Last night I caught part of what I assume was a re-run of #41’s 80th birthday celebration on t.v.  There was a big party at Minute Maid Park here in Houston with entertainment, salutes, and fireworks at the end.  It looked to be a great party for a great man.  Randy Travis sang that awesome song, “Three Wooden Crosses” and went on to say what a great president #41 had been, and that his son was doing a mighty fine job, too.  I couldn’t help but laugh loudly (despite the fact others in my family were sleeping by this time) when he said some friends of his suggested that he sing a song for John Kerry, too.  So he said he’d sing a few words . . . “born to lose . . . .  “  I just loved it.  The whole crowd went wild and he said, “I thought that would go over well here.”

Now the week of mourning has ended . . .

I know Ann Coulter can be a little abrasive, a little sarcastic . . . but good grief, the woman always makes her point and it’s usually very good.  Her latest article ( http://www.anncoulter.com/ ) had a few comments that startled me, such as The world’s living testament to the limits of genetics, Ron, Jr. . . ., (considering that his father just died, it does seem a little harsh).  However, she was right to point out how the people who bashed President Reagan relentlessly during his time in office are now trying to rewrite history.  Eleanor “I’ve just eaten a lemon, peel and all” Clift said that President Reagan reached out to his political opponents and tried to seek converts, while the current President Bush would like to consign his opponents to oblivion.

Coulter gives numerous examples of President Reagan’s uncompromising believes regarding abortion, gay rights, government programs to feed the hungry, etc.  While I respect President Bush, I worry that he thought he could “chummy up” to Dems like Daschle and Kennedy the way he did Bob Bullock while he was governor of Texas, and subsequently accomplish good for the nation.  Unfortunately, there’s a whole different breed of bottom feeder in D.C.  The majority of politicians are only interested in keeping their jobs in order to enjoy the perks and the pension when it’s all over.  Doesn’t matter if they run the country into the ground while they’re doing it.

I wish that President Bush would walk into the Oval Office one morning, pick up the phone and say “Daschle, we’re gonna’ being doing things a little differently from here on out, because there’s a whole lot of people out there depending on us to do this job right.  And right doesn’t mean what’s most comfortable for us.  It means putting the nation as a whole first.  Not special interests, not our interests.  The NATION’S, because it’s the greatest nation on this earth, and U.N. be damned . . . that’s nothing to be ashamed of.  GOD BLESS AMERICA!”  Click . . . .

A Great Column from Mike Adams:

My apology to the Arab world
Mike S. Adams (back to web version) | Send

June 14, 2004

Author’s Note: the following editorial contains mildly offensive language. Given the subject matter, the author is sorry that it does not contain highly offensive language.

©2004 Mike S. Adams

Appeasing the Law, Danbury Style; Expanding My Literary Horizons (aka Filling in the Gaps of My College Education)

I spent three hours this morning at the local Firestone having my oil changed, truck inspected, and then purchasing a new tire since the vehicle inspector refused to pass my truck.  I guess he was worried about the steel showing through my right rear tire.  Anyway, the oil was overdue (Scott at the Firestone knows without me telling him:  Gimme’ the superduper engine cleaner oil change . . . or as I say when I walk through the door:  “I’ll have the usual . . . “)  The inspection sticker was also overdue.  Yes, it expired January 31, 2004.  But I’ve been busy!  Poor AJ.  He drove the truck to Alvin the other day and took the scenic route through Danbury.  Stopped at the stoplight and a police car passing through the intersection nailed him.

Not only did he get nailed for the out-of-date inspection sticker, but he didn’t have a current insurance card on him, so he got nailed for that, too.  He was so sweet.  He could have read me the riot act and within his rights, too, but he didn’t.  So I got a new insurance card into his hands, got the inspection done, and Danbury tells us that we’ll only have to pay $10 per citation.  I’d say we were getting off cheap, except the tire was $100.

After that ordeal, Jami and I went to the library.  She picked up her favorites:  Nancy Drew and The Boxcar Children.  I decided that there were some holes in my education, and so I checked out Jane Austen’s “Persuasion,” and the collected works of Charlotte and Emily Bronte.  Also some novel of Louisa May Alcott’s that was discovered after her death.  I must be feeling guilty for reading “fluff” the last few months.  Seriously, I read good books, but they are not truly great literature.  So I’m going to exercise the old gray matter there.

Catch you later!

Reuven — Since you’re growing habaneros, I thought you might find the following interesting:

PEPPER HEAT GUIDE

While I still have many things on my “to-do” list, I feel like I have to acknowledge the great loss of President Reagan.  I could wax eloquently about what an incredible man he was and what a true legacy he left for our country — a legacy of hope and courage and belief in the greatness of our country.  There are so many others who have and will do a better job than I could.

Let me just say that, while I never had the privilege of meeting him, through the example he set and the life he lived, I have the utmost respect and love for him.  These last years have been so difficult for him and for his family, and I am glad his suffering is over — but I can’t help but be sad that he is gone.  I think one of the most tragic things about his having this particular illness is that in his last years he had no recollection of the mighty accomplishments of his tenure in public service.  That aside, he was blessed with the love of a good woman who epitomizes the definition of loyalty and devotion.

God bless you, Ronald Reagan, and we’ll see you in the most shining city of them all one day!

Brief nod to the blog today.  I’ve got so much work to catch up on.  We’ve been away on and off all week helping take care of my mom-in-law.  She had to have surgery last Tuesday, but I’m happy to report that she is back home and getting around quite well.  It’s no small surgery when it involves clamping the carotid artery to do a bypass procedure!  Yesterday she got up, got dressed and was getting around the house really well.  We have to keep warning her not to over-do.  But she’s being a good patient overall.

I have to order a part for my husband’s riding mower — it conked out when he’d only done half the yard.  He was not happy.    He’s a little obsessive-compulsive about certain things in his life, like the yard and the garden.  Which is good, because our yard always looks so nice, and we always have nice veggies in season.

Then I have to take care of some window blind/shutter business.  And THEN I have to go to the grocery store because the cabinets are EMPTY!  We’ve been so busy going between the hospital and my mom-in-law’s home that I’ve not had a chance to restock our provisions! 

I’d better run for now.

From “The Federalist”:

          President Bush has launched a series of weekly addresses rallying support for our ongoing War with Jihadistan — and not a minute too soon. Since its inception, The Federalist has noted that the “War on Terror” was a misnomer — as it implies clearly defined fronts and a conflict that would end with a decisive “win.” Furthermore, as we have noted, this conflict is more akin to the Cold War — a protracted campaign. Indeed, a much better name for this conflict would be the “Global Campaign Against Terror.”

          To that end, President Bush told the graduating class of the Air Force Academy that, indeed, this conflict could take decades to “win.” “We are now about three years into the war against terrorism,” he said. “This is no time for impatience and self-defeating pessimism. These times demand the kind of courage and confidence that Americans have shown before.”

          The Federalist has also argued consistently that we must keep the warfront on Jihadi turf in places like Iraq and Afghanistan — lest they bring it back to ours. The President confirmed that strategic policy, noting, “Some say that by fighting the terrorists abroad since September the 11th, we only stir up a hornets’ nest. But the terrorists who struck that day were stirred up already. If America were not fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, what would these thousands of killers do — suddenly begin leading productive lives of service and charity? … We are dealing here with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives. And America has made a decision about these terrorists: Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take this fight to the enemy.”

This is an interesting read from “The Federalist”:

          On the subject of “clashing political visions,” a group of 220 veterans who served with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry in a swiftboat unit have demanded that he quit using unauthorized photos of them in his campaign. Veteran William Shumadine, who is in one photo, said, “His use of a photograph with his 19 comrades with knowledge that 11 of them condemn him and six who [are deceased] or do not want to be involved is a complete misrepresentation to the public and a total fraud.”

          This comes on the heels of comments from his superiors about his less-than-dignified behavior during the war. Admiral Roy Hoffman said, “[Kerry] arrived in country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard to specific tactical assignments. He was a loose cannon.” Thomas Wright, a swiftboat officer who served with Kerry, recalled, “I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders… Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone, and you were supposed to kill anyone.” Kerry was curiously known in radio communication by the self-chosen moniker “Boston Strangler.”

          In regards to Kerry’s much-ballyhooed three Purple Hearts, Wright said, “No one wanted a Purple Heart because it meant we had made a mistake. We made sure our crews were recognized, but no one took pride in a Purple Heart.” Then he added, “When he got his third Purple Heart, three of us told him to leave. We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11.”

          Finally, John O’Neill, the man who took over Kerry’s swift boat upon his early departure, said in a Wall Street Journal editorial, “Today, America is engaged in a new war, against the militant Islamic terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I’m sure of one thing — John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge.”

And one other occurence you probably won’t hear about on the evening news:

          Speaking of Francophiles, we relate the story of a noteworthy encounter between self-avowed Francophile John “French” Kerry and Ted Sampley, a decorated former Green Beret who served two full tours in Vietnam — as distinguished from Kerry’s four months in country. Mr. Sampley spotted Kerry, protected by his Secret Service detail, at a Memorial Day photo shoot at the Vietnam Memorial. Sampley approached Kerry, extended his hand and said, “Senator…I am here to escort you away from the Wall because you do not belong here.” Of course, a Secret Service agent warned Sampley to back away and he obliged, but as he did, he said, “[John] Kerry does not belong at the Wall because he betrayed the brave soldiers who fought in Vietnam.” To which a decidedly less-than presidential Kerry — in front of a group of schoolchildren and other visitors — responded to Sampley with a less-than-flattering hand gesture. For some reason, the netwonk talkingheads missed that story.

I started to respond to a comment on my previous post in the comments section, but then I decided to go ahead and include it in my regular post.  So, Reuven, here goes:

I note from your blog that you are an artist, and so your focus when reading my post was on the art and the gallery owner. 

The point of my post was the ridiculous phrase “hate crime.”  The guy punched a woman in the nose.  It was wrong.  He should be prosecuted for assault.

However, people (like the artist and the art gallery owner) who choose to do things that provoke strong emotion shouldn’t be surprised when less than enjoyable consequences result.

You ask if I’ve ever been to a modern art gallery — kind of a snide way of insinuating that I must be uneducated in artistic matters.  Actually, I’ve been to numerous museums from the National Gallery of Art, the Renwick, and the Corcoran in Washington, D.C., to the Museum of Fine Arts, the Contemporary Arts Museum, the Menil Collection, and the Rothko Chapel in Houston, Texas.  I’ve seen art that moved me to tears, filled my heart with joy, and even made me want to punch someone in the face. 

I’ve also been to museums of another kind — museums that document history and the lives that have gone on before us.  Documentation of the influence others’ lives have had on the lives we live today.  The lives we live today will influence those that come behind us.  That’s why life and the art it imitates are so important — each and every action we choose has resounding repercussions across the ages.  Part of the reason I find some of today’s art not only controversial, but also to some degree irresponsible, is because it does nothing to encourage people to strive to be better people.  It degrades, demoralizes, and encourages actions of a baser nature. 

I’ve seen art that looked like it was truly inspired by God and art that looked like a two year old spilled a bucket of paint on a canvas — all hanging on the same walls in the same museum. 

I don’t have a problem with controversial art — but I also don’t think people should be surprised when it provokes a multitude of emotions and responses, some less than desirable.

I also think that some “art” is art only for the sake of the funding received — basically someone with a political agenda uses the label “art” to get their NEA grant funded and then creates something that is meant to provoke and agitate to bring their particular issue to the table.  I don’t have a problem with their issue coming to the table.  But if I don’t agree with their issue, I do have a problem with funding it with my hard-earned and paid tax dollars.

I noticed from your blog that you’re pretty young — 17, I think.  Maybe when you’ve lived a few more years and seen a few more things you’ll understand what I’m saying.  And then again, maybe not.  Until then, enjoy making your zombie movies and hanging out with your friends.