Thursday, November 17, 2005
Morning...
That was how my morning before heading off to work went. Watching them, changing them and then handing them off to Grandma and Mommy as I had to walk out the door. And, why did I walk out the door? Why couldn't there be a day when you get to stay home and spoil your grandsons rotten? Shouldn't that be a national no work holiday?
I know the world is not a nice place and I know that we, as human beings, do not treat our fellow humans with the dignity and compassion that we should. I know all of that. But, for an hour this morning, I forgot all about it, as I tended to the needs of those two precious gifts from God, Danny and Alex.
I wish everyone could have a morning like mine.
God Bless.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Advertising...
Also, if you take a look to the right, you'll see a link for Frappr Beta! It is a map that shows off the location if visitors (if you add yourself to it). Please take the time to add yourself.
Have a great day!
God Bless
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Da Boys...
I've posted new pictures from our last visit. I can't get over how big they have gotten! Plus, they are just so cool. I didn't take as many pictures this visit as I have previous visits because, well, I was just too busy playing with them. They do a lot more than just sleep and eat! And, this month is special because we get to see them three times instead of the normal one visit.
Oh, BTW, I'm having issues with some pages, so the video page runs really slow. I'm working to fix it, but I have homework that needs to come first.
God Bless.
Comments
I don't believe anything until I can see it for myself. If you just tell me that the rant was off-topic and disgraceful, how do I really know that? I don't. Heck, you could really write the comment yourself and just say it's from a liberal / conservative that is stalking you.
So, anyway, I wrote a comment on a blog I'm not mentioning whose. But, I'm pretty sure that I wrote a comment larger than what ended up there. But, I'm not positive. So, this time, I kept a copy for myself. (See below.) If it is edited for comment, I'll know and I'll let you know just who censored it.
Origninal, with "moderator's" comments are in bold:
Just a quick question...Why delete a liberal's post, unless you are editing for foul language, what's the point?
RV: The point has been made clear a thousand times, Julie. And I delete the childishness of cussing people out, degrading veterans and commenting off topic.
If they are truly ranting for ranting's sake, aren't they just proving your point?
RV: My posts say time and time again that they're proving my point. Do you read?
New Comment:
"Okay, but how do I, someone who did not read the post you deleted, know that they are proving your point? I didn't read the comment myself.
I can understand censoring out words that cannot be used in mixed company, but why not just x-out those words and let the rest of the rant stand?
And, yes, I can read. I'm pretty good at it, despite my public school education.
Oh, I should mention that I have actually deleted comments left on one of my blogs, but they weren't comments, they were ads."
I should note that before I decided to post this comment, I went back to see if my above comment had been added -- it hadn't. So, I thought maybe something was wrong and I've re-sent it.
God Bless.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Veteran's Day
I happen to be proud of my ex-Army, served honorably in WWII, grandfather, Charles.
I'm proud of my retired Navy, served honorably in Vietnam, father, Keith.
And, I'm especially proud of my Marine, served in Iraq, son, Brian.
I stand when the National Athem is sung -- even when I'm home and it's before a NASCAR race or a televised football game. (And, I've been known to be so moved, that I cry.) I proudly salute the flag of our great nation, even when I'm mad at my government. I thank Vets that I meet on the street. I donate to Veteran's organizations. I know that I owe them a great debt that can never be repaid.
So, while you're out today, take the time to thank a Vet. They're the reason you can say what you say. They're the reason you can go to church on Sunday without fear of reprocussions. They're the reason that you can read my blog -- whether you agree with it or not.
May God keep our serving men and women close to his heart. And, may He keep those who have served even closer.
God Bless.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Hot Properties
So, is it just me, or is that a sleazy thing to do?
I mean, I'm not a prude and I have nothing against prostitutes in general, but why is this okay for a TV show? Just meet a guy and jump into bed with him? No wonder all those groups are calling for better television and censorship!
But, that brings me to another topic, why is it that good, clean shows, such as "Joan of Arcadia" get cancelled for low ratings? Why do we all complain that Hollywood doesn't understand us and doesn't give us what we want and then when we get a good family show, we don't watch it?
What do you think? Let me know!
God Bless.
Hello, Virginia!!!
Since I'm a good old Wisconsin Babe, I figured that the majority of my visitors would be from the great state of Wisconsin -- nope. They're from Virginia. Each month since I started this site back in April Virginia hits the top for hits, views and visits.
Over 6,000 of my hits came from Virginia. In fact, in the top ten of my visiting states, four of them are red staters. Well, shut my mouth and pass me the pie. Welcome, Red Staters!
God Bless.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Concealed Carry Revisited
First, I should mention that I am NOT against Concealed Carry. I believe that some citizens have legitimate needs to carry a concealed weapon. That is to say, I don’t believe that every Tom, Dick and Harry should be allowed to pack heat. I believe their needs to be very stringent restrictions. The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Well, we have a well regulated militia and, further, it doesn’t state that we can’t regulate just who those people are. Plus, I don’t believe bear arms translates into concealed carry. In the great state of Wisconsin, you are allowed to strap a gun to your hip and walk in public. Some municipalities will arrest you for disorderly conduct, just so you are forewarned.
Second, I do not like the bill as it is written. I have quite a few beefs, but I’ll only list my top four here:
- There is a $25.00 fine for failure to give a peace officer your permit when requested and the same fine amount for failing to carry said permit.
- I believe if you don’t hand over your permit to a police officer, you should have your permit revoked. Period. No appeal, no getting it back. If you are responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon in the public streets of this state, then you should be responsible enough to identify yourself to a police officer when asked. Period. End of story.
- No permit while carrying needs to be a much higher fine than just $25.00. You won’t even notice the fine at that small amount. The fine should be at least $100.00. We’re talking about someone who is carrying a loaded weapon, for Pete’s sake! We have a much higher fine for someone who sells cigarettes to minors!
- The permit cost of $75.00 is not high enough to cover the added cost of the new duties the Department of Justice will have to perform to ensure the proper compliancy with the new law. Plus, has anyone done a study to determine how much money will be spent at the DOJ to cover the coverage of permit carriers? Permit carriers should have to pay at least $150.00 in order to be allowed to carry a loaded handgun in public. The renewal could be less money.
- Police Officers need to be given access to who has a Concealed Carry Permit. This is not an invasion of privacy. Officers can research and discover any license you might have, why should a Concealed Carry Permit holder be given any special treatment?
- Concealed Carry Permit holders from other states are allowed to have the permit, with no background check, in our great state. Are they kidding? I’ve all ready pointed out how two states don’t even have permits – Alaska and Vermont. I barely trust our DOJ to run a proper background check, I’m going to trust a background check run in another state? No, we must perform checks on those who want the permit in our state. The only exceptions would be out of state police officers and military personnel.
I’m not saying that I believe that Concealed Carry is responsible for the higher crime rates, I’m merely pointing out that being a Concealed Carry State does not mean less crime. It means that Concealed Carry is not preventing crime, despite what the pundits will try to lead you to believe.
I urge all my Wisconsin readers to take the time to actually read either the Senate’s version or the Assembly’s version of the Concealed Carry bill. Then, use your own thought process to decide if you are for it or against it. I urge you, once you’ve made your decision, to write your representative or your state senator or both and let them know exactly how you feel.
God Bless.
Imaginary Friends
This one updates on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays. It's about a young widower raising his two little boys. I don't know anything about the person who draws and writes the comic, but this guy sure does know kids!
Make sure that you start at the very beginning and read forward.
Good stuff there.
God Bless.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Hey Harry!
Who Hijacked Our Country
So, I check out the profile and see that the owner of said blog claims to be being stalked by a person at this blog:
http://republicanvet.blogspot.com/.
He went on to say that you shouldn't post anything on the blog because your commments will be twisted.
Well, telling me not to post on someone's blog is like telling me not to think of pink elephants! I'm definitely going to check it out and post something, if I feel driven. Might as well tell me not to breath. I have to put in my own two cents.
So, the very first post on this Republican Vet is ranting totally against liberals and making claims that all liberals rant and name call, etc, etc. I decide this man is totally filled with more hate than even I can tolerate, so I skip that blog and start scrolling down to see what else he had written. (BTW, he does have a nicely done webpage.)
Anyway, I scroll down and he's ranting against his own twin brother and his mom, which I just don't understand, because I got the impression that he was a Christian and Christians do not publically rant against their brothers or mothers. I happen to have two brothers both very right wing, one I think isn't too bright because he can't ever answer why he feels the way he does -- I think he's just repeating what my parents and other brother says. My other brother does his research and, while I disagree with his conclusions, I can at least carry on a reasonable conversation with him -- well, most of the time.
My point is that I wouldn't publically proclaim that either of my brothers is a jackass or any other kind of ass. I left the below comment. Don't know if you're interested, but here it is.
"I'm curious on just how you can have Christian beliefs ("It doesn't make us moral, conservative or reaffirm our Christian beliefs.") when referring to gay marriage, but not have any when referring to your own family? (Saying "She's an idiot." in reference to your mother and "Someone told this fat ass that he matters to me, lol." in reference to your brother.) As far as the Bible states on the subject, one of the ten commandments is to honor thy mother and father. And, I realize you have some issues with your brother, but didn't Jesus say "Turn the other cheek?""
Have a nice day and...
God Bless
Monday, November 07, 2005
Google Adsense...
I've have Google Adsense on my webpage for a few months. It's not like I'm making big bucks. I think right now I've earned a grand total of $2.74. I'm not even upset about that, as you have to have so much traffic click one of their links to make even start making money. What I'm upset about is the fact that for three days or more, I haven't had a real ad. Just the public service ones, which kind of upsets me. I run more than one blog and the other blogs didn't lose their ads, so why would my main blog?
It's a mystery to me.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
WISCONSON -- AB 763 and SB 403
Are you as sick and tired of this law wasting our law makers' precious time as I am? Governor Doyle has all ready vetoed it and he'll veto it again.
The blog written by Owen on Boots & Sabers implies that only leftist people want this bill to not pass. This is not true. According to a recent survey conducted in Racine, 57% of Racine citizens do not support a concealed carry law.
One of the reasons that I even bring it up is because of this post from the Boots & Sabers blog. (Please click the link to read their blog. It will open in a new window.) Owen read the press release from The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence regarding this law and determined that 1) The Coalition does not know about which it is talking and 2) it is a leftist organization.
I didn't realize that only people on the left side of the aisle cared to prevent Domestic Violence and that people on the right side of the aisle didn't.
Anyway, I am continuing this blog on the assumption that you have read both the .pdf from The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence AND the Boots & Sabers reply.
Here's how I'm going to do this. What Owen wrote will be in Red and what The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence released will be in Blue (from where did I get that color scheme). Anyway, my responses will be in purple, because, well, that's my favorite color and it's my blog.
The Wisconsin Coalition wrote that:
as a largely unfunded mandate, it will raise taxes on Wisconsin residents
Owen wrote:
it is supported by fees and will not impact the tax burden.
I thought that Owen and I might agree on this, but I re-read the bill and it seems like the Department of Justice will have to do a lot of work to ensure that EVERYONE who has a Concealed Carry Permit or applies for one follows all of the guidelines. Just how will they
"revoke a license to carry a concealed weapon if the licensee no longer meets all of the requirements for licensure?"
The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:
unknown permit holders from other states will be allowed to carry concealed weapons here without any background check
Owen responded with:
Permit holders from other states would have had a background check in their own state.
Yeah, but that's not good enough for me. Some states have very laxed requirements for background checks. I don't agree that we should allow someone from Indiana enter our great state with a concealed weapon without a background check being performed here. I'd like to point out that of the 45 states that allow Concealed Carry Permits, 2 of them (Vermont and Alaska) do not require a permit. Vermont only processes a background check at the state level. Alaska processes a background check at the Federal level. Both states do not have either a requirement for a permit, nor do they require a waiting period.
The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:
the law enforcement officers will be placed at higher risk as the names of permit holders will remain private and confidential.
Owen responded with:
This presumes that permit holders would pose a greater threat to police officers than non-permit holders. Evidence from other states shows that concealed carry permit holders are statistically much less likely to commit any crime – much less a violent crime.
Owen, how do you know they won't? We're assuming that somehow people who wish to carry concealed weapons are more lawabiding than those who do not. Also, last I heard (and I'll look for the article), Wisconsin Law Enforcement was AGAINST the concealed carry. Maybe, they don't feel safe.
The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:
Law enforcement will not know who is lawfully carrying a weapon and who is not.
Owen responded with:
Permit holders are required to present their permit whenever they come in contact with a law enforcement officer. Although the officer would not know if a person was legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon without first identifying the person, neither would the officer know if anyone else is carrying a weapon legally or not. Possessing a permit does not pose any threat to either the public or the police.
Owen, please take the time to read the bill again. There isn't a provision for permit carriers to identify themselves to law enforcement officers. It is only "upon the request of a law enforcement officer". So, if the officer doesn't ask, they won't know. I would assume that most officers will not automatically remember to ask someone stopped for a speeding violation. Plus, it is almost a joke if the permit carry fails to display their license. It's a forfeiture of $25.00.
The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:
The notion that more guns will lead to increased safety is not only ludicrous, but also flies in the face of any credible research evaluating access to firearms, increased injury and safety.
Owen replied:
No it doesn’t. This group is referring to studies done in the controlled environment of a clinical setting. But the real world tells us that firearm ownership rates and crime rates are only marginally related. For instance, almost everyone in Alaska and Switzerland owns a weapon, but the crime rates are well below that of New Jersey or Britain. Culture has a far greater effect on these things than firearm ownership rates.
So, I did some checking. I wanted to know if there are less murders in states that allow Concealed Carry over those that do not. Since it is easy to identify the five states that do not allow Concealed Carry, I merely went through the population statistics and matched them up with states with a pretty close population. Example, I matched Illinois (population 12,419,293) with Pennsylvania (population 12,281,054). I realize that this isn't a perfect system, but it works.
The results that I received are as follows:
In the five states that do not allow Concealed Carry, there were a total of 24.1 murders per 100,000 people. In states that do allow Concealed Carry, there were a total of 27.4 murders per 100,000 people.
So, what does this tell us? Owen is partially correct. Whether or not your state allows Concealed Carry, you still have about the same chance of being murdered.
My conclusion would be that Concealed Carry does not necessarily make a state safer. If I had more time to research this, I could compare stats for other crimes, such as rape and and aggravated assault.
Now, before you comment that I must have jiggled with the figures, feel free to look them up yourselves. (Link opens in a new window.) Also, I'm uploading the spreadsheet I used to gather my totals. One more item on this, I looked up what states allowed Concealed Carry and compared their population. I didn't go out of my way to lean the results to one side. If I had wanted to do that, I would've chosen Missouri over Arkansas. They had 9 murders per 100,000 -- which is even higher than both Texas and California and both of those states have more than triple the population of Missouri!
Now, I wish I had more time to answer all of the points Owen brought up in his blog, but I don't. Please take the time to read both documents yourself and then contact your representative and tell them how you want them to vote.
HEADS UP WISCONSIN RESIDENTS...
Wisconsin: AB 218 To Prevent Lay People from Castrating Dogs and Cats Passes the House
Bill Number
AB 218
Primary Sponsor
Rep J.A. Hines
ASPCA Position
Support
Action Needed
Please click here to send a letter to your state senator asking him/herto support AB 218.
AB 218, sponsored by Rep. J.A. Hines, would prohibit lay people from castrating dogs and cats. Currently the state of Wisconsin does not require a person have a veterinary license to castrate a dog or cat. Dogs and cats are companion animals and lay people should not be performing major surgery on them. Please click here to send a letter to your state senator asking him/her to support AB 218.
Nick Anderson Comic
Anyway, Nick Anderson drew an editorial comic showing a storm cloud in the shape of a question mark with the words 'Questions about run-up to war' chasing President Bush, who is riding a bicycle away from the cloud and looking"scared".
I think Mr. Anderson missed the mark.
President Bush isn't scared of questions regarding the Iraq War. He isn't afraid to face them. He may not answer them -- He may choose to ignore them, but he isn't scared of them.
President Bush does not feel that he was wrong about invading Iraq. He believes that 2,000 dead Americans is worth the democracy we have begun over there. If allowed to run free, President Bush would probably invade Iran and begin a democracy there, too.
Dubya, as he is disrespectfully called, truly and honestly believes that God told him to start the war in Iraq. He even said as much in response to Pat Robertson (who believes God told him that the war should not be started). President Bush honestly and to the core believes that he is on the side of justice and righteousness.
So, while I enjoy your editorial comics, Mr. Anderson, in this case, you missed the mark by a long shot.
God Bless.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Supreme Court
If what I have been reading is true and Judge Alito is an extreme right-wing judge, then I think my off the cuff prediction came true. I said in my blog on Harriet Miers on 10/27: "Does this mean Bush will now go with someone who is extremely right wing?" and it looks like the answer is yes, he will.
Does this mean that Roe v. Wade will be overturned?
If I am to believe the emails I'm receiving from pro-choice groups -- yes it will.
But, shouldn't we care about more than abortion and gay rights? Aren't there other pressing issues the Supreme Court will make decisions on?
I read some opinion pages that some people are upset that Bush did not pick a moderate to replace O'Connor. But, who would really expect George W. Bush to pick a moderate? Are you kidding? He's not a moderate Republican. I wouldn't expect him to pick a nominee who is. George W. is a hardline right-wing Republican. I wouldn't expect anything less for his nominee. Plus, Miers was probably as close to moderate as we were going to get. I think it was a mistake on the part of the left-wing to protest her so hard. It was not a mistake on the part of the right-wing because now they have someone even more right-wing.
I agree with the editorial in the Des Moines Register from yesterday:
It is unfortunate that the modern Supreme Court confirmation process has become a battleground over just a few hot-button issues that drive special-interest groups on both ends of the political spectrum...
There is more to constitutional law than modern court politics would suggest. Indeed, it is impossible to say today what issues a Supreme Court Justice Alito will confront amid rapid scientific change in a global economy. As the Senate approaches the job of giving its advice and consent to the president's nominee, Alito should be judged on the sort of justice he would be for all Americans on the complete spectrum of constitutional principles, not those few pressed by the noisy extremists.
God Bless.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Primerica II
The Hideous Chicken
Just what the world needs, another conservative, can't check the facts writing a blog!
If you want to view why I can't align myself with conservatives, read this blog.