Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for February, 2010

Islam Created US, Canada And Mexico

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/28

Everyone who enjoys life as a North American can thank Islam. It is a direct result of Islam that the United States, Canada, Mexico and a great many other countries were founded. Yes, you heard me right. And here you thought that the “New World” was discovered in an attempt to find a quicker, safer route to trade with China and India, which caused the founding of all these countries. Well, you’re right about that, too. But if you’re like me, you never considered Islam to be a catalyst of any sort.

I learned something today. And, as an educator at heart, I want to spread my learning. Islam was the primary catalyst in the discovery of the “New World.” I’m sure that, like me, you learned that Columbus set out to find a quicker, safer ocean-route to China and India than the dangerous route around the Horn of Africa. And you probably learned the route around the Horn of Africa was an alternative to the overland routes. Possibly even a quicker route with fewer hardships.

UPDATE: eliminate all references to “Horn of Africa” and replace with “Cape of Good Hope” (thanks, Jeff)

Looking at a clickable world map, I have to believe the quickest and safest way to trade with India and China during the 15th and 16th centuries would’ve been to dock ships in Constantinople, on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, on the eastern shore of the Black Sea and trade with the overland caravans. So, why was the Horn of Africa chosen as an alternate route? Was it to bypass the middle man? I don’t believe so. Was it to avoid the travails of terrain and climate for the remaining overland route? Again, I don’t believe so. Especially if Britain was trading with another country that went through the effort of going the overland route. So, why take the very dangerous route around the Horn of Africa when a much safer route was available? Because that much safer route did not exist. It existed for centuries but it ceased to exist, so a new route for trade had to be created. Thus the very dangerous route around the Horn of Africa.

And the very dangerous route around the Horn of Africa (and the length of time involved) was the catalyst in finding a new, trans-global route which people like Columbus believed to be shorter and likely safer. But, so far, I have not added any new knowledge to what I already learned in all my History classes. Except I introduced a sudden loss of a Mediterranean-overland trading route to the mix. And that route loss was the catalyst for finding new routes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in China, Christianity, economics, education, history, Islam, Israel, politics, Religion, society, truth, war | 2 Comments »

A Constitutional Question

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/27

Given that the Constitution (see my side-bar link) grants each House the power to make its own rules, what happens if one or both Houses violate the rules set forth to pass a bill? Would that flouting of their rules to accomplish the passage of a bill into law have the effect of making the law unconstitutional?

Posted in Constitution, politics, truth | Comments Off

For Those Following The Joy

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/27

I haven’t talked to Laura since last Saturday, when she was fingertip dilated and 25 percent effaced. Her doctor told her at that time (whenever that time was) that it could be “this week or three weeks from now.” More information as I get it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

We’ll Close Our Parks Before We Let You Run Them

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/24

How many of you have had more than one kid? How many of you used to be kids and had siblings? How many of you have seen the “share it or lose it” ultimatum played out as it relates to you, your kids or kids around you? My cousin went through that experience as a kid. And he chose the wrong option. Do you remember those crazy straws? The ones that were a mile long but twisted into all sorts of crazy loops before your beverage ever got to your mouth? Well, my cousin had two of them and his sister had none. His mother told him “You can give one to your sister or you can throw it away.” He threw it away rather than give it to his sister. (My father fished it out of the garbage can and gave it to my cousin’s sister.)

This is exactly what some state governments are doing. They are choosing to shut down state parks they cannot afford to run rather than let a for-profit business come in and run them. So, what’s the deal?

This guy will charge less than the state does for people coming in and parking their vehicles. He will pay the state. And he will make a profit. And he does not get a dime in subsidies (that’s tax money) at any level. So, what gives?

The state uses state workers to run its state parks. This guy does not use state workers to run the parks he’s contracted to run. This guy pays retirees minimum wage and gives them free camping for their work. It appears to me that this may be a major problem. The state cannot let someone hire minimum-wage (plus free camping) seniors take state union jobs away from state union employees. So the state shuts down the park and terminates the state union employees instead of leaving the park open for the public.

Just like my cousin and the crazy-straw, if the state and its unions can’t have it, nobody can. The state will take it away from absolutely everyone (terminating state jobs) before it will allow some private enterprise to run it and keep it open for everyone (terminating state jobs). Arrogant, childish fools, the states who shut down parks with a wholly viable option in front of them. They’re cutting off their noses to spite their faces, all to prevent a private for-profit enterprise from getting rid of state union employees (the state terminates) and running the parks at a lower cost and for profit. They’re telling the public “You can’t come here anymore because we can’t run it anymore and we’ll be darned if we let someone else pay us to run it without our people.”

So who is this guy who is running many federal parks, many state parks, many other parks who is trying to run Arizona state parks, but is fighting the state version of my cousin in his childhood? He is the owner of Climate Skeptic, which I read from time to time. He is the owner of Coyote Blog, which I read (thanks to Foxfier) on a more regular basis. He is the owner of Park Privatization. And I’m sure he owns other stuff.

He also recently had an interview on TV with Glenn Beck (part of which I watched from his site).

I am reminded of an old proverb: If you want to get a job done, ask a busy man to do it. This fits him very well. He’s a very busy man and he gets a lot done. Contrast that with the various federal, state, local government agencies, who are acting like my cousin when he was a child. He does more with less, makes a profit, keeps the general public happy, provides income and a place for the nomadic winebago retirees, gives those retirees a reason to keep on keeping on, asks for no money from the government hand-out clan and various government entities would rather shut down their parks and tell the public “you cannot come here” than let him pay them to run their parks for them.

And statists think the government can do things cheaper. And statists think for-profit is evil. And statists think the government is your friend. Bah!

Posted in Conservative, economics, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, politics, Real Life, society | 1 Comment »

Keith Olbermann Is Cordially Invited

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/23

To the Dallas Tea Party on 20100227.

HT Caffeinated Thoughts

That video goes well with the video below that I posted previously.

Posted in media, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, politics, Real Life, society, stereotype, TEA Party, truth | 1 Comment »

She’s About To Pop

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/22

Posted in Real Life | 2 Comments »

Tackling The US Constitution

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/21

For quite some time I’ve wanted to do a series deconstructing the US Constitution. It has been my desire to take each and every segment of the US Constitution and examine it and report my findings on it. I believe a vast majority of Americans have no understanding of the underlying contract (and it is, indeed, a contract) for their own nation.

Since procrastinators point at me to prove they aren’t, I’m not entirely certain I can actually accomplish this goal. But, since I work best when I’m depended on to produce, I figured I’d start a fire under my own backside and see how many others add to that fire.

But I want you to contribute to my work.

I’m looking for input from people as I work on this project. I want to build an email list of people for me to contact for input on each proceeding piece of the Constitution I wish to put under the microscope. I will not give out my email address for public dissemination because I don’t want to open myself up to spam or computer diseases, but if you respond with a real (will not be publicized) email address in your profile, I will be able to contact you. Understand, I will use CC and not BCC to contact everyone on the list. Unless someone steps up and offers to be the main recipient so everyone else can be BCC. (Inclusion in this group will be based on my own version of trust-factor, which may or may not include various previously unknown contributors.)

Understand I view the Constitution to be absolutely absolute. I also approach the Constitution from a historically Federalist and individual-empowered position and not a statist position. I am a Conservative (not Libertarian, although the two are conjoined in many aspects) and will definitely approach this from a Conservative angle. But that does not preclude a Liberal perspective.

In this endeavor, I’d like Conservative, Libertarian, and Liberal perspectives. I’d also like perspectives from everyone from high school drop-out to PhD. I’m calling for those who wish to add their opinions and links supporting those opinions to my research. That kinda means you do the research work and I combine your research and opinions into my own article.

Here’s my plan in a nutshell:

1) I provide you with a segment of the Constitution (with a link to the Constitution provided from my TBD sidebar)
2) I give you 2 days to reply with your opinion and documentation backing it up
3) I write the article 2 days later, using what I want and discarding the rest
4) I give credit to the whole group as contributors to the research (I would need a name for the group)
5) I will post this on TBD and CSPT

Understand I am not a Constitutional Lawyer. I am not a Lawyer, nor am I a Historian. I’m not even a college graduate. But I do have a very strong interest in history and facts (which create truth). My opinion will be my opinion, but I hope to be able to mine the knowledge of others to create this series of articles. And I hope enough are interested in this to cause me to have that “depended on” mindset.

So what say you? Are you in or out? Are you interested or no? Please respond with:
1) I’m interested and want to contribute
2) I’m interested but I won’t be contributing
3) I’m not interested

This will make it easier for me to understand the response. And I’ll wait for roughly one week to judge the interest before I decide whether to fly or bury.

Posted in Constitution | 5 Comments »

Liberals Have To Lie To Win

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/20

That’s not entirely true. Some liberals lie to win while other liberals believe the lies. While that may yet not be wholly true, that is indeed my perception. To understand my perception, several other items must be understood. First of which is understanding what I mean by “lie.”

From Dictionary.com:

LIE:

–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying
his way out of difficulties.

DECEIVE:

–verb (used with object)
1. to mislead by a false appearance or statement; delude: They deceived the enemy by disguising the destroyer as a freighter.
2. to be unfaithful to (one’s spouse or lover).
3. Archaic. to while away (time).
–verb (used without object)
4. to mislead or falsely persuade others; practice deceit: an engaging manner that easily deceives.

OMISSION:

–noun
1. the act of omitting.
2. the state of being omitted.
3. something left out, not done, or neglected: an important omission in a report.

In researching Lying by Omission, Reference.com led me to a list of articles which surprisingly (or maybe not so urprisingly) listed two different articles from a blogsite I frequent (Patterico’s Pontifications) which has an issue with people who lie by omission. I also found this definition from Choice101.com (ironic that it’s a Pro-Choice site):

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it’s a gross violation of another person’s right of self-determination.

That Pro-Choice site ironically went on to harshly rail against lies of omission.

A lie of omission is the most insidious, most pervasive, and most common lie on the entire planet. Commonly, those who use this type of lie, have conned themselves into believing that to intentionally remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up is not a lie at all. In spite of overwhelming evidence that their silence deceives, misleads, and often causes untold grief and misery, they refuse to speak the truth.

I strongly agree that a lie of omission is the most insidious form of lying. Lies of commission (where you actually “tell a lie”) are less insidious in that they give reference points to research. Lies of omission, in contrast, have no reference points to research because the lies are unseen and unheard. It is thus more difficult to defeat a lie of omission. Not only does it take someone knowledgeable in the omitted material, it also takes someone knowledgeable enough to notice the material was, in fact, omitted.

And mainstream media (lame stream media or drive-by media or state-owned media) uses both forms of lies: commission and omission. But they’re not the only ones. The public education system uses both, but lies of omission are much more prevalent in the public education system from K to PhD. One only need to crack a history book (and be nowledgeable in history) to see rampant lies of omission.

There is also Deception by Mixed Measurement.

I’m sure there’s a different term and I didn’t find a definition for it, so allow me to define it in a rather verbose manner. When using Deception by Mixed Measurement, one uses two distinct forms of measurement to convey the connotation one desires.

As an example of dealing with mixed measurements, if I offered you 10 cents a pound for your corn or 6 dollars a bushel, which would you accept? This is an example of a mixed measurement with a secondary issue, but if I hadn’t looked it up, I wouldn’t know myself since I’m not a farmer or anything related to farming. In this situation, if you know what you’re galking about, your answer would be “it depends.” Based on my research, it would be wise to take the price per pound if your corn is still on the ear and the price per bushel if it’s shelled. This is an example of a general-specific compared to a general-general (pound is specific, bushel is general).

The mainstream media often uses Deception by Mixed Measurement in its stories, depending on the connotation value of their general-specific v general-general reporting. If I were to ask you which is greater, “several dozen” or “nearly 100,” which would you choose? Of course, now, you’d say “it depends” since I focused on it. But what is our connotation when you hear those terms? Connotation says “nearly 100″ is much more than “several dozen.” And that’s where the media lies to you. It’s Deception by Mixed Measurement. It’s general-general vs general-specific. A dozen is specific but it has a general feel to it, but 100 is a specific with a specific absolute to it. And a dozen is a small amount when compared to a three-digit number. And how close to 100 is “nearly” 100? Is 80 “nearly” 100? How about 78? Is twelve dozen (a gross) “several” dozen? How about ten dozen? Or eight dozen?

Do you see how this particular mixed measurement is poisonous? If you have 80 people on your side, you could legitimately call that number “nearly 100.” If you have 90 people against you, you could legitimately call that number “several dozen.” But if both are true, you have crossed the line from legitimacy into Deception by Mixed Measurement. And this is exactly what mainstream news does. Nearly 100 on the liberal side and several dozen on the conservative side. On the face of it, they didn’t lie. Their reporting was generally accurate when each clause is looked at in a vacuum. But they intentionally combined the two to create a false perception for which, of course, they cannot be held accountable. “It’s not our fault people misconstrued the numbers.”

Therefore, a Deception by Mixed Measurement is a Lie by Commission due to Omission or a Lie by Omission due to Commission.

And, while the lamestream media does depend on Lies by Omission and Deception by Mixed Measurement, it also depends on Lies by Commission. The vast majority of their readership or viewership will not research their statements. These people on which the lamestream media depends are mostly too lazy or self-absorbed to do any research themselves. Others are too busy with work or life to find the time to do the research, while yet others don’t have the capability to do the research. And, again, that’s the key to the lamestream media’s power.

The problem lamestream media has, a problem which could utterly kill them, is that more and more people are depending on the new media for their information. More and more people are connected to the internet, where the lamestream media doesn’t have a monopoly, and that’s killing the lamestream media. It’s also letting more and more people see through all the lies of the lamestream media, which is also killing lamestream media.

And what’s the lamestream media’s response? To get more shrill in their Lies of Commission. A large part of their “reporting” has dropped all pretense, all effort to use Lies of Omission and Deception by Mixed Measurement, and gone straight to Lies of Commission. But, yes, they use the other two forms of lying as underpinnings for their Lies of Commission.

Max Blumenthal, working for Salon Magazine, an old lamestream media source who has crossed over to new media, is a personal example of someone in the media who Lies by Commission. But he also lies by Omission (which is obviously harder to see). And when being hammered to the wall on it, he does the best impersonation of Jell-O he can. And Hot Air has it on record. Falsely accuse someone of being racist (which is the hugely overplayed trump card the left uses, denying history (see my “The Truth about ‘Race’ Lies” sidebar item) and all facts surrounding the event talked about), deny you ever accused some specific person of being racist, and when pushed on it with facts, claim “If that appeared on my blogsite, then I guess I said it.”

Did you notice that admission in the video Hot Air embedded? It wasn’t really an admission. Did you see the Jell-O caveat? If it’s on my site… That still leaves Blumenthal an out to claim he didn’t actually say what he said he said. Jell-O being nailed to the wall. Dishonesty even to the end.

I honestly believe any liberal who takes 30-60 days to actually study and research history and other facts will find him- or herself far more conservative after the study and far more cynical of the lamestream media. And I honestly believe more and more people are doing just that, to the detriment of the lamestream media (name a newspaper actually making money or a non-FOX TV news outlet that has not lost viewership).

(I would’ve gone into much further detail on multiple aspects, but my daughter is on-line.)

UPDATE: From an update from Patterico, we get this link to Max Blumenthal forgetting the first rule of holes (quit digging) as he continues his lies. He didn’t add video to his article because he knew the video would reveal his lies. The fact the video is out there that proves his lies and his spineless deceitful responses will not help him. And now at least two of my links provide that very video.

Posted in Conservative, media, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, politics, society, stereotype, truth | 3 Comments »

It Was The Best Of Times; It Was The Worst Of Times

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/20

Anyone who follows my blog knows my daughter, SGT Laura (who comments here on occasion), is with child. It is an unexpectedly glorious time for the Hitchcock family (and I’m still too young to be a grandpa). My mother and my ex, who for unknown reasons like each other’s company, will go down to Killeen, TX when my daughter delivers so they can help her out during that first bit of time. I will follow sometime thereafter. And that is what scares the tarnation out of me.

Let me explain. I am very much a “devil you know rather than the devil you don’t” kind of guy. Sameness is much more tranquil to me, so much so that it could be considered OCD. In my previous job, I had “my” parking space (which allowed me to be able to fully open my super-wide and super-thick door) and “my” seat in the break-room. If someone took “my” parking space, I was edgy. If someone took “my” seat in the break-room, I found somewhere outside the break-room to take my break. So this change is huge for me, even though it’s actually huger for Laura.

But that’s deep background information. It’s what’s gonna happen next that is horrifying to me, but something I’ve guaranteed will happen. In order for Laura to stay in the Army, where she has major plans and I want her to stay, she needs me. Once again, she’s depending on me and I won’t let her down. I work best when people depend on me. But where I work best and my ultimate fears are colliding this time.

For her to stay in the Army and to achieve her goals, she needs a “substitute parenting plan” for when she goes to the field or gets deployed, and I’m it. I have to move to Killeen. While I have, for the last 30 years, wanted to move out of Ohio, I have still been very edgy about it. Remember “sameness”? Now that my financial situation has absolutely and totally collapsed, taking my credit rating with it, “the devil I know” is the only solid footing I have.

In order to move down there, I have to quit my temporary job and once again have zero dollars per month coming in at a time where I have zero savings. I also have to sell my house (which is worth about 20k and I own free and clear) that used to belong to my great-grandparents. And I expect I’ll never be able to own a house again, due to my not currently having a collegiate sheep-skin nor the funds to get one.

But this could be a great opportunity for me; to leave a dying state and move to a vibrant state and possibly improve my situation by orders of magnitude. I just don’t know, and the not knowing is terrifying. I have a million “what ifs” floating around in my head.

Regardless of my own fears, my daughter needs me. And I am at my best when people need me. So I’ll be moving to Killeen to fill my daughter’s need (and obey her orders regarding her son) sometime in the near future. And that future is coming very fast. I need to be in place within 6 weeks of the birth of my grandson (the most beautiful baby in the world), who could be born within the week or in 3 weeks.

So, come Sheol or high water, I will be. And I’ll be scared out of my mind.

Posted in Real Life | 3 Comments »

Hey, Keith, Can You See Us Now?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/19

According to Keith Olbermann and the lamestream media, TEA Party activists are lily-white (unlike the MSNBC cast, which is just white).

What do you have to say for yourself now, lamestream media?

HT SayAnythingBlog.com

Posted in media, politics, society, stereotype, TEA Party, truth | Comments Off

We Vote For Our Commander In Chief

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/18

Every member of the US military who is a US citizen (and there are some who aren’t) and 18 years of age (and there are some who aren’t) has the right to vote in the Presidential Election. That means, they vote on who their next Supreme Commander will be. Like the vast majority of American civilians, those in the military want what’s best for the country. But unlike the vast majority of civilians, those in the military also know their votes could get them killed.

Those in the military want what’s best for the country. They want to be safe. And they want to live. But they will also risk their own lives, sacrificing themselves for what’s best. And how do those in the military who vote actually vote? By and large, they vote Republican.

Democrats claim they want peace and safety but the very ones charged with providing that peace and safety vote Republican. Democrats claim Republicans want to go to war for financial gain, but the very ones who would be killed in such a war vote Republican.

If you talk to a Marine or lesser, a Sailor (hi, foxfier), a Soldier (love ya, Laura and hi, SPC Pico and PVT Pico), or an Airman, you will hear that they aren’t there to die so someone else can get rich. They are there to protect America and our way of life. They have all sworn to uphold the Constitution, every last one of them. And, by and large, they vote Republican and not Democrat.

Of course, Democrats have tried to quash their votes. Almost every person in the military who votes does so through abentee ballots. They aren’t in their home districts. The Florida kerfuffle over absentee ballots and date-stamped envelopes was a Democrat ploy to prevent the military vote from being counted. Overseas and on-the-seas military get free snail-mail. Oftentimes it is not date-stamped. Such an obviously barely-veiled ploy by Democrats to invalidate military voting.

Bill White, who was running for Houston mayor at the time, tried another tactic. He wanted to force military voters to declare where they planned to live after they got out of the military in order to allow them to vote in Texas. This was another underhanded ploy by a Democrat. If the Houstonian who wore a uniform didn’t know where he or she planned to live 20 years down the road were to be given that ultimatum just to be able to vote, that Houstonian would be denied his or her right to vote unless that Houstonian violated the honor code and lied. Or, if that Houstonian planned on living in Houston and later changed his or her mind, that Houstonian could be charged with vote fraud, a felony, and go to prison because he or she chose not to live in Houston (or the specific district in Houston or something). This was a clearly partisan maneuver by a Democrat who was attempting to strip voting rights from military personnel because military personnel vote heavily Republican. There was no other reason for it.

Okay, I ran off on a tangent there.

Democrats claim to be the party of peace and claim Republicans to be the blood-thirsty party of war, but the military personnel vote Republican. Democrats howled about Reagan, like he was going to cause WWIII with his rhetoric and his willingness to use military force. Democrats have howled at every Republican, in fact, claiming Republicans didn’t care about those in the military (while it is the left who have shown the greatest disrespect to those in uniform) and yet those in the military vote Republican. Obviously, there’s a reason.

A show of overwhelming force combined with a willingness to use overwhelming force and the occasional use of that force is the surest guarantee to an overall peace. An attempt to placate and appease a militaristic foe only leads to unnecessary bloodshed and danger. (Prime Minister Chamberlain’s peace in our time, which needlessly slaughtered one or two Czechs, among one or two other folk.) The military get this. They know their votes could cost their lives. And they value honor. They don’t leave their honor outside the voting booth. And they (absentee) vote overwhelmingly Republican.

The opinions of those putting their lives on the line should count a little bit more than the opinion of, I don’t know, some woman sitting in her recliner on the coast of Washington state, who has never worn a military uniform, don’t you think?

Posted in Constitution, military, politics, society, war | 2 Comments »

Amy Bishop Is A Bad Person

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/16

I’m sure by now, you’ve heard about that far-left woman who shot up an Alabama college campus because she was denied tenure. And you heard about how she killed her brother back in 1986. And you heard about how that police report had gone missing. And you heard that she was released before booking back in 1986. And you may have heard Representative Delahunt (D-MA) was involved as a District Attorney.

The police report has been found, and the Boston Globe has a copy of it online.

Below is the 1986 police file on Amy Bishop’s fatal shooting of her brother, Seth. Initially ruled an accident, a Norfolk County district attorney recently reviewed the document and said there was probable cause to charge her in the incident.

(follow the link to see the police report.)

I just found something from Five Feet of Fury that adds to my belief that she has been an egocentric power-broker surrounded by enablers since at least the mid-80s. But it also has caused me to change my mind about her husband.

Again from the Boston Globe:

At least once, Bishop hinted that an ongoing confrontation with neighbors could become violent.
(snip)
Bishop, who was referred to as Amy Anderson at the time, called 911 regularly during her short time living in this North Shore community. She reported several neighborhood kids to the police for “disturbing the peace” by riding their dirt bikes and motorized scooters in the neighborhood after school. Police repeatedly informed her and her husband that kids are allowed to ride their bikes and scooters during the afternoon hours, especially on their own property.
(snip)
On June 25, 2000, during another complaint about kids making noise, Bishop reportedly told police that her dispute with one of the children’s parents may “come to blows.”
(snip)
Bishop once stopped a local ice cream truck from coming into their neighborhood. According to WBZ-1030 radio, she said it because her own kids were lactose intolerant, and she didn’t think it was fair that her kids couldn’t have ice cream.

There’s more megalomania presented in that article.

But there’s even more information available, again from the Boston Globe.

The professor who is accused of killing three colleagues at the University of Alabama on Friday was a suspect in the attempted mail bombing of a Harvard Medical School professor in 1993, a law enforcement official said today.
(snip)
Bishop surfaced as a suspect because she was allegedly concerned that she was going to receive a negative evaluation from Rosenberg on her doctorate work, the official said. The official said investigators believed she had a motive to target Rosenberg and were concerned that she had a history of violence, given that she had shot her brother to death in 1986.
(snip)
Shortly after the attempted bombing, Fluckiger said, Bishop told her she had been questioned by police. According to Fluckiger, Bishop said police asked her if she had ever taken stamps off an envelope that had been mailed to her and put them on something else.

“She said it with a smirk on her face,” said Fluckiger. “We knew she had a beef with Paul Rosenberg. And we really thought it was a really unbelievable coincidence that he would get those bombs.”

I have to wonder with this pattern of behavior, when was anyone going to stop her? I guess it took 3 more murders and 3 more attempted murders to finally stop her. And if she tries to use the “my mind went blank” excuse, there’s plenty pattern of behavior to throw that out.

UPDATE: From an update on Spin, strangeness and charm comes a question and observation that is tangential to the situation, but a few commenters on CSPT have already entered this tangent.

Ann Althouse has a “duh” moment: “If Amy Bishop had turned out to be right-wing or conservative [or even to watch Fox News once in a while --- NCT] we’d never hear the end of it.” Love this comment:

Man in cammies with “assault rifle” goes on a rampage and the lefttards heads explode. They rage against the Second Amenment. They rage against murderous Conservatives. The want to ban guns, ban people who own guns, and ban any speech about guns. Hell, they want to ban anyone who does not agree with them.

Stereotypical frumpy looking progressive activist professor goes on a rampage and not a word about her activism, socialistic ideas, or revolutionary thought. Not a word about banning guns- except on campus. Not a word against banning progressive activists.

Bill Ayers and his wife- both professors- are forgiven their sins because they contribute to the common good. Bobby Rush and Luis Guiterrez, urban terrorists, are allowed to stay in Congress. Murderous sins forgiven. They are the heroes of the revolution. The darlings of the left.

Yeah, the left is just full of hypocrisy and full of bovine excrement.

Via the same comments section, speaking of nutjobs, Gore Vidal compares Timothy McVeigh to Paul Revere. You can’t make this stuff up.

Posted in crime, Personal Responsibility, politics, society | 3 Comments »

When It Rains, It Pours … Or Something

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/15

I’m snowbound again, already.

Snow is coming down heavily and started about two hours ago (and we expect 5-9 inches by early morning). After brushing the snow off the four windows of my car, I was already unable to see through the snow on two of them. And it’s impossible for me to drive forward to get out of my parking spot onto the street.

I tried to back out and got stuck, then I pulled forward to try again and the back-end slid sideways to make me really stuck.

I sure wish I still had my Jeep.

UPDATE: I-71 between US 36 and State Route 95, 57 cars and 14 semi trucks reportedly in accidents. Or, over 100 vehicles between Polaris Parkway (just north of I-270) and State Route 95 in accidents. (That’s my neighborhood.)

UPDATE 2: 20100216 0745 It’s still snowing.

Posted in Real Life | 3 Comments »

Evan Bayh To Retire

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/15

In what could well be considered shocking news, Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is reportedly going to announce his retirement. According to ABC,

ABC News’ Rick Klein and Jonathan Karl report: Sen. Evan Bayh will announce today that he’s not seeking another Senate term — handing Republicans a huge opportunity to pick up another Senate seat in 2010.

Bayh, D-Ind., plans to announce his decision at a news conference this afternoon in Indianapolis, according to two Democratic officials familiar with his plans.

It’s surprising to me because the Crystal Ball I reported on previously, which prognosticates a 7 seat Republican gain in the senate, called Bayh’s seat Likely Democrat and Democrat Hold. I have heard that Bayh is considered a moderate Democrat. With Indiana being a relatively Republican-friendly state, Bayh’s departure could swing the prognostication to Leans Republican and a possible unexpected Republican pick-up.

Posted in politics | 2 Comments »

About My Situation

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/02/13

I have noted various times on various sites that my situation is not good. It is better now than it was 12 months ago, but it remains very ungood.

A conversation developed over on Common Sense Political Thought, where I cross-post (but won’t on this article) concerning my situation and why I am not a Liberal. Dana, who comments here, wrote a second article where that conversation was a catalyst (but not necessarily the only catalyst) discussing principles.

It seems to me I should provide the background information necessary to fully understand my situation.

I lost my job of approaching nine years due to a fault of my own. I take full responsibility for that. The fact I hated my job, as did nearly everyone on the production floor and a couple supervisors is irrelevant to the fact I lost my job due to a fault of my own.

At the time of my firing, we were working a very extended mandatory overtime session. In addition, my daughter was in Iraq. I was communicating with her on a regular basis through an instant messenger, but I could only communicate with her on her time. That meant I had to be up and online when she was available. And I was one of a very limited list of connections to the real world for her, and I wasn’t about to give up that role.

At the time of my firing, the Monday before Thanksgiving 2008, we had been on a stretch of eight months straight of mandatory 6-day, 58-hour work-weeks. I don’t know how much longer that stretch went, but I’m told it went much longer than that. Many people with seniority were disappearing. During that time, I went from 10 from the top of page 2 of the seniority list to 10 from the bottom of page 1. And the seniority list includes people who have been employed for 32+ years.

In addition, I was the 3rd shift union steward, so I attended the monthly labor/management meetings held during 1st shift. While the two 1st shift union stewards were paid an hourly rate for attending these meetings and their time was counted as time worked, I attended for free. The company refused to pay me for my time or to credit my time as work time for the week, so I had to interrupt my sleep to attend the meetings for the benefit of my workers on 3rd shift and then show up for work for my whole overtime shift on top of it.

With the massive amount of overtime along with my union steward duties and my “connection home” for my Iraq-living daughter, I was forever sleep-deprived. And I was forever over-stressed. This meant I overslept on occasion and was late for work once every couple months. It also meant I was too “gone” to go to work once every couple months.

And this is what caused me to get fired. I was late for work on the Monday before Thanksgiving 2008 and I ran out of “attendance points.” It was my fault entirely. And it meant I could not get unemployment benefits at all.

After spending my savings in December and January and my income tax return in February and March, I was done. And I was very far behind in everything. I didn’t get a temporary job until mid-June, so I depended on free food from family (and the occasional neighbor) and free money from family to survive. Mid-July and that temporary job was gone and I still didn’t qualify for unemployment (which would’ve been much more than I earned as a temp and much more than I earn now as a temp). So, back to depending on my mom and sister to arrive with food.

After I lost my temporary job in July, I also got my Jeep Commander repossessed, so I had to get my Camaro (that I hadn’t driven in two years) worked on to get it up and running. It cost my mother $400+ to get it going again. (Thank you, mom.)

I got my current temporary position in late August or early September 2009. I work 37.5 hours a week at $7.40 an hour. Minimum wage in Ohio is $7.30 an hour, so I call my job a minimum wage job. And I’ve already missed work there, at the most employee-friendly job I’ve had in over 20 years. One day, my house had a hole in the wall where a window used to be. The city required that I replace the boarded-up broken window (from a weather-related problem) or face a fine and possible criminal record. So I sat at home, guarding my house while that hole was there. One day, I was too sick to go to work. One day, I had to shell out $600 for a plumbing-related issue (on my minimum-wage pay). And just this past week, I missed 3 days of work because I was snowed in.

Like Dana said in his comment on CSPT, I’m in a very precarious financial situation. I haven’t paid a dime on my 15k credit card balance (that was well within my means in 2008) in over a year now. I have other debts I haven’t touched in just as long. And I have all sorts of issues blocking my path to financial freedom. But it all goes back to “it’s all my fault.”

You want to blame the evil heartless corporation that fired me in its evil heartless way? Sure, let’s go there.

The corporation is a family-owned corporation. It is owned by a liberal. All the presidents of this subsidiary have been liberals. More than one of the presidents have called the production crew “production pukes” and have declared nobody should ever make more than $10 an hour. When piece-rate employees (of which I was one) made $18 an hour or more (and I averaged over $20 an hour at one time), the company did new time-studies and gashed the rates (I dropped to $14 an hour because of it).

All the plant managers (including the one plant manager that got the job 6 different times (Yankees and Billy Martin?)) have been liberals. Nearly all the supervisors have been liberals, and the two who weren’t lost their jobs. The HR manager is a liberal. The out-of-town union reps are liberals. The union pumped big dollars into the Barack ’08 campaign. The first shift main union steward is a liberal. And he worked hand-in-glove with management to get production crew fired.

In fact, of the eight members of the labor/management meeting, I was the only Conservative.

So let’s blame the evil liberal corporation for my problems.

Or we could say I screwed up and I am accountable, despite all the travails that followed me. Everybody has travails.

Despite what Liberals say, nothing can change the fact that you are responsible for your success. The government is not responsible, despite their trying to become the key crutch. If you depend on government for your success, you will always be a poor victim and you will always vote Democrat, since it is the Democrat Party that demands government hold your itty bitty helpless victim hand.

Posted in Conservative, economics, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, politics, Real Life, truth | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: