Returning

I know this sounds a little cheezy but it's true. I want to thank everybody for their cards and letters and emails. And to everybody that listened and have expressed support. It's because of those things we have been able to see how hungry for talk radio you are. I can honestly tell you, you made a difference. It's coming back. The date is planned for Monday May 9th. We'll have a richly local morning show that we think you will also find fun to listen to. I will get down to the issues after the morning show with the return of Roswell Says. Only hopefully even better. It most certainly will be with your participation. I promise you the secret to that show is far more about you than me. All of you. ..Anyway after Roswell Says we will have a mixture of informative programs. We are going to try to fulfill your need for a variety of information. I know their are some key details I have left out here but we are finalizing things now and I should be able to tell you more later. I just wanted people that read this to be the first to know. In all sincerity, Thank you all very much for your outpouring of support. It's quite humbling and satisfying at the same time. I am so happy to know that there are so many people who care about the issues and care about a better country and community..whatever political persuasion. I plan an forum open to all viewpoints cuz that's my idea of the American way. For those of you that wish it..May God Bless You. America has for the most part flourished for 230 years. It's people like us who care enough to want the best and participate that are going to keep it that way for the next 230.

Maggie Gyllenhaal

Click on the post title if you haven't heard the details on this yet.

It's so predictable that the narrow minded cretins would knee jerk the anti-american, hate America first phrase. This points to a basic difference between conservative thought and liberal thought. Liberals look at the big picture. Conservatives have no peripheral vision. Let's relate this to the most basic of levels. If one encounters a serious problem in life does one just say "I'm always right..it's all their fault" Or does one say "Gee I have a problem, why did this happen? What might I have done to cause this?" It's all about an out of control ego or a person that will take stand up responsibility. Funny how the "we're not at fault at all" comes usually from the ones harping about "personal responsibility". It is quite sickening to most to deal with someone who thinks they never make a mistake or do anything wrong. Like the people who think their children are just the perfect little angels. Or the guy at the office who always passes the buck on the screw ups...always feeling sorry for himself. Nobody wants to be around him/her. Were the terrorists justified in doing what they did. Hell No! But introspection, in my book, is a virtue. So is accepting some responsibility. It's what real men do. You can't expect the small brains to understand this concept though. Blow your "Hate America first" idiocy all you want. You don't have a corner on patriotism or loving your country. You are just showing your egotistical dimwitted ass.

Lets talk

This debate started with the- Justice Sunday and Lets Paint the Picture- posts below. I'm always anxious for guest bloggers and and happy to highlight the argument presented by Fish:

Okay then, you are saying that the religious right or "fundies" and republicans are one and the same, therefore it's the republicans that are waging the religious war. Would it then be appropriate to say the communists and democrats are one and the same because some of the people registered as democrats hold totalitarian socialist beliefs?The judicial nominations (which is what this discussion is about) really come down to one objection. How do they stand on the abortion question. To the "fundies" abortion is an abomination according to their faith. To the secularists it's an acceptable choice. To most of us Americans it's currently the law of the land and is accepted as such. My personal opinion is no one should even have a vote one way or the other unless they are capable of getting pregnant, but that's neither here nor there.Since the democrats however are using this as a litmus test they, in a sense, make it an attack on the judges personal religious beliefs. They are not objecting to the judges because they find fault with decisions handed down by these nominees, nor because of scandals or any other reason. They're not even pointing to instances where the think the judge's decision reflect their religious beliefs more than the law, but simply how they stand on Roe vs Wade. Therefore it is indeed an attack on faith. Now as to your statement "our religious freedoms are being stolen" I must agree. For instance, making it illegal for a teacher or student in our schools to say a prayer before a group is unconstitutional. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor restricting the free exercise thereof. Forbidding prayer in school is definitely restricting the free exercise of that person's religion. Of course "Congress" made no law one way or the other on this, but anti-Christian judges decided where it says make no law...restricting the free exercise thereof, it somehow means make a law that restricts free exercise.We have had a very strong belief system evident in the decisions of our courts for many years now. I would call it secularism when it comes to decisions regarding religion or churches, but their bottom line has been ever increasing government control. For instance we have more than twenty three thousand anti-gun laws in this country, all passed for one reason - to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It is very obvious to any casual observer the stated intent of the law is not working, but then it didn't really need to. It isn't really gun control the government wants, it's control, period. Between the federal, various state governments and the supreme and district courts the freedoms that are our inalienable right are being nibbled away bit by bit.

Comments? Here's a chance to have a dialogue and understand why we, right or left, feel like we do.

Word Games and Revisionist History

First we had the privatization/personal accounts bamboozle. Republicans and Democrats alike calling it a privatization plan. A focus group said otherwise though and now that is an evil liberal media phrase and the Republicans prefer the apparently much better testing "personal accounts". You know, the ownership society. Yep, in the revisionist history world. If you watch the news at all you can remember everyone including the pResident calling it privatization. Now the new Orwellian speak is in connection with the judges. The right wing bloggers are at it again berating the "liberal media" for using the term "nuclear option". Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., coined the term "nuclear" option to describe this proposal; it is also called the "constitutional" option (the historic and more politic term recently adopted by the Republicans). See, to them everything is the liberals fault, even when it's not! Who can believe somebody who changes the rules to suit their purposes on a regular basis? Truth be damned. Better question, why do people allow this?

Speaking of changing the the rules and revisionist history, how about this from 1999.

Embittered and angry over Clinton's reelection, Senate Republicans increased pressure on Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, to hold up hearings on Clinton's judicial nominees. They also pressed Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to break with tradition by allowing individual senators to place "secret holds" on nominees they opposed, thereby denying them hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ever since, the GOP-controlled Senate has been stonewalling judicial confirmations, long before the campaign for the presidential election in 2000 kicks into high gear.

Or this from 1968 to put the lie to the statement that filibustering a vote on a judicial appointment is unprecedented. It's revisionist history. They lie and get away with it on a regular basis. 6 years ago that was an impeachable offense. Personal matter be damned. It's so easy to forget though. Please take your Geritol.

Let's Paint The Picture

I received this response from one of my previous posts.

I would be interested in some examples of how our religious freedoms are being stolen, and in just what fashion the republicans have begun a "religious war". This sounds so much like all the other things I see from both sides of the political aisle. Lots of emotionalized accusations without a single "for instance" included.

First I apologize for thinking this was obvious to any one paying attention. Let's take a rational, systematic look at this. First let's start with one of the definitions of war from the Websters dictionary: state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.
Is there any denial that there is outright hostility by the religious right towards anyone that doesn't share their view? Not disagreement but belief that others are absolutely wrong and as such are banished to hell. It's a fundamental principal of fundies. Their belief is that America is a "Christian" nation. This is quite debatable and many instances can be shown to not be the case, nor intended to be. The fundies however insist this with no doubt. This, in a land once know as a land of religious freedom. Those opposed to this view, such as I, refuse to go lay down and let them turn America into something it is not intended to be. Not intended to be for good reason. This is a struggle or competition between opposing forces for a particular end.
Anyone against the presidents judicial nominees are now being called "against people of faith". This is a weapon in a rhetorical religious war. I would suggest that all people voting on both sides are "people of faith" themselves. As it should be, many different "faiths"(Faith:belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion. Once again, is there any doubt that they are trying to portray these people as unspiritual, unamerican and antigod? When they include religious banter this blatantly in politics is that not a bold attempt to mix church and state? When the government involves it's self in a personal, family situation like the Schiavo case with much religious banter are they not trying to mix church and state and involve the government in our personal rights? Isn't them telling Mr. Schiavo by government action that their religious standard should prevail a diminshment of our rights as citizens? Our religious freedoms are being stolen. I guess, although the reasons for this seem obvious also, I should explain. Lets say they convince(or overpower) everyone that they are the religion that should be followed in the United States. Now they decide that, for example, gambling is a sin that should not be allowed. One personal freedom goes down the drain. Now let's say the religion decides you shouldn't be able to have an abortion, or carry a deadly weapon or dance or drive large vehicles...the list is endless and that is exactly what they are trying to accomplish. They believe they have the only religion that has currency. One accepted religion means everyone elses religious freedom is stolen. They want theirs to be the law of the land. American Taliban. That is why they are demonizing judges. It is the only thing standing in their way from bending the entire society to their will. They hate the idea of a pluralist society. For clarity, Pluralist: a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality b : a theory that reality is composed of a plurality of entities4 a : a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state. This goal should be clear from their rhetoric. No pluralist society. I thought that was the foundation of our democracy? How this would affect our freedom, religious and otherwise, and liberty is self evident. I apologize for thinking what is obvious to me is obvious to all. Would you have further questions, debate? Anything that needs more clarification? Thanks for your comment. Hope you will keep them coming.

Justice Sunday

In view of the "celebration" of "Justice Sunday" I thought it might be appropriate to review what is happening here. I think we ought to carefully look at the idea that our religious freedom is being stolen right before our very eyes. The radical republicans have begun a religious war. This in a land that in the past has cherished freedom of religion. It's time to get some common sense back into the national dialogue. Personally, I believe in God. To think that all of creation is just random stretches my own common sense. I however believe my faith is personal, between me and God. I don't insist on others agreeing and accept that freewill is absolutely necessary to something of such large proportions. Certainly we have to have morality in society. I think the golden rule pretty much covers it. I promise you, if you let these people go unchecked your freedom and liberty will be greatly diminished. Many will suddenly found "unacceptable" and who knows what happens at that point. Does God find some unacceptable? That depends on your religion! I think God is pure love and as such would love and want the best for all his children. So the question is now, what should we do as a society? Standard procedure should be to punish those that harm others. If you rape someone or knowingly give them a disease...Ok, I can see terms for punishment. To treat them as less than equal because they are gay or black or Christian or Jew or Moslem is unacceptable to a free society. Even people without a religion can be "people of faith" let alone all the various faiths that currently exist. The ones that think that they have a corner on "faith" seem to me to lack humility(1 : not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive2 : reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission). In most religions that lack would violate it's principals. Don't be deceived by the phonies.

Mr. Popularity

Sorry I've missed you for a while. I had a tragedy in the family. My OS on my computer was killed, I think by chkdsk. It finally took reformatting and reinstalling everything(not done yet). Someday soon I plan to learn how to do and run backups! This is the first time system restore couldn't save my butt. More than 10 years of computing and this was the first full outright death. Anyway we are now lean and trim and cruising along again. While I reestablish my bookmarks and do some reading here is something for you to ponder. Seems the tide may be turning so don't let up now. I can't wait to get the grownups back in charge and back to something that at least resembles reality.