Is there a distinct link between the popularity in the SUV's and the usage of Viagra...

I have no experience in either...

I have only two words with regards to this holiday season...Bah Humbug. The sooner this Xmas foolishness is over so much the better I feel.

During the course of this week, I took some time to do a little bit of blog hunting and reading, and came across some interesting articles that I thought I would share with the readers.

Apparently, in the Nov. 29, 2004 entry from Baghdad Burning, Riverbend explained that there were rumors of the U.S. using chemical weapons in Fallujah. While I have ready many things on the internet that are pure BS, for laughs and giggles, I decided to take a look around. As with most things these days, I take it for a grain of salt...my cynicism knows no bounds.

Interestingly enough, I did manage to find several postings, while they don not confirm the usage of chemical weapons in Fallujah...there is some interesting speculation, given what I have found.

According to a San Diego Union Tribune article the United States military admitted that in March and April of 2003, while heading to Baghdad, they utilized a bomb know as the Mark 77 Firebomb. Similar to that of the popular napalm during the Vietnam war, the "Mark 77 Firebomb"  use kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene than that of napalm.

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va. Firebombs are useful against dug-in troops and light vehicles, said GlobalSecurity's Pike.  Given the resistance that was in Fallujah, using the Mark 77 Firebombs only makes perfect sense.

In a November 28, 2004 the UK's Sunday Mirror, reported that US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah. Prime Minister Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.

Two weeks ago at a forward base in Kuwait, a handful of soldiers openly challenged Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield about inadequate about inadequate armor on some vehicles. Rumsfeld cut off their complaints by saying, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have."

This is indeed true. In the August 7, 2003 edition of the San Diego Union Tribune, a report by staff writer James W. Crawley, stated the Department of Defense  submitted to Congress in February a request for $3.6 million for the Mark 77 Firebomb, six weeks before the war against Iraq when Marine Corps jets dropped dozens of firebombs on Iraqi positions as Marine ground troops advanced on Baghdad.

I should make a special sideline note, that this report is not an attack on the men and women who are serving in our armed forces. Our men and women are obeying orders. I fully support their courage, their sacrifice, their families sacrifice and their commitment to the stabilization efforts.

What I do not support, and what I do question, is our administrations and our governments decision to enter into conflict with Iraq.

 

 

I have taken the liberty to conduct my own unscientific survey based upon a recent study by Cornell University. I encourage all of my visitors to fill out this survey.

This study released on December 17, 2004, 44 percent of American queried favor curtailing some liberties for Muslim American.

You may view it at : http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec04/Muslim.Poll.bpf.html

The Case of Political Correctness vs. Frosty the Snowperson

There have been numerous articles and news shows of late regarding our impending holiday season, specifically I refer to the attacks of Christmas; which include, the renaming of the White House "Christmas Tree" to the "Holiday Tree;" and , the need or certain organizations and groups to remove Nativity Scenes from the public eye. Most of these rationales (or attacks) have been justified out of fear of the intertwining of the Church and State, and of the necessity to politically correct some of our more time honored traditions. 

Isn't it bad enough were hit with the "Christmas Spirit"  in mid August from the retail industry promoting their latest wares all decked out with tinsel and the sounds of "Jingle Bell" blaring in the background ? Now Target is kicking the Salvation Army to the other side of the curb? 

Bah Humbug!

If, so many feel the need to correct more of our values and traditions; (I think Christmas is a tradition), I'd like to take this opportunity to add more fuel to the politically correct Yule time fire. To this end: How is Frosty the Snowman only portrayed as a white snowman?  Why is Frosty not portrayed with a different colored skin tone? Why aren’t there brown snowmen, or black snowman...? Furthermore, why hasn't Frosty be remade and renamed Frosty the Snowperson? Santa Claus too, does not seem to support the hiring of female elves in the workshop, nor do I see any female deer leading Santa's team. I am hopeful the NAACP and NOW will soon take up arms against these exclusions soon. I plan on personally email them in the New Year to voice my concerns.

Kind of silly huh...? So is what is going on in our country these days. 

While I realize that Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman are not by-products of the Church, these politically charged attacks of late, by such narrow minded individuals and organizations are just making me sick. Trust me, I am not a staunch Pro-Christmas  or Pro Religious kind of guy, but I think we need to start to put the brakes on somewhere.

The need for the separation of Church and State by our Founding Fathers was to insure that there was no officially state - run organized religion. That's it. Nothing rocket science. There is nothing up Ben Franklin's sleeve. (That's for those of you who may have skipped out the lectures from History 101).

When I studied constitutional law and theory, I was taught that there always has been an intertwining between the Church and State. There is no true separation. If there were, as an example, Churches would not be required to report to the IRS for their tax exempt status. As another example, the State (our prosecutors), could not arrest nor charge priests with criminal actions (a very hot topic in today's news). 

I do have one thought for the politically correct-literal interpreting separatists though. If there is a genuine and legitimate concern for a true separation of Church and State, I would suggest in the upcoming year the next quest should incorporate the exemption of Churches from reporting to the IRS their income and Non Profit status.

Oops that would mean there would be no more tax write off's for the donors... that’s okay though.  

That would mean the priests that are currently serving time in prison for statutory rape, should be immediately released as well. That’s okay too... just making certain during confessionals, there is a proper escort for your children.

There can be no true separation of Church and State without foregoing one aspect of our society over the other. So let’s quit trying. Why don’t we just let men (and women too) celebrate the spirit of Christmas in their own manners and in their own hearts… "

God help us everyone... (sorry, God Bless us everyone)

Good holiday spirits to all...and to all a good nite....!