dignity of the human person," said Mexican Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan.
The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, spoke about the fence in an Oct. 29 interview with Avvenire, the Italian Catholic daily newspaper.
President George W. Bush signed a bill Oct. 26 authorizing construction of the fence along a total of 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border.
Cardinal Lozano told Avvenire the bill's passage and signing were a sign of a "lack of intelligence" in U.S. efforts to find solutions to its border problems as well as a lack of political courage to take a moral stand just before the November elections.
He said the fence is unlikely to stop illegal entry into the United States, but is likely to lead people "to try to cross the border in increasingly risky ways or by putting themselves into the hands of unscrupulous traffickers."
In addition, the cardinal said, "from an economic point of view, it does not seem to me to be a very farsighted choice."
The millions of dollars that Mexicans working in the United States send home to their families is essential for their survival and for the Mexican economy, he said.
And if they can afford to send so much home, "how much greater is the profit earned by their bosses" in the United States? the cardinal asked.
"Does it make sense for the United States to kill this goose that lays golden eggs, which objectively is what the phenomenon of immigration is doing?" he asked.
Cardinal Lozano told Avvenire that Pope Benedict XVI had spoken on other occasions about the need to build bridges, not walls.
Walls and fences, he said, are not the solution, "not along the border between Mexico and the United States, not in the Holy Land, not anywhere. Let us hope that they meet the same end as the Berlin Wall did."
Let Us Discuss
Forgive me Father, for I’m about to sin. But you, dear servant of our Lord, provide a fatally flawed argument. Let’s break this article down:
1. “Building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border is a shortsighted move that may hurt the U.S. economy and shows a serious lack of respect for the dignity of Mexican workers, said a Vatican official.”
Thank you, Father, for your concern for our economy, but you have it all wrong. You fail to recognize the strain illegal immigrants place on our health care system, public schools, prisons and law enforcement - all of which are supported by taxpayer dollars. Illegal immigrants, dear Father, do not pay taxes. American taxpayers are shouldering the burden.
As to your criticism of the “lack of respect” shown to the “Mexican worker”, do you have nothing to say about the lack of respect the “Mexican worker” shows for the laws of the United States of America?
2. “The fence is unlikely to stop illegal entry into the United States, but is likely to lead people to try to cross the border in increasingly risky ways or by putting themselves into the hands of unscrupulous traffickers." And “the millions of dollars that Mexicans working in the United States send home to their families is essential for their survival and for the Mexican economy.”
Father, a fence does not lead people to cross the border in risky ways and it is not the responsibility of the United States to ensure the stability and viability of the Mexican economy. It is a corrupt and unscrupulous Mexican government whose policies keep more than 50% of its citizens living in poverty that drives these poor people to make such difficult choices.
Please refer below to Chapter Six from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
Employment problems challenge the responsibility of the State, whose duty it is to promote active employment policies, that is, policies that will encourage the creation of employment opportunities within the national territory, providing the production sector with incentives to this end. The duty of the State does not consist so much in directly guaranteeing the right to work of every citizen, making the whole of economic life very rigid and restricting individual free initiative, as much as in the duty to “sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis”.
3. Walls and fences, he said, are not the solution, "not along the border between Mexico and the United States, not in the Holy Land, not anywhere. Let us hope that they meet the same end as the Berlin Wall did."
Shame on you, Father! Do you dare to compare a fence along the southern U.S. border with the Berlin Wall? If so, let me point out a fundamental flaw in your comparison: The Berlin Wall was an oppressive and deadly tool used to keep people in. We merely want to keep people out. You, for instance, may come and go as you please...just do it according to the laws and regulations of the United States of America.
Dòminus vobìscum. Vade In Pace.
Building U.S.-Mexican fence shortsighted, Vatican cardinal says
By Cindy Wooden10/30/2006
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border is a shortsighted move that may hurt the U.S. economy and shows a serious lack of respect for the dignity of Mexican workers, said a Vatican official.
"This wall, together with the fact that this border is patrolled by thousands of armed men ready to shoot on sight those who try to cross it, certainly is not respectful of the dignity of the human person," said Mexican Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan.
The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, spoke about the fence in an Oct. 29 interview with Avvenire, the Italian Catholic daily newspaper.
President George W. Bush signed a bill Oct. 26 authorizing construction of the fence along a total of 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border.
Cardinal Lozano told Avvenire the bill's passage and signing were a sign of a "lack of intelligence" in U.S. efforts to find solutions to its border problems as well as a lack of political courage to take a moral stand just before the November elections.
He said the fence is unlikely to stop illegal entry into the United States, but is likely to lead people "to try to cross the border in increasingly risky ways or by putting themselves into the hands of unscrupulous traffickers."
In addition, the cardinal said, "from an economic point of view, it does not seem to me to be a very farsighted choice."
The millions of dollars that Mexicans working in the United States send home to their families is essential for their survival and for the Mexican economy, he said.
And if they can afford to send so much home, "how much greater is the profit earned by their bosses" in the United States? the cardinal asked.
"Does it make sense for the United States to kill this goose that lays golden eggs, which objectively is what the phenomenon of immigration is doing?" he asked.
Cardinal Lozano told Avvenire that Pope Benedict XVI had spoken on other occasions about the need to build bridges, not walls.
Walls and fences, he said, are not the solution, "not along the border between Mexico and the United States, not in the Holy Land, not anywhere. Let us hope that they meet the same end as the Berlin Wall did."
Let Us Discuss
Forgive me Father, for I’m about to sin. But you, dear servant of our Lord, provide a fatally flawed argument. Let’s break this article down:
1. “Building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border is a shortsighted move that may hurt the U.S. economy and shows a serious lack of respect for the dignity of Mexican workers, said a Vatican official.”
Thank you, Father, for your concern for our economy, but you have it all wrong. You fail to recognize the strain illegal immigrants place on our health care system, public schools, prisons and law enforcement - all of which are supported by taxpayer dollars. Illegal immigrants, dear Father, do not pay taxes. American taxpayers are shouldering the burden.
As to your criticism of the “lack of respect” shown to the “Mexican worker”, do you have nothing to say about the lack of respect the “Mexican worker” shows for the laws of the United States of America?
2. “The fence is unlikely to stop illegal entry into the United States, but is likely to lead people to try to cross the border in increasingly risky ways or by putting themselves into the hands of unscrupulous traffickers." And “the millions of dollars that Mexicans working in the United States send home to their families is essential for their survival and for the Mexican economy.”
Father, a fence does not lead people to cross the border in risky ways and it is not the responsibility of the United States to ensure the stability and viability of the Mexican economy. It is a corrupt and unscrupulous Mexican government whose policies keep more than 50% of its citizens living in poverty that drives these poor people to make such difficult choices.
Please refer below to Chapter Six from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
Employment problems challenge the responsibility of the State, whose duty it is to promote active employment policies, that is, policies that will encourage the creation of employment opportunities within the national territory, providing the production sector with incentives to this end. The duty of the State does not consist so much in directly guaranteeing the right to work of every citizen, making the whole of economic life very rigid and restricting individual free initiative, as much as in the duty to “sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis”.
3. Walls and fences, he said, are not the solution, "not along the border between Mexico and the United States, not in the Holy Land, not anywhere. Let us hope that they meet the same end as the Berlin Wall did."
Shame on you, Father! Do you dare to compare a fence along the southern U.S. border with the Berlin Wall? If so, let me point out a fundamental flaw in your comparison: The Berlin Wall was an oppressive and deadly tool used to keep people in. We merely want to keep people out. You, for instance, may come and go as you please...just do it according to the laws and regulations of the United States of America.
Dòminus vobìscum. Vade In Pace.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
35
Happy Birthday to Me.
Happy Birthday to Me.
Happy Birthday dear Hawkeyegirl.
Happy Birthday to Me.
Today I'm grateful for many things, especially my nieces, Mary and Kate, and my nephews Mark and Matthew.
I'm blessed with an urban tribe that looks out for me. Thanks guys.
Every day a blessing...even when the Republicans get spanked and humiliated. There's more in this world. Family.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Mull The Mullet
As promised (and because I don't want to talk about the midterm elections - although the shellacking was well-deserved ... except for Jim Leach, Mike DeWine, Anne Northup, Jim Ryun and Jim Talent.. oh and Michael Steele), it's time to Mull the Mullet.
For those uneducated in the unisex hairstyle culture of rural America, I will refer to the Wikipedia definition of mullet:
"A mullet is a haircut that is short in the front, on the top, and on the sides, but long in the back. Mullets have been worn by males and females of all ages, but they have traditionally been most popular with younger men. A slogan or motto often associated with people who wear mullets is: "Business up front, party in the back!"
For your visual reference, see inserted photo of David Spade playing the title character in the movie Joe Dirt. Note the classic mullet assessories: pedophile 'stache, porkchop burns and an emerging goatee. Great Mullet Movie Quotes:
"God Almighty, mana from inbred heaven. Hey freak
boy: 1976 called, it wants its hairstyle back." - Zander Kelly in
Joe Dirt
"What's the deal with your hair? You doing stunt
work for Billy Ray Cyrus?" - Zander Kelly in Joe Dirt.
I grew up in Iowa with a lot of mullets - camaromullets, femmullets, wrastlermullets and farmullets to name just a few. I even had a partial mullet in my family. My brother Patrick made the entire family proud his senior year in high school (1987) when he created his very own hair style. In the front he butt parted his straight hair and feathered the sides. The back, which was longer - hocky hair length - was then permed. Yes, I said permed. Did I mention he has red hair? Awesomely cool, Pat. Damn I wish I had a picture to post.
Now to be fair, I had a permed mullette in 7th grade. But I was in the 7th grade. Nobody is cute or makes good fashion choices in the 7th grade. I was growing my hair out into a bob. You know, straight hair cut in one length usually between the chin and shoulders. I was on my way to making a good style choice, but was momentarily diverted along the way. Damn I'm glad there's no photo evidence.
Mullets provide a wealth of fodder for ridicule, study, discussion and observation. A mullet is afterall more than a hairstyle, it's a lifestyle.
Favorite mullet links for endless jocularity.
http://www.mulletjunky.com
http://www.mulletsgalore.com
http://www.mulletmadness.com
Happy mullet watching.
Monday, November 06, 2006
The Land
To prepare for tomorrow's election, in my mind I'm heading for The Land. A few of my brothers and a couple of their friends purchased 73 acres of land in Dallas County a few years back. They use it for hunting and riding motorcycles and ATVs. I really need a quiet place, so like James Taylor, in my mind I'm goin' to The Land. I'll see you when it's over.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Chet
I'm mulling Chet Culver as the next governor of Iowa. The image that comes to mind is of Wyatt's jerkwad older brother Chet (Bill Paxton) in the eighties flick "Weird Science." Lisa turns him into a Jabba-the-hut look alike who eats flies.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Tight Pants and the Uneducated
To the Faithful Three - apologies for the lag in posting. Hawkeyegirl has been busy mourning the demise of this year's Hawkeye football season (um...Indiana??), bridesmaiding, working and being lazy.
What I've observed lately is that my pants are getting tighter as my Midwestern body begins to crave carbohydrates and retain girth around the waistline in anticipation of a harsh winter. But there's no harsh winter! If there's even a forecast of snow out here, the schools close, the federal government invokes the "liberal leave" policy and 30 minutes are automatically added to the commute. So not only do I get fat for no reason (is there ever a reason?), I get bitter and self-righteous, too. I am a Midwesterner and I know how to drive in every kind of weather Mother Nature throws out. Who are these white knucklers on the road with me? "Scum, scum, scum, go back to where you're from!" Be the first to name that movie quote and win a mullicious mention on bentpinky.com.
Now, let's mull John Kerry. I know, I know! I thought we were done with that yahoo. But thanks to the good people of Taxachusetts, he'll be on the scene for many years to come. I know you know what I'm going mull - his "joke gone wrong" statement about our uneducated military. What to say...what to say...Oh I know! "Scum, scum, scum, go back to where you're from!" Stick to what you know, Jahnny Boy: windsurfing, waxing non-poetic on the Senate floor and walking in the large shadow of Teddy.
As my brothers would say, it's time to get back to 'the rock.' Growing up in a gypsum mill town, that refers to work. I'm thinking my next mull may be about mullets. Good times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
