But I know I'll be back on the 5th. My wife is terrified of flying, so this should be interesting. My 2 yr old is hyper, so this should be doubly interesting.
I'm going to have anything that could possibly be a weapon taken away from me. Knives, guns, tasers, mace, I can understand. Tweezers, nail clippers? What the hell is up with that? Do they honestly expect to some day find a big pile of bloody 1/2" gibbous moon-shaped flecks of pilot flesh in the cockpit if they let someone on the plane with one?
Am I the only one who thinks if a terrorist ever again tries to take control of a plane, that he's going to be torn limb from limb by 150 passengers? The chances of a terrorist actually taking control of a plane in the U.S. are now effectively zero. It's not going to happen again, they're not even going to try.
The Department of Homeland Security is doing a crappy job. It's a huge waste of money. Immigrants are flooding into the country (both legal and illegal). All of them are carrying something. Underwear? Probably. A little dope? Probably some of that too. Anthrax? Possibly.
I haven't heard ANYONE griping that they can't get crack anymore because everyone coming into the country is being searched. Cocaine is a white powder. So is weaponized Anthrax. Ditto for every other illicit drug. If they DHS was doing their job, the drug trade would grind to a halt as a result. We can get rid of the DEA and the "War on Drugs."
Speaking of the "War on Drugs"....... I'm not going to joing the legions of NORML members and spout the usual statistics about trillions spent, blah blah blah.. I am going to ask a couple of questions.
When was the last time you even HEARD of someone smoking a fattie, going home and beating up their wife and kids? Right, me either.
How many people do you actually know who've been beated by their drunk husband, boyfriend or father? Right. Far too often for me too.
That said, I think the answer is obvious. Outlaw booze and legalize weed. Of course, that will NEVER happen. Making booze at home is difficult, and can lead to blindness or death. Growing weed at home is..... gardening! Booze is legal because it can be reliably taxed. Dope is illegal because it cannot. Simple. End of story.
I've got to go pack.
April 28, 2004
April 14, 2004
A letter to the President....
I wrote this letter to the President and Vice President today. The President is out searching for "Al Keyda" on his Richardson, TX ranch today, so I included the VP as well.
****** Start of Letter ******
Dear President Bush and Vice President Cheney,
I am concerned about the recent to-do about same sex marriages (gay marriage, or whatever else you want to call it). I can't find any reason why the government as an institution should care one bit about marriage, same-sex or conventional. My understanding of marriage is that it is a union between two people (putting aside gender for this moment), in front of God. A covenant, if you will, declaring your commitment to each other for God (Buddha, Shiva, pick your deity of choice). This has nothing to do with the role of government as best as I can figure out. This is not a relationship between you and the government. It is an Ecclesiastical union, managed by a Church. Otherwise, it is a legal union, plain and simple. It is almost the same as Chase Manhattan buy/merging with Bank One, at least legally. The only difference, legally, is the tremendous structure of laws guaranteeing legal benefits to a "marriage". The way to fix this is simple. One law which states that a legal union between two individuals, regardless of gender or persuasion, carries the same legal definition as a marriage. Period, that's it. Nothing else need change.
That said, here is my question: How do you reconcile your position that a marriage is "between a man and a woman" with the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 16, which states in full:
"Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."?
The part I'm concerned about is part one. Specifically "Men and women of full age...". It would seem to me that if the U.N. had intended marriage to be between one man and one woman, Article 16 would read "A man and a woman of full age...", but it does not. This implies that either bigamy is acceptable or same sex marriages are acceptable. Or possibly both. Either way, the United States of America voted FOR this declaration. It was even revision 3, so there was time to fix this.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Most Sincerely,
[name removed to protect the guilty]
Sometimes Republican
Note to staffers:
I'm sure the President and the Vice President are "very concerned" about this issue and will give it "due consideration", so please do not respond with a stock answer unless you have one already prepared which answers this specific question. I have read enough of these types of responses to gag a maggot. If you must respond in this manner, please have the decency to at least tell the truth. Say "This question is WAY beneath the notice of the President or Vice-President. It was handed off to an appropriately conservative 1st year intern who frankly couldn't care less about the nattering of the proletariat and will look for the stock answer to send back."
****** End of Letter ******
If you're interested in reading the UN UDHR, you can see it here -> Universal Declaration of Human Rights
****** Start of Letter ******
Dear President Bush and Vice President Cheney,
I am concerned about the recent to-do about same sex marriages (gay marriage, or whatever else you want to call it). I can't find any reason why the government as an institution should care one bit about marriage, same-sex or conventional. My understanding of marriage is that it is a union between two people (putting aside gender for this moment), in front of God. A covenant, if you will, declaring your commitment to each other for God (Buddha, Shiva, pick your deity of choice). This has nothing to do with the role of government as best as I can figure out. This is not a relationship between you and the government. It is an Ecclesiastical union, managed by a Church. Otherwise, it is a legal union, plain and simple. It is almost the same as Chase Manhattan buy/merging with Bank One, at least legally. The only difference, legally, is the tremendous structure of laws guaranteeing legal benefits to a "marriage". The way to fix this is simple. One law which states that a legal union between two individuals, regardless of gender or persuasion, carries the same legal definition as a marriage. Period, that's it. Nothing else need change.
That said, here is my question: How do you reconcile your position that a marriage is "between a man and a woman" with the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 16, which states in full:
"Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."?
The part I'm concerned about is part one. Specifically "Men and women of full age...". It would seem to me that if the U.N. had intended marriage to be between one man and one woman, Article 16 would read "A man and a woman of full age...", but it does not. This implies that either bigamy is acceptable or same sex marriages are acceptable. Or possibly both. Either way, the United States of America voted FOR this declaration. It was even revision 3, so there was time to fix this.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Most Sincerely,
[name removed to protect the guilty]
Sometimes Republican
Note to staffers:
I'm sure the President and the Vice President are "very concerned" about this issue and will give it "due consideration", so please do not respond with a stock answer unless you have one already prepared which answers this specific question. I have read enough of these types of responses to gag a maggot. If you must respond in this manner, please have the decency to at least tell the truth. Say "This question is WAY beneath the notice of the President or Vice-President. It was handed off to an appropriately conservative 1st year intern who frankly couldn't care less about the nattering of the proletariat and will look for the stock answer to send back."
****** End of Letter ******
If you're interested in reading the UN UDHR, you can see it here -> Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
