So I watched the evening news (an unusual event, since the evening news is so NOT balanced), and saw where an art gallery owner in San Francisco (I believe?) displayed “art” of U.S. soldiers “abusing” Iraquis.  Apparently some guy punched her in the face because he found it offensive and now they are debating on whether to prosecute it as a “hate” crime.

First let me emphasize, the guy should not have punched her in the face.  I think it is obscene that she would display “art” based on the actions of a few when so many serve with honor, but she still didn’t deserve to be punched in the face (or anywhere else, for that matter).

What I would like to address is this ridiculous notion regarding “hate” crimes.  Have you ever heard of a “love” crime?  Isn’t the phrase “hate” crime just slightly, everso slightly redundant?  Why do we feel the need to categorize crime, when crime, whatever its nature, is wrong?

I suppose thieves commit “greed crime.”  Maybe thieves who steal from people they don’t love commit a “hatefully greedy crime.”  People who lie commit “dishonesty crime.”  And so on and so forth.

I just wish we could get back to the basics where those who live moral lives are rewarded with peaceful lives and those who break the plain ole’ law reap the consequences. 

Forgive me for posting an entire column here, but I agree whole-heartedly with what Diana West had to say regarding the 9/11 commission and feel it’s important to share:

Don’t blame the heroes — Diana West 
May 24, 2004

Towers would fall, he underscored the terrible truth, often forgotten, that we now live in the Age of the Unthinkable. Seared into our consciousness is that the Twin Towers could and did fall — as could the Empire State Building, the U.S. Capitol and the Superdome. Our children know, as we never before imagined, that passenger planes may become guided missiles, and skyscrapers may turn into scorched rubble. Islamic jihad has indeed expanded our consciousness.

But if we look back on the blinkered bliss that ended with the catastrophic triumph of a despicable Islamic conspiracy, we also see the shining wellspring of courage and sacrifice the day revealed. It is painful to behold, but it has steadied and strengthened a reeling nation. What could be worse, two and a half years later, than to watch it sullied by a poisonous government commission?

There is a strange pathology in the 9/11 Commission that goes beyond the Bush-bashing grandstanding of the old days (remember Richard Clarke?), back when the president of the USAG (United States of Abu Ghraib) was taking it on the chin for not having enacted serious measures, pre-9/11, to stop Islamic terrorists — such as putting women’s underwear on the heads of racially profiled Muslim men at airport check-ins, I suppose. In the commission’s findings, there now emerges a weird sense that what happened on 9/11 — when out of the most heavenly azure sky, Al Qaeda simultaneously launched four air attacks on American cities — was something the Big Apple should have planned and drilled for to the point of preventing all casualties. Indeed, according to commission thinking, it is almost as if New York’s response to the Al Qaeda attacks created all of the mayhem in the first place.

Built into this twisted point of view is the equally bizarre notion that, given enough taxpayer-funded analysis, the federal commission will discover just what caused 3,000 Americans to lose their lives on 9/11 — and, in so doing, presumably make New York City safe for terrorism. Forget about a surprise attack launched in broad daylight by soldiers of an extremist Muslim army hidden from detection by our own politically correct blinders. Were New York’s Finest at fault? Were New York’s Bravest sloughing off? Could Mayor Giuliani have done more?

The most egregious example of commission scapegoating concerns the stalwart service on 9/11 of Deputy Assistant Chief Joseph W. Pfeifer. Chief Pfeifer arrived at the north tower six minutes after seeing the first jet strike, helping to bring order to the fearful chaos in the lobby and direct rescue units to the upper floors. He also sent his only brother, Fire Lt. Kevin Pfeifer, up the stairs. “We spent a couple of seconds looking at each other,” Chief Pfeifer told The New York Times. “He didn’t say anything. It was just a look.” Lt. Pfeifer was among the 343 members of the NYFD who died in the inferno.

Now, two and half years later, Chief Pfeifer is being raked over 9/11’s coals for a command decision he made to switch radio channels from a stronger signal the chief says wasn’t working that morning, to a weaker, functioning alternate, thereby losing the ability to communicate with all units, and thereby failing to learn immediately when the south tower collapsed. The commission finding is that an unnamed chief — Chief Pfeifer — was mistaken: The better, stronger radio channel was indeed working. The chief robustly disagrees. He also points out that even with the weaker radio signal, he was able to direct the evacuation of the north tower for a hellish hour-plus until it, too, collapsed, saving the lives of countless civilians and firemen.

Why should this man be called on to sweat over and defend his undeniably valiant service on 9/11? Is Chief Pfeifer — a dutiful, courageous fireman who, following his best instincts, helped saved thousands of Americans on 9/11 — to blame for even one death? Two deaths? One hundred deaths? The implications of the commission’s findings — that America’s heroes share blame for the carnage — are outrageous.

When commissioner Bob Kerrey asked WTC director Alan Reiss whether he was “angry” (is this “Oprah”?) the FBI didn’t reveal more about Al Qaeda before 9/11, Reiss, according to the New York Post, “shot back” he was angry at “19 people in an airplane,” not the FBI.

Nineteen men in an airplane is right. Of course, if the “chatter” before 9/11 had been listened to, these men would have been racially profiled right off their flights. That’s the only logical conclusion of any serious inquiry into how 9/11 might have been prevented — one the 9/11 Commission will never get to.

©2004 Newspaper Enterprise Assn.

Did I tell you I joined a Bunco group?  Now, I’ve only played Bunco one other time and it was many years ago, but I vaguely remembered enjoying myself.  So when Lisa invited me to join the new group her friend, Andrea, was starting, I said yes.

Our first game night was Thursday night.  Andrea has the group set up where we visit and eat the first hour and then play Bunco the second hour.  There are twelve gals total, three tables of four each.  Each gal hosts Bunco Night once a year, so it’s really easy on the whole group as far as hostessing responsibilities go.

After a yummy meal, Andrea went over the game rules (apparently there are many variations of the game — in this particular one, we only roll for sixes and we use a point clock to keep score).  We started playing, and oh, my!  Did it get loud in that house!  We were hollering and laughing — I rolled the first Bunco (three sixes) of the evening, but one of my table mates grabbed the dice before I could and so I lost the Bunco.  The next time I rolled a Bunco, I practically dove across the table to grab the dice before they could be stolen from me!  We all had a good laugh when someone said, “Bunco is NOT a contact sport!” 

When the hour was up, Andrea tallied up who had the most Bunco’s, the most wins, the second most of each, the least, etc., and then passed out prizes.  It was a lot of fun!  The prizes all had a patriotic theme because of Memorial Day in May, and Lisa doesn’t decorate for Memorial Day or 4th of July, so she gave me her little decorative figure.  It took some of the sting out of not winning (10 out of 12 people get a prize, and I was one of the two who didn’t!)  On top of that, we drew names to see who would host for each month and I got June!  Can you believe it?  No prize, and I get to host the next one!  Seriously, I think it’s funny and the real prize was just getting out and having some fun with some new friends.

I’m trying to think up a cute theme between now and the third Thursday in June.  Beach Party?  Luau?  Pink Flamingos?  Hmmmmm . . . .

If anyone reads this and has any ideas, please feel free to share . . .

Today’s been an average Saturday, as Saturdays go.  Jami went to spend the night with her grandma (AJ’s mom), so we stayed up late watching “Braveheart” for the umpteenth time.  Neither one of us gets tired of seeing tha tmovie.  I don’t cry quite so hard anymore, but I still get weepy-eyed. 

Because we stayed up so late, and then like a goofball, I read for another hour or so, I slept LATE this morning.  Late, as in noonish!  Then I read some more, because I thought Jami wasn’t coming home until tomorrow.  Surprise!  She decided she wanted to come on home (she doesn’t care for going to church with her grandparents — likes our church better) and my mother-in-law decided to come with her, spend the night, and go to church with us in the morning.

So of course, I had to get my rear in gear and clean house, change sheets, do laundry.  I’m exhausted.  Oh, well.  They’re here!

Better late than never . . .

Wednesday evening, my husband and I finally saw “The Passion of the Christ.”  Wow.  I have to confess that I had mixed emotions about seeing it.  Not because of all the controversy surrounding it, but because in a way I was afraid I wouldn’t have the “appropriate” emotional response.  I accepted Jesus as my savior as a child, but in the many years since I’ve gone through valleys in my relationship with Him (like most Christians, I’m sure).  I’ve been in a shallow valley for a while now, and at times I just feel hollow, although I know that my salvation and my relationship with Jesus is real.  So I worried that I would sit there and be hollow in the midst of this vivid depiction of His sacrifice.

Silly me.  I did start out feeling that way, but as the movie progressed, the most unexpected scenes touched my heart and I cried.  The scene where Jesus is lashed to the whipping post and the psychopaths are laughing as they flog Him blew me away.  Here are these vile men, who in our day and time would make the criminals in “America’s Most Wanted” look like Sunday School teachers, laughing and whooping it up as they turn God’s Son into a bloody pulp.  And the fact is, He suffered it all for THEM.  As they tore His flesh with their instruments of torture, His love for them held Him there.  Amazing.  And subsequently, His love for ALL OF US held Him there.  “For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God . . . “

The other things that affected me were the scenes between Jesus and his mother, Mary.  I loved the way He interacted with Mary when he was working on the table and she called him to eat.  She told Him to wash His hands and He playfully splashed the water at her.  It showed Jesus as a loving, joyful person — not some somber, stern person.  I just loved that.  I think that’s what it will be like in Heaven. 

The scene where He falls and Mary runs to Him, thinking back to when He was a tiny child and fell . . . that really got my mommy’s heart.  I know how much I love my daughter, and I can’t begin to imagine what that must have been like for Mary.  And if Mary’s pain was so great, imagine what God the Father’s must be?  For His Son, and for each and every one of us on this earth that turns away from Him?

I am so glad that I went to see it.  It was well worth it.

Thank you, Mr. Gibson, for having the courage to follow the call of the Holy Spirit to make this movie.  And most of all, thank you, Lord, for sending your Holy Son for all mankind. 

This from The Federalist digest:

       There is some mystery around the nature of Nick Berg’s business in Iraq. He was not there in any official capacity as a contractor.

       His father Michael Berg, in his anguish, has been quick to toe the party line: “My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this. I am sure that he only saw the good in his captors until the last second of his life. They did not know what they were doing. They killed their best friend.”

       In fact, Nicholas Berg was repeatedly warned by his parents that he could be targeted by Islamists because he was Jewish, as was the case with Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded by Islamists in Pakistan a year before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nick Berg spoke with his parents on 24 March. Soon thereafter, he was detained by Iraqi police at a checkpoint in Mosul. On 31 March, U.S. officials then took him into custody while the FBI contacted his parents to confirm his identity.

       However, this was not the first time the FBI investigated Nick Berg. It turns out that he was interviewed by the Bureau after 9/11 in an effort to determine the nature of his relationship with Zacarias Moussaoui, the al-Qaida adherent now in federal custody and awaiting trial on conspiracy charges for his role in planning the hijackings on 9/11. While Moussaoui was in flight school training for 9/11, one of his roommates (a student at the University of Oklahoma where Nick Berg was in attendance) used an e-mail address traced to Berg’s computer. Berg acknowledged knowing the suspect and did let him use his computer, but Berg was cleared as a suspect.

       On 05 April, Michael Berg initiated a lawsuit to have his son released from U.S. custody in Iraq, and on 06 April, Nick Berg was released. He was offered safe passage to Jordan but refused. The last his parents heard from him was 09 April, when he called to let them know he was coming home.

While I think it is very sad that this man was brutally killed, I also think some responsibility rests on his own shoulders, as it does with every American that chooses OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL to travel in that part of the world.  The Middle East is a dangerous place, and someone visiting Israel on holiday could be blown up by a terrorist while innocently having coffee in a cafe.

If Mr. Berg didn’t think about the dangers of traveling in that part of world, especially considering his ethnic heritage, then he just didn’t think, did he?

I think I would like to scream.  If any of you are in a “service” type industry, where you provide quotes in hopes of securing sales . . . I’d like your honest opinion.  Wouldn’t you rather hear from someone telling you that they’ve decided to purchase from someone else, than to be left hanging . . . not knowing whether they’ve decided to purchase from someone else, have been busy, or maybe just need to wait a while?

I recently attempted to contact a potential client.  Left a pleasant message on their answering machine.  “Did you get the quote?  Do you have any questions?  Please feel free to call me.”  Didn’t hear anything for a while.  Left a second message after about a week.  Waited a couple more weeks and then left the following, “Hi.  Just checking in.  If you’ve decided to do something different, I would appreciate a return call so that I can close out your file.  Thanks.”

I got frustrated when my call wasn’t returned and decided to call the client’s cell phone.  Pleasantly inquired if the jury was out.  No, it wasn’t.  They decided to order from someone else. 

I can respect that.  Just give me a call, for crying out loud and tell me so your file doesn’t clutter up my desk.  Thank you.

Man — every columnist at http://www.townhall.com  is hitting the nail on the head today.  Brent Bozell had the following to say, which is similar to my previous post except that it points out that there are some 9/11 families that honestly do hate the president (and in my opinion, probably did before 9/11 ever happened):

The idea that the activists who forced the creation of this politicized “independent” commission were just a group of nonpartisan widows with no political axes to grind. How dishonest.

 For weeks now, the networks have celebrated a very selective set of widows to dish out their anti-Bush outrage and ignored the families who support President Bush. On the day of Rice’s testimony, NBC and then MSNBC championed four women known as the “Jersey Girls,” who uniformly hate Bush, especially Kristen Breitweiser, who has coldly and routinely declared that 3,000 Americans were “murdered on Bush’s watch.”

 Meanwhile, a Nexis search quickly shows that NBC has aired no news story with the words “widow” and the U.S.S. Cole, where terrorists killed 17 Americans in 2000. NBC aired no news story with the words “widow” and the embassy in Kenya, where terrorists killed 12 Americans in 1998. NBC aired no news story with the words “widow” and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where terrorists killed 19 Americans in 1996. These grieving families have never been given a nationwide TV platform on NBC to express their opinions on how the Clinton administration handled investigations of those incidents.

How I long for 9/10 before any of this happened, and even for 9/12 . . . when for a brief moment our grief dissolved partisan labels and we were simply “Americans.” 

I just read this in Jonah Goldberg’s column, and had to add it here since it definitely relates to my previous post:

This blame game stuff is counterproductive and dangerous when Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. But if that’s the game we’re stuck with, it’s an indisputable scandal that the Clinton Administration is getting off scot-free.

From the day George W. Bush was elected president, he reinstituted the policy of having daily meetings with the head of the CIA, a tradition Bill Clinton canceled. Indeed, Clinton never met privately at all with his first CIA Director James Woolsey after the initial job interview. When a plane crashed on the White House lawn in 1994, the joke in Washington was that it was Woolsey trying to get an appointment.

According to a New Yorker article, FBI Director Louis Freeh considered Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to be a “public relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press.”

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton despised Freeh and could barely stomach talking to him. Whoever was to blame for the sour relationship is irrelevant. Clinton was to blame for letting a spat get in the way of national security.

As we’ve heard from so many witnesses, throughout the 1990s the CIA, FBI and Justice Department were actively – not passively – impaired in their work to a scandalous extent. The CIA was told that it couldn’t work with individuals with dubious “human rights” records. Unfortunately, people with ties to terrorists are not captains of their Mormon bowling leagues.

And, of course, there was Clinton’s string of underwhelming, ineffectual and largely counterproductive responses to a string of attacks on America, starting with the first World Trade Center bombing.

The one recurring theme in the 9/11 hearings is the unanimous agreement that the “wall” between intelligence gathering and criminal prosecutions was too high and too thick, and that this was the single most obvious explanation for our failure to stop the 9/11 attacks.

Well, as we learned from John Ashcroft’s testimony, the Clinton Administration took its trowel and cemented a new layer of bricks to that wall of separation. In 1995, the FBI was instructed that intelligence and criminal investigations had to be separated even further than “what is legally required” to avoid “the unwarranted appearance” that our intelligence operatives were – shriek! – sharing their information with prosecutors, and vice versa.

The author of this directive? Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General (and Al Gore confidant) Jamie Gorelick, who now sits in self-righteous judgment on the 9/11 commission – when she should be called before it to explain herself.

The Bush team may not have done everything it could have prior to 9/11. But, for the previous team, not doing everything they could was policy.

Thank you, Mr. Goldberg.

Could anyone possibly think it’s proper for Jamie Gorelick to be sitting on the interrogation squad regarding 9/11?  From Linda Chavez’s column:

 “During the course of those investigations,” wrote Gorelick in 1995, “significant counterintelligence information has been developed related to the activities and plans of agents of foreign powers operating in this country and overseas, including previously unknown connections between separate terrorist groups.” But Gorelick wanted to make sure that the left hand didn’t know what the right was doing. “(W)e believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”  (emphasis added)

These guys want to have their cake and eat it, too.  To prevent the risk of infringing on some crack dealer’s (or other such similar scum) “rights” to ruin and/or end lives — Ms. Gorelick felt it necessary to separate counterintelligence and criminal investigators.  This is the very “wall” between agencies that the Commission is criticizing, and lo and behold, a member of the Commission is one of its constructors!  Please keep in mind that Ms. Gorelick wrote this in 1995 — well before President Bush was elected to office.

The fact is, in my opinion — the United States has enjoyed a position of comfortable security on a number of fronts.  Even when our military has been weak (during the Clinton years), it has still been one of the greatest in the world.  We rested in the knowledge of this.  To our north is Canada and to our south is Mexico, both of whom we’ve had peaceful relations with for decades.  We rested in the knowledge of this.

To our east is the Atlantic — to the west, the Pacific.  We rested in the “knowledge” that we’d have ample warning of any attack from across the water.  It was almost infathomable to think that we could be attacked from within our own borders.  And yet this is what happened . . .

It is possible that we could have seen it coming.  Utilizing better intelligence, listening to the “chatter” down the grapevine, better communication between the agencies.  But the fact is we didn’t see it coming.  Anymore than we saw the first Trade Center bombing, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and all the other attacks that have taken place on our nation.

What I would like to know is:  where was the public outcry when the Trade Centers were bombed the first time?  Where was the public outcry when the U.S. Cole was bombed?  Why did it take 3,000 people dying for this commission to suddenly become concerned?  Were the victims of those and other, smaller attacks not enough? 

This commission has no interest in justice or the families of 9/11.  This commission is using 9/11 to try to take out President Bush and his administration.  The families of 9/11 are being used to facilitate this mission — their grief is being exploited in a way so much more attrocious and vile than “exploitation” the President has been accused of.  The families want and need closure and it is not surprising that some of them want someone to blame.  Since those wielding the box cutters are no longer here, it is not surprising that the families would look elsewhere.  The commission and liberal contingency see the hunger for justice in their eyes and see it as a tool to accomplish their own ends.

It’s just shameless.