Poindexter Expected to Quit – Hurray!

John Poindexter is expected to quit his position at the Pentagon over the ‘terrorism futures’ market flap. I never even heard about this issue, what with having a real job to do, but any reason to get rid of this Contra-gate alumn is a good one.

Perhaps J.P.’s Total Information Awareness program will fall by the wayside when and if he leaves the helm. Or perhaps someone less controversial but no less dictatorial will drive it to its full repressive potential…

Note to self: did I just agree with Barbara Boxer, arch-communist from California, about an issue? Strange days indeed.

RE: WP: Million-Dollar Recall

The Washington Post’s David Broder thinks that the California recall referendum is a black mark on our democracy.

Actually, the recall election simply proves that it is possible for the people to get what they want, as long as they are willing to out-scheme the system.

Thinking locally, it would be nice if Texans could have a recall vote on the AWOL Democrats whose partisan tactics are obstructing overdue redistricting in our state

When is it OK to say ‘No’?

According to the Illinois legislature, it’s OK for a woman to say ‘no’ at any time during the sex act. True, technically their new law reads ‘any person’, but that’s an irrelevancy, perverse homosexual acts aside.

And what man would dare challenge this female-empowering law? Only one who is willing to bear the full inferno of a feminist firestorm the intensity of which would make Hootie Johnson’s persecution seem like an Arctic sleet storm.

The reality of human existence is that once a man penetrates a woman’s vagina with his penis, very little is going to stop him from finishing his pleasures. Certainly allowing a woman to change her mind in coitus would be the gentlemanly, the chivalrous thing to do, but this should not be the legal standard.

This law is a ridiculous example of male-castrating femi-nazis having their way with, indeed raping, the legislative process to encode their agenda on society.

But what answer will there be from men? None, I suspect.

9/11 Victim Compensation

By Rush Limbaugh:

I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving the country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don’t criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I just can’t let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you’re going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.

If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there’s a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it’s not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.

You see where this is going, don’t you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It’s just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing. Make sense?

However, our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don’t know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month, and most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They also do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn’t have to pay into the system.

If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harm’s way receive a pension of $15,000 per month.

I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.

“When do we finally do something about this?” If this doesn’t seem fair to you, it is time to forward this to as many people as you can. If you’re interested there
is more…………………..

This must be a campaign issue in 2004. Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY: (This is worth the read. It’s short and to the point.) Many of you may have already seen this part, so it will be a depressing reminder..

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congressmen do not pay into Social Security. Many years ago they voted
in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000 – that’s Seven Million, Eight Hundred Thousand), with their wives
drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. These little perks they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan.

The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Fund–our tax dollars at work! >From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into– every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) –we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one month to equal Senator Bill Bradley’s benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. And that change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the
Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us and then watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve. WE, each one of us… can make a difference..

Judge: “Inmate can sue to force state to pay for sex change operation”

Here’s a prime example of why judges need to be directly accountable to the voters:

A convicted killer seeking a sex change is entitled, at taxpayer expense, to medical treatment that could lead to gender reassignment, a federal judge in Albany [New York] held yesterday.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn said the state cannot draw a distinction between prisoners who began treatment for a gender identity disorder before incarceration and those who discover their transsexual issues while in prison.

What manner of insanity or idiocy inspires fools like Judge Lawrence Kahn to seek to serve the public?

If you’re wondering – and how could you not be? – I couldn’t care less!

Just get Mr. Kahn out of the courtroom and into a treatment program before his delusions injure someone.

RE: Aggie journalists won’t go down `without a fight’

If the journalism department at Texas A&M is eliminated, as recommended by Liberal Arts Dean Charles Johnson, it would be a great loss to the university, its students, and the country at large.

A&M is a rare bastion of relative conservatism in the world of academia and as such no doubt contributes greatly to a balanced world view as reported by the media, a world view that it bears mentioning is in need of balancing.

As a former student of this great Texas university, I find it disgraceful that my alma mater would discontinue a valuable program in the name of “fiscal necessity”. I do not accept that the A&M system is so hard-pressed as to require this draconian measure. Should I be mistaken about the degree of the school’s financial distress, I would submit that there are undoubtedly better methods of budget trimming that eliminating educational programs.

I urge all Aggies of good conscience to make their views known to the administration of our school on this matter. Recent years have seen far too many changes in long-standing traditions at TAMU and in this case, as in others, the administration is in error if it thinks it is taking the optimal course of action.

RE: Teacher salary increases

In the July 20th issue of the Houston Chronicle, John Rodgers congratulates HISD for “rewarding veteran teachers for their years of service by giving them greater increases than those with less experience”.

It should be noted that experience is only one factor among many in determining the quality of a teacher’s instruction. Indeed, experience is sometimes a detriment to the educational process as burnout and stagnation due to stress take their toll on educators.

It is performance, Mr. Rodgers, that needs to be measured and rewarded, not length of tenure. This is true of employment arrangements in all walks of life. Education is no different.

Gay Marriage

A (former?) friend of mine, who happens to be gay and will remain unnamed, sent me this link. Here’s the tag line: Join me in adding your voice to a million voices raised in support of civil marriage for gay couples.

Nope, I don’t think so.

In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld, “not that there’s anything wrong with that”, but there is a fundamental difference between normal and gay couples.

I’ll leave that to you, the savvy reader, to figure out.

RE: McGovern on ‘Don’t be another McGovern’

George McGovern issued a challenge to politicians everywhere:“be honest”.

Words of wisdom, in truth, and about as likely to be taken to heart by today’s breed of candidate as a California Democrat is to let a tax dollar go unspent.

That’s too bad, because although McGovern represents virtually every bad idea American government has ever tried in the arena of social and economic reform, he is wise enough and distant enough from the system to recognize the root problem of modern representation: politicians are not true enough to themselves or their beliefs.

Conviction is too often sacrificed to expediency and values too frequently compromised in the name of (re-)election. But wouldn’t it be wonderful if George’s words got under the skin of a few of our elected officials?